User talk:Zleitzen/Archive 1

Ruth Kelly
Hi I have left a message for you on the Talk:Ruth Kelly page. You might have a comment or two about it ? Frelke 11:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky source
So let me get this straight: It is sourceable, and I am the source. If you want written documentation, it will be written up. He referred to China as the world's leading peaceloving nation in those words. He also called Bolivia the most Democratic country in the world. If this is misleading, then the whole article is misleading as is because it doesn't actually reflect his opinions. J. M.


 * Thank you for replying to my post. Please understand that the aim of Wikipedia is to construct established academic encyclopaedia methods. Your additions would not be sufficient within that context, as you have confirmed that the only source is yourself. Given that your statements are contentious, it is only correct that they should be removed until sources have been legitimately referenced.


 * Your statement concerning Chomsky and China is contentious and potentially misleading to readers when compared to the statement Chomsky makes here


 * http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=6751


 * Chomsky quotes the former Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, John Steinbruner who said the words“US militarism and aggressiveness will be countered by a coalition of peace-loving states, led by China” Chomsky adds “We have come to a pretty pass when such words are expressed in the most respectable and sober journals. It is also worth noting how deep is the despair of the authors over the state of American democracy. Whether or not the assessment is merited is for activists to determine.”


 * Therefore Chomsky is merely quoting Steinbruner rather than expressing that opinion himself. Unless there is evidence otherwise then the matter cannot be continued --Zleitzen 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Steinbruner was not mentioned in the speech. This suggests plagurism. Or a too high expectation of knowledge. It isn't misleading in context-Chomsky expressed an admiration for China as a non-belligerent state trying to build up its economy and not be agressive. But yes, he probably was referring to this thing. Even so, the fact he agrees with China is a peaceloving state is notable.J. M. 20:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

LordRevan
I see where you;re coming from on that, I suppose I just got a bit carried away trying to open his eyes. I'll have a word with him and agree to end the discussion. Rusty2005 13:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Feminism Criticisms...
The below is what I can only describe as a bizarre response to my brief criticisms of the feminism page. I have little idea how this writer reached his conclusions from what I wrote, stating that he found my comments personally offensive. He appears to have misunderstood a geocentric meaning of the word "parochial", assumed all sorts of things about me including that I am an English School Teacher, and insisted that I should not be editing on the subject (which I didn't in the first place). Wikipedia certainly throws up some bizarre encounters! Initially I wrote of a particular section on the feminism page;


 * I'm sorry but I'm concerned with that section. My concerns are;
 * The content reads like Soap Box. It appears to be supporting an argument and does not feel like an encyclopaedic entry.
 * Way too parochial (see comments below on the American-centric nature of the article).
 * Simply too long, dwarfing more essential details in the article.
 * Not relevant in a piece outlining feminism. If it should be included anywhere at all then maybe in a counter page somewhere else. --Zleitzen 23:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Response!


 * Zleitzen: I find your comments arrogant, self-righteous, and personally offensive. I'm not sure what you think feminist is, if it is not inherently a gigantic soapbox issue. The entire entry is, figuratively speaking, a soapbox for an activist intellectual minority; a place to sell their sociopolitical ideologies, wild speculations, and misinformation about the sexes.


 * Most inappropriate of all is describing my entries as "parochial," when the data in fact reflects a high-level of systemic-level thinking. If you have specific criticisms and suggestions, rather than vague, inoperative generalizations, I would be pleased to work on the entry further. There may be merit in what you say, but I have no basis for determinining that.


 * Your comments are like a wife saying she's divorcing her husband because he's an incompetent mate and then walking out the door. The entry was 500 words, only slightly larger size two others, half the length of the one Heterosexual Relations. Finally, the insert was made in the section reserved for "the-other-side-of-the-story." I'm also not sure how qualified most English school teachers are to evaluate the cultural, legal, and gender climate in America.


