User talk:Nikodemos/Talk archive 2

This is an archive of all conversations on my Talk page from 12 July 2005 to 23 December 2005. -- Nikodemos

Image:Hammerandsickle.gif

Image deletion warning

Image:Hammerandsickle.gif has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I agree that the pic is redundant, and should therefore be deleted. -- Nikodemos 00:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Christian Communism

You did not respond to my concerns on the Christian communism discussion page, so here they are paraphrased:

I applaud your work in correctly deciding creating a Christian communism page completely separate from the Religious communism page. You have also justifiably placed a link to the Christian communism page in the Religious communism page along with a brief statement regarding the controversy surrounding the idea of Christian communism.

Where I disagree is how you have improperly and conveniently failed to add most of the Christian communism section that was removed from the Religious communism article to the Christian communism article. It appears that you have filled this article with socialist POV material instead of using the cited material that was originally removed from Religious communism article. I added the deleted material from the religious communism page on to the Christian communism page and now come to find that it was again deleted by you with no explanation aside from “Christian communism is not Marxism; of course Marxists disagree with it”. My reponse: Of course you, Nikodemos, understand that Marxists disagree with Christian communism, but many Wikipedia readers do not. You and I may understand this fact, but many others do not. Wikipedia needs to address this for the clarification of the reader. This page, as it stands, seems to propogate the idea that Christians are imitating communism. The readers will come away misleaded. Clearly, an NPOV and scholarly article on this topic would include similarities and differences between Christian communism and communism, Marxism, or socialism. Viewpoints from both the socialists and Christians would have to be effectively accounted for in some way. Perhaps my article was too far to the right, and surely, your article is too far to the left.

1. Marx’s statements which differentiate religion from communism need to be included to show the difference between the two philospophies. 2. Free will must also be mentioned in behalf of Christians (not just against them, as you have done). 3. If Biblical references are used to support the socialist viewpoint, then would it not be appropriate to use Biblical references for the Christian viewpoint as well? Last I checked, the Bible was the fundamental block of Christianity not communism.

A Christian cannot speak for a Communist, nor can a Communist speak for a Christian. This page is almost entirely written in a manner similar to a Communist speaking for a Christian. In the meantime I will simply revert the page until we can communicate on this subject. I will also copy this into the Christian communism Talk page (since that is where it belongs and that is where this communication should be continued). Gaytan 18:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not presume to speak for all Christians. I happen to consider myself a Christian, yet I will not assume that all Christians agree with my religious views - let alone my political ones. Also, please do not blanket revert the entire article; rather, edit only the parts you consider POV or controversial. This will avoid getting the non-controversial parts of the article changed for no good reason. As for your objections to my edits, I have answered them in the article's Talk page. -- Nikodemos 01:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Communism

Hello again. If you have time, please take a look at communism. Strong poorly written POV keeps on getting reinserted in the article. 172 | Talk 16:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Already seen it... That article, however, is what I call a "hot issue": an article where no edit is likely to remain unreverted for long, so any editor has to be prepared to stick around for a long time and bargain on the talk page. I've just returned to the wiki after a long absence, and I want to look over all the "normal" articles on my watchlist before I get involved in any hot issues. I hope to be able to get working on the hot issues some time next week. -- Nikodemos 16:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I didn't realize that you were absent. In that case, it's great to have you around. 172 | Talk 16:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine

You have my heartfelt sympathy. Ultramarine is a True Believer who genuinely thinks that NPOV means a full-throated polemic in favor of whatever position he has decided is the Truth; and will make any statement which seems to him likely to support the Truth. On Talk:Democratic peace theory he has argued both that the People's Republic of China was always a member of the Soviet bloc; and that it was never a member of the Soviet bloc. Come and see if you like.

As a student of fields of genuine scholarship, I have long since decided to ignore his nonsense about peer-review: the insecurity of an adolescent follower of a protoscience.

It is difficult to follow an argument through diffs; what is he harassing you on? Septentrionalis 02:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I was beginning to grow desperate. His argument comes down to this: "It has been proven (by such impartial and unbiased institutions as the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute) that capitalism reduces poverty and causes economic prosperity. Any exceptions to this Law [which I listed using the Heritage Foundation's own Index of Economic Freedom numbers] must be ignored and censored." All my attempts to reach compromises (even ones that were leaning towards his POV) have been met with reverts. There aren't all that many differences between revisions for you to look at, since he reverts to almost the same thing every time. See [1] and [2]. -- Nikodemos 02:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine as usual, I see. The loud claims of deletion and censorship, and the mangling of opposing arguments are also standard practice. He genuinely fails to understand any argument against the Truth, unless his mentors have prepared it for him. Feel free to reply on my talk page, btw. You may wish to read WP:RfC. But in my time-zone, god night. Septentrionalis 02:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. An RfC on Ultramarine is long overdue. 172 | Talk 03:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that I am worse than inexperienced, having experience in dealing with so many similar editors (Lir, Sam Spade, and Silverback) unsuccessfully! Online communication is relatively new and foreign to me, leaving me often lost in these processes on Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 18:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm good friends with Sam now (who'd have thunk it? ;) ), but he doesn't seem to have been online recently. I'll probably be the one to post the RfC, though I'll have to learn how to do it first. -- Nikodemos 19:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a surprise. He can't stand me and went on a crusade against me last year. I suppose he works better with some people... I sent a reply by email. Thanks for the note. 172 | Talk 23:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to add my condolences about being in UM's sights. The worst of him (from my POV) is that he seems not to understand science and to have less than a sophomore's knowledge of statistics. Take his assertion that statistical inferences are facts, not claims. Can you imagine anyone in Physical Review asserting such nonsense? He unqualifiedly accepts calculations of significance that are fallacious on their face and, when the problems are pointed out, reverts to his "peer-reviewed" mantra. What that means for social-science articles is not clear to me: in an area where methods are not agreed upon, how does one do meaningful peer review?

