User talk:Anderssl

Wal-Mart

DO NOT continue to revert. You are WRONG. Continuing to push your POV is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to address your issues with consensus on the talk page, not the article itself. Do not continue to revert me -- doing so is considered vandalism. If you still feel that you want to push this, then the appropriate course of action would be to post a request to WP:RFC. But if you want something included in the page that's controversial like this, it is completely inappropriate to keep pushing it by just rampantly adding it only to get reverted.

I also find it completely laughable that you have the audacity to tell me that, "One guy weighed in in favor of my view, but obviously that's not conclusive", despite there being no evidence on the talk page that anyone else has weighed in on the issue.

Also, for what it's worth, I'm not terribly opposed to this issue's inclusion in Wikipedia itself -- only on the Wal-Mart page where, IMHO, it fails to meet notability, because it has little to do with Wal-Mart itself and more to do with a greater issue. By your reasoning, you should include this information in the corporate articles on every company that is on this blacklist, rather than just singling out Wal-Mart. But NO, you want to make this a little crusade against Wal-Mart, further contributing to all the hatred everyone else has against this company. If you want to add a little footnote to Criticism of Wal-Mart, go right ahead -- but it doesn't belong in Wal-Mart. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for tipping me about RFC - I will make one. I accept your argument about building consensus outside the page, but I wonder if you really have read the talk page properly - there is one more person supporting my view, though he edited anonymously. [1] Secondly, please take care to follow Wikipedia policies yourself, and assume good faith and try to argue reasonably. If you did a minimum amount of research you would find that the same information has been added long ago to articles about other companies blacklisted by the fund - in those cases were it's significant (many of the blacklistings involve very small amounts of stock, and do not seem equally notable), such as Rio Tinto Group, Freeport-McMoRan and Grasberg mine. And of course there is a complete list on The Government Pension Fund of Norway. This is not about hating or loving Wal-Mart, it is about providing verifiable and reliable information that is highly relevant to the controversies surrounding the company. To be honest, your use of words like 'crusade' and 'hatred' to describe my arguments which have all the time been focused on the editing of the article, and not the company itself, make me wonder if you are really considering this issue from an unbiased POV yourself? --Anderssl (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized, there has been another person raising the issue on the talk page in the past as well, making it three of us: [2]. --Anderssl (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

This is to notify you that, per Wikipedia:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process while editing content related to Armenia and Azerbaijan may be given sanctions which may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Sandstein 09:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I get this warning - I responded to a request for a third opinion, and afterwards twice (over two days) reverted deletion of the disputed section which was not founded in any consensus. --Anderssl (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the information about the third opinion. Best regards Ulner (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm does not work

edit Talk:Genocides in history to at 19:44, 25 June 2009 sarcasm does not work at all well in such fraught discussions. Particullarly when some of those involved may not have English as their mother tongue. I strongly suggest that you refrain from such comments or they will be misunderstood, taken down and used against you. --PBS (talk)

If you read this, before someone else replies to the talk page you should seriously consider undoing that edit with some sort of comment that it was not appropriate in the edit history. I am saying this without my admin hat on, and you should not take it as an instruction, just a piece of advise from an experienced editor--PBS (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Edit made. Didn't mean to be obnoxious. But I'm sure you can see where I was coming from though... --Anderssl (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide under capitalist regimes