 * I'm not sure exactly who you think you are, but you certainly are not Socrates or God, and certainly should not be spending your time "editing" other people's work in this manner.Doug 13:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Catamorphism: Many of the same comments made to Zleitzen apply to your comments as well. You have taken upon yourself to evaluate my intentions, thus I will observe that you "seem" to have reacted to my submission emotionally, rather than rationally and reasonably. It "seems" you simply do not like the information my entry contains, and are busy seeking justifications to kill it, rather than help make it work.


 * The entire "pro-feminist" two-thirds/three-fourths of the article is rife with unsubstantiated generalizations and speculation, as well as distortions of contemporary realities and history. Disguising those prejudices and biases in academic mumbo-jumbo and intellectual game-playing doesn't change the actual nature of the entry.


 * The referenced census data is located on 2-3 pages, and is much more reliable and easier to find than a citation in a single book by an obscure socio-politically motivated feminist author. The facts I site are indeed common knowledge among lawyers, political scientists, and business professionals. Exactly which of them do you find questionable? If you have other - hopefully constructive rather than just destructive - specific suggestions or stylistic recommendations, I would be pleased to pursue them. It could prove to be a learning opportunity.


 * BUT AT THIS POINT, IT "SEEMS" CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS WOULD BE A COMPLETE WASTE TIME. I suggest you look at my three entries under Masculism as well... you won't "like" those either, and will probably want to arbitrarily remove them as well. Such is the power of feminism over our minds and lives in America today. Doug 13:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

And Another Response


 * I have done exactly as you dictated... pulled everything off of this site. I would like you to understand that neither I nor a lot of American's are one of your British school boys. You simply cannot say and do anything you please, and expect us to sit back and take it with a response like "yes, sir, whatever you say, sir." I'm not the only one who resents being fed nothing but vague sweeping generalizations and talked down to like a juvenile.


 * I lived in your country for several years, and I love and respect your history, culture, and customs... and especially the impact you forbearers have had on the world. But I also understand something about your society's limitations as well. Have you lived here as well?


 * Regardless, you are probably well-aware that America does not have a similar class-bound social structure, is not quasi-socialist leaning, is obviously very spiritual, is very intolerant of autocracy at all levels and in every form, and is certainly not a nation of feminists... once you get past the intelligentsia and talk to the mainstream of America. The public has certainly been fooled by feminist's shrewd strategies and propaganda. But just as they have rather consistently rejected the liberal left's thinking for a very long time now, they well ultimately come to understand feminism and the incredible damage it has been instrumental inflicting on our culture - the gender-divisiveness (divorce, cohabitation, delayed unions, etc.), the child neglect (abandonment of day-to-day child care, single female parenting, and abortion rates), and devastating effects of neglect of men's rights to equal protection under our laws and health needs. Most feminists don't realize it, but the French socialist Simone de Beauvoir is the actual "mother" of their socio-political movement. And this nation - while often confused and briefly misdirected historically - has thus far ultimately rejected those sorts of beliefs.


 * I will not be revisiting my section of this site, so if you want the last word, send it to baker-doug@sbcglobal.net. Doug 23:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, so confusing with the archive, I just want to leave a message
lol.

''Antelope, would you mind casting your eye on a disagreement between myself and Lao Wai on the Politics of Noam Chomsky page, would be interested to hear your take on this. I have also requested mediation to avoid an edit war. Thanks. --Zleitzen 11:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)''

No prob. Sorry for gettin' all shotgun spray like. I agree, there is relevance for that State Capitalism line....... [See discussion on Politics of Chomsky].

later....

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

My Turn?
I'm having a lovely conversation with another editor on the Bill Moyers talk page, regarding some possible original research. Could I trouble you to have a look? I have taken some mediation steps, but I wonder what you think? Am I perhaps confusing the man? Maybe I have failed to present my side? Thanks much. :)

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 09:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Thanks for coming. I think I'm going to take a short break.  My fear is that he will continue to dump things that Moyers has said into the criticism section just because it supports a critic's point, even if that critic has not referred to the "Moyer material".  And that he will continue to dump links to unrelated claims of criticism in an attempt to support that particular claim in the criticism section.


 * -sigh- This is tiring.  Am I making any sense?