(For that matter, in areas of limited interest in the physical sciences, there is a similar problem. IIRC, early issues of The Journal of Quantum Gravity looked like a vanity press for Hawking's students, yet were, strictly-speaking, peer-reviewed.)

If, someday, UM grows up a little and backs off maybe 10% he will produce better articles and win more friends. Much of what he (and his friends at Cato) are saying is, IMO, probably true. But my feeble attempts to educate him seem to have been pearls cast before swine. Sigh!Robert A West 20:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Good! Leave a message on my Talk page as soon as you create the subpage Septentrionalis 23:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You must sign the subpage, and so should 172. I will then add my comments as supporting evidence. Septentrionalis 23:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You MUST leave a note on Ultramarine's talk page ASAP informing him of the RfC; since he's blocked, he can't do anything about it, but he will he justified in complaining if you don't Septentrionalis 00:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted the note. 172 | Talk 00:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I never did this before, I'm likely to have slip-ups of procedure like that... sorry. :( But, on another note, I'm going to sleep now. See you tomorrow! -- Nikodemos 00:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I saw what I recall as a recent edit of yours referring to U's being banned; I don't remember where. Is this the 3RR banning the day of the RfC, or has he done something else? And how does one tell? Septentrionalis 19:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it was just that 3RR banning on the day of the RfC. -- Nikodemos 12:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought about listing the corpse myself, but if it was taken in 1921, it may be in public domain, at least under American law. But if the IfD succeeds, it would settle the question - be prepared to have him come back with the prose by itself, though. Septentrionalis 13:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Email

I can't open my email at the moment, so I won't be able to send for another 8 hours when I'm at another computer. Fortunately, Ultramarine has been blocked for violating the 3RR, so I'll be able to send it while he's still offline for around another 12 hours. Sorry about the dely. 172 | Talk 05:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Within the next couple of hours. Once I get to another computer at the office I'll be able to send it. I'm still having trouble opening my email account from this computer. 172 | Talk 17:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I just sent the template via email. Since I'm not familiar with the democratic peace theory dispute, along with some of the others, others will need to fill in the section on "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute." Apologies in advance. Other sections on evidence will need to be expanded as well, as I'm only acquainted with the disputes on democracy, communist state, communism, criticisms of communism, and useful idiots. 172 | Talk 22:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'll go take a look. BTW, did you see Pmanderson's sandbox? 172 | Talk 23:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes... I'm waiting for him to add that. Then I can go to sleep! -- Nikodemos 00:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Favor

Could you take a look at Cold War (1953-1962)? I can't get CJK to stop restoring his illiterate "edits" to that article.

By the way...

Thanks for restoring the content on The Civil War in France in dictatorship of the proletariat following my initial edits. Perhaps due to being a product of the U.S. university system, I usually refer to the Gotha Program when explaining the concept, while only relegating Engels' 1891 postscript to a "postscript" of my own. You did a good job of catching my unintentional biases/conditioning right away. 172 | Talk 19:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, though my catching of your unintentional bias was completely unintentional. :) I'm still not too happy about the current form of the article, however, and I do intend to work a bit more on it - but only after the Ultramarine crisis is over. -- Nikodemos 21:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism

I'm leaving this plea on several talk pages. Some editors have been making significant changes to the lead section of Libertarianism and putting the justifications for their edits in the edit summary. I think this is somewhat inappropriate, because it means there will be relentless edit warring, and it is greatly disruptive to this featured article. Please concentrate on using Talk:Libertarianism to discuss changes before they are made, and use the edit summaries to explain what is being edited, not why. Thanks --malathion ^talk 17:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Seen by chance, but I agree although in some cases discussion immediately afterward should be enough; it is one of U's bad habits not to do this, so I know how annoying it can be. Septentrionalis 18:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I only edited that intro while passing by; I have no intention to stick around and edit the article again (at least not in the near future). -- Nikodemos 18:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Horthy and the Hungarian Soviet Republic

Thanks for your valuable help in case of the articles mentioned above.--Mathae 17:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, and I'll also add that in return, if ever you need help with keeping Hungarian romantic nationalists in control, you know where to find me. KissL 11:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I only helped with the article about the Hungarian Soviet Republic. I haven't looked at the one on Horthy yet - but I will go to see it now. :) -- Nikodemos 12:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Marxists.org

Thanks for your contribution to the above page (The whole thing was written by me under different IP's). DelftUser 07:52, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) -- Nikodemos 12:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

FAO Statistics

Playing around with U's citation led me to the following: Go to faostat.fao.org Click on All Databases and you will get a table of databases. Clicking on a database will get you a page that looks like this. You can highlight more than one thing in each category. Septentrionalis 15:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (It is just possible, despite the indications, that this is a subscription-only service. I'm on a university computer, and it may be automatically recognizing a subscription. If so, let me know what you want.)

How did this work? Septentrionalis 18:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that you append a history of this little incident in the RfC. as a comment to U's threat to have criticisms of communism protected with "my version on top". By my count, (but do check) he reverted three times and then called for protection. I will sign, but I must go eat rather than write this. Septentrionalis 22:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I did it; you have e-mail coming. Septentrionalis 18:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Republic

Niko,

Some time ago in the article about Luxembourg an anon added that Luxembourg was also a Soviet Socialist Republic for a three day period in 1919. I posted a question at their talk pages of Lux and History of Lux to confirm