Would you support this kind of article as well? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this is a valid topic for an article. There would be some problem with taxonomy - should one for instance have a separate article for Genocide under fascist regimes, and where are the demarkation lines between fascism, authoritarian capitalism, nazism or plain oligarchy... But I'm sure those things could be sorted out with some reasonable debate. --Anderssl (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just put them under Genocides in history? I can see why listing all genocides under ideology/economic system would be ok – but why not approach each case of genocide a unique combination of individual factors? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why not do both? I think we agree that there are many problems with the Communist genocide article, but the concept of having an article dedicated to these particular (alleged) genocides isn't necessarily non-NPOV. It could well be that genocides perpetrated under communist regimes have some things in common, whereas genocides perpetrated under other kinds of regimes have different characteristics... This is hypothetical of course and would need to be substantiated with references to reliable sources. But we should be open to the possibility. --Anderssl (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this could be done, but this only seems to beg the question of why this classification is even needed, if each instance of genocide, real or alleged, can simply be described in an article like Genocides in history. It's quite "natural" (an odd choice of word, sorry) that genocides perpetrated under different regimes have different characteristics – but isn't each and every genocide something distinct, really of its own? What is the connection between an atrocity committed by self-described communists in industrial Europe in 1939 and by rival self-described communists in agricultural Asia in 1979? Or between capitalists in America in 1898 and rival capitalists Germany in 1942? Either way one would end up with a POV fork implying what has not been demonstrated. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my mind this all comes down to whether there are reliable sources treating the topic in this way, and I frankly don't know enough about it to determine whether there is. I see they have a bunch of sources in the Communist genocide article, for a start one could start adding well-source criticism of those, and if that criticism becomes overwhelming, one could consider dropping the topic entirely... whereas if there is some reasonable opposition both ways the article could stay, with a balance of critical sources. Basically I'm looking for a productive way to move forward, rather than just getting stuck in a stalemate. Either way, it's better to continue this discussion on the article talk page, no? --Anderssl (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure – I just wanted to clarify your thoughts on moving the article because I've posed the same question to others, which is my rationale for asking here. I completely agree with you on the other points. But let's proceed on article talk instead. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re.

I really find your comment very difficult to understand. If you'd like to discuss the problems in my material, please discuss on talk, as you first suggested we do. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already did - I asked you a direct question, it shouldn't be too hard to answer. Have you decided to deliberately make bad edits, to match what you perceive as bad edits made by other users? Or how else should your comments be understood? --Anderssl (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied there. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist genocide

Since the template to re-name Communist genocide had just been set up I thought that we should allow considerably more than 3 hours for responses. I do not think there had been consensus for the move, but placing the template there allows us to determine if there is. The template notifies outside editors so that they may also comment and invites editors who were involved in the discussion before to also comment. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use terms like "Die you lie intentionally..." You should read the policy about this at WP:NPA. While you were probably not aware that the template had been placed, you did move the article after the template was placed. I noticed that you had moved the article after the template was placed and assumed you were aware of it. Note however the politeness of my comment above where I assume good faith WP:AGF which policy you should also read. In any case once a template is placed it is normal to wait for comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that consensus had been obtained and if I did not answer it was because the talk page had become pretty long and complicated and I did not think that the discussion was over. Termer has however set up a template to obtain views and try to determine if there is a consensus which I think is the correct way to continue. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not I read everything is unimportant. I read the tag and read enough of the discussion to know there was not consensus and also the time you allowed was too short. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked: "Can I decide on my own whether there is consensus in any given question, or do I need to discuss it with other people first?" Good point. You should not have assumed there was consensus on re-naming the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstandings happen and we should not see a difference of opinion on the article as a personal disagreement. Personally I think that the current and proposed titles are inherently POV and therefore the article will remain challenged as NPOV. If you want the opinions and events in the article covered in WP, I have no objection. But they should be contained in articles that are properly named and sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Political_Spectrum_Reconciliation_Project

You wanted more info, so here it is, I've started a project page. WP:PSRP Irbisgreif (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mass killings under Communist regimes

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Escalation of Termer WP:ANI to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Termer

Given the lack of administrator action, I have escalated to: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Termer Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Albania during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological and Religious Motives

An editor has proposed renaming this article. His original choice was "Albanian genocide law". However I oppose any change of name because no reliable sources provide a short form for the law and there is another law on "Genocide" under the Albanian criminal code,[3] while this law has been repealed. Please comment at the article's talk page. TFD (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Media panic

The article Media panic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to consist solely of original research.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. magnius (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Media panic

I have nominated Media panic, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media panic. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —mono 03:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]