 * (Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

I agree with your edits Antelope, though it might be worth waiting a while to see how things pan out and if things calm down. Making a tactical withdrawal, so to speak --Zleitzen 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. Just a sanity check.


 * Also wondering if I could be approaching my points in a way that is more understandable.


 * (Antelope In Search Of Truth 20:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC))

Personally I had no problems understanding your edits and reasons. But it seems that an unusual degree of patience is required to contest edits with that particular editor! Something I've noticed: one of the more successful tactics to employ is to span out edits over a longer time rather than change a whole lot at once. For some psychological reason this seems to reduce the friction. The same works for the talk pages, writing less and posting less frequently can lower the temperature. There is the chance that the other editor will simply find the slow turnover dull and move on to another challenge. If they're not showing particular commiting to wiki-values then that's quite likely. But it certainly is a trial of patience! --Zleitzen 14:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I get a little carried away sometimes.  It is also a challenge to find the most succinct way to make a point.  But then, as you might have implied, less is more.  Balance can be tricky. :P


 * (Antelope In Search Of Truth 23:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Hi Antelope, that's a great response from the user below.......... Read the talk page, but avoid entering the tedious edit war. Yuk! --Zleitzen 19:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah.... sometimes after things die down, everything comes out in the wash.


 * "Read the talk page, but avoid entering the tedious edit war. Yuk!"
 * Yeah yeah, I know I've been prone to edit war participation. ;) ;)  lol.
 * (Antelope In Search Of Truth 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

moyers compromise
Apologies Osbojos, I didn't see your compromise version until after I'd edited my compromise version over the top. --Zleitzen 01:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * don't worry about it, I wasn't particularly happy with what I'd done anyway. I don't really have the time to contribute properly to wikipedia at the moment (finals time at law school doesn't leave much free time), I was just trying to stave off the headaches of revert wars and arbitration. --Osbojos 03:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My reverts on Cuba
I do know the policies on reverts. Reverting his rude comments are well within the policies when they are meant to start more problems and the user has already been warned about there attitude on WikiPedia. WikiPedia is not a war zone to take out name calling in talk pages when something doesn't go there way. I'll revert as long as that goes on. You can appeal to a admin if you wish. --Scott Grayban 14:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You removed paragraphs referring to the article, much as I disagreed with that editors behaviour I don't believe that it is appropriate to do this and damages attempts to find consensus, you removed a users entry that read this


 * can't believe that somebody is citing such deeply derived sources such as Funk and Wagner. There are endless published scholarly works on Cuba use the D... things. Most of your (I do not include myself) accept Cuban government data as factual; it is not. Such data is not reviewed, nor is it challenged because it is an official monolithic artifact generated by the Cuban government. The Cuban government does not admit any scholars who are critical. Pro-Castro scholars are presented with government generated material so the material has to be gleaned from all kinds of other sources, including satellite imagery (which on occasion I use myself for formal articles). The trouble is that few if any of you read Spanish, you believe Cuban government data, and do not even try to demonstrate that you possess the background to critically evaluate the circumstances involved. There are serious text reads Thomas, 1998 and the rest on the list that I provided; go to university libraries outside of Cuba such as University of Miami, Coral Gables or that of the University of Florida in Gainesville, read the reports of the British Embassy, read the proceedings of Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy, go to the Google earth site and observe the imagery, etc. El Jigue 4-14-06.

--Zleitzen 16:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the one that he called people idiots in the talk. Not this one. But I really don't care anymore. You guys can war revert until all are blocked for fighting. I was trying to keep to noise down so productive editing could go on. But I see no matter what I do it doesn't matter. --Scott Grayban 16:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Issues with Adam
You should read my talk page and see what he left about how he is going to make the editors see that Cuba is a Communist country and revert defeat all anti- communist talk for Cuba. --Scott Grayban 01:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I formally started a RfC on Adam. Please read thisRequests_for_comment/Adam_Carr. I need you to spport this action. He has repeatedly called editors that make any positive remarks about Cuba a commie fidelist and even commrades. And recently attacking my ethnic background and implying I am some nazi because I am German. I have taken enough abuse from him and his anti-WP:CIVIL actions against users and outright not including anythign that is positive about the article which violate WP:NPOV. --Scott Grayban 11:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd rather that all users who persist in making personal attacks end any association with articles related to Cuba. You'll have to get support from someone else, Scott, Sorry.--Zleitzen 12:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wishing and asking has gone ignored. But since you seem to think in some light of hope it will stop and the RfC is useless I don't understand why your arguing about the article then. Adam isn't going to stop until the article is out of balance it isn't even a worthy article. I just provided Adam good things about Cuba from his own sources but ignores all that and chooses to pick on the negative and even going to the point of attacking ethnic backgrounds. He isn't going to stop until 1) has his way 2) blocked from here and thats a fact. --Scott Grayban 12:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

RFM

 * Yes I tried but I went back to just patrolling the article for violations and revert warring again. Since Adam and a couple others seem to be hell bent on using there POV that article will never be right and NPOV. Even after my suggestions which were pretty good compaired to what has been there I still got slammed for it. Oh well blocking users is fun though :) --Scott Grayban 02:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As stated, I am not opposed to mediation, although based on past experience I don't have any great confidence in it. If a formal mediator is appointed I will of course cooperate with him/her. I have no objection to text from the EU report or something like it being used in the article, provided the essential points are clear. Adam 03:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Adam. --Zleitzen 03:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

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/Cuba, 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.

"United Nations" term
Seemed like there was a bit of controversy about that and you were the one who changed "Roosevelt" to "Churchill". User:VashiDonsk was asking about that change in the discussion page. He references his claim, however: http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm. Take a quick look here. If you are still not convinced, go to the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Nations. Colonel Marksman 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing that to my attention Colonel Marksman and I happily concede. --Zleitzen 18:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I Understand
It's just that after a long battle over many years, i am wary of people like Bruce. PMA 18:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba NPOV project
I'm about to move home, may well have time to join in when I settle. Should be interesting, in itself at least, I doubt it will have any effect on the way the Cuba/Castro pages are edited. MichaelW 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuba
Hello! I see you are a powerful wikipedian! Do you know if anything is being done to return the Cuba article to its former glory? I would be willing to help (and register!) if that is the case! Thanks, myciconia 06:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another editor trying to seek consensus on the issues you highlight, myciconia. See long talk page history on this! --Zleitzen 06:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

it was more the obvious POV pushing that caused me to revert - even Adam Carr says i mean well - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BruceHallman&diff=49461797&oldid=49459999

PMA 06:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings of course! Is there a certain way I should interact with you?  Excuse my ignorance towards your unique personality! (sorry, Zleitzen if this is an inapropriate place for discussion.) myciconia  06:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problems PMA, or myciconia --Zleitzen 06:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am confused, PMA reverted my edit again! How does one defend themselves from all these accusations at once!myciconia  06:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Phrases such as "ripped from a Miami dissident site" etc gave an impression that you have a firm pro-Fidel/communist POV. as i said on the talk page of Cuba i try to defend the 'pedia from both right and left wing ideologs. PMA 06:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the "non-multiparty" is more accurate PMA. And thanks for changing that. --Zleitzen 06:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a *communist*?!! (: I can understand why communists might not be allowed to edit here, but no, I am not a communist!

Perhaps we could discuss how the human rights comment in question (that I maybe a little sharply cricisised) might not be compleatly sound, as it only shows one (individual before the group) point of view! I don't have much time, but I would love to help improve the article, --It had actually motivated me to travel to Cuba, and I hate to see it go down hill! myciconia 06:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, do you want me to put this on the Cuba page?--Zleitzen 07:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, i'm trying to entrap you into taking part! Howabout you give me some tips! (:  (feel free to move it!)myciconia  07:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Registered
I am now registered. I hope that you now will be able to help me better explain my reasoning at Cuba. Although I am now far from being a cowerdly anon user, I feel that I need the help of an administrator for my efforts to have any meaning! I don't see the possibility of progress! I know I sound obsessed, but Cuba is such a beautiful country --the people are really the most compassionate and kind you will ever meet. This article has been changed to make it sound like a true hell on Earth! Sincerely, Neztielz 08:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem Neztiel, although I should point out that I'm not an administrator. This is a very contentious subject at the moment, a degree of patience may be required. The priority is to remove the Disputed tag at the top of the page, meaning that all editors have consensus agreement on the content and it is not perceived to be biased. Feel free to change anything you like on the page, providing you are able to justify and cite the sources of your changes. Meanwhile your concerns about the bias of this article are being addressed by a number of other different means, one of them is here . I am hoping to improve the situation in the long term by instigating a project. --Zleitzen 08:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * btw, I'm not sure about the choice of your name. --Zleitzen 08:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I just quickly made that username because I'm not planning on staying long (was very late and I had a few beer) myciconia 18:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

email
I would email you but I don't have it and I can't send from here because you don't allow users to email you from WP. --Scott Grayban 14:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I emailed you. I also took your email address out of the talk page so that spam bots/users wouldn't pick it up. If that was to pre-emptive on my part please revert it. --Scott Grayban 15:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem Scott. --Zleitzen 16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jew
re: User_talk:Travb

I am glad no one was offended. you were test subjects. I am going to ask User:172, the guy who encouraged me to justifiably get banned for the wrong reason his opinion.Travb 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the background to your dispute, Trabv. But I would recommend that all users resist resorting to Godwin's Law when debating global political history. --Zleitzen 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sgrayban sockpuppet
The user signed up for an account only a few after Sgrayban's block. The coincidence is to great to ignore. Mystork might be myciconia. On the same token, I think it's likely that myciconia is Sgrayban. The user reasonably must be considered a suspected sockpuppet until a check user is carried out. 172 | Talk 02:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, 172. But judging from the edits (british colombia etc, knowledge of Cuba, spelling etc) and looking at the bizarre
 * Neztielz encounter (see above), who I believe is the same user, I think it is unlikely. It would fairer to remove your edits until such a check is made. Innocent until proven etc.


 * On an unrelated matter, the issue above about Paul Wolfowitz that somehow I got included in on. I saw your comments which I support, but couldn't figure out the motives of the user, testcase?--Zleitzen 02:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My edits cannot be removed until a check is made. No check can be made unless an admin reads my edits and looks into the matter... As for Wolfowitz, are you asking about Travb? The user knows me from because I got him blocked for calling CJK a "little Eichmann." From that incident I think he figured out that I was Jewish and a historian. 172 | Talk 02:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's Travb who left the comment above. I just spotted it on the rfc when putting Cuba on there. I stated that I didn't think it was correct to carry that on the Wolfowitz page. A few days later I got the above curious response, looked it up and saw you battling away in the mix! I'll keep an occasional eye on that if you want? It'll be a distraction from battling with you and Adam over Cuba! --Zleitzen 02:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though I think Travb has dropped the issue. 172 | Talk 02:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm innocent... would someone please remove that banner from my userpage! Thanks. myciconia Neztielz 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, please excuse that Neztielz situation, I sincerely apologise... I had a rather long day (and night).. Mystork 04:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The irony is, that there's a message on your talk page from your supposed puppetier.--Zleitzen 04:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is? Also, would you be able to direct me to the place where they do the sockpuppet check --I can't find it, but want to see when my innocence is proclaimed. Mystork 04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Check on this for your message. I'll have a look about the IP checks. --Zleitzen 04:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahah look at that! Thanks for checking Mystork 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind the IP check, I found it. I don't think 172 would be able to ask for one, as you need actual evidence that I'm a sockpuppet due to "privacy issues."  That is also ironic, everyone and their mother now knows my IP anyways (: Mystork 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've asked the admins to look into it, who can check on users IP's. But feel free to take the sockpuppet references out from that rfc page if you believe that they will find in your favor;) --Zleitzen 05:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, I see he went back and did it again. Glad to see there is a public service to protect people from my immense influence.Mystork 07:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well, finally stopped the sockpuppet allegations once and for all. Mystork 00:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good news!--Zleitzen 00:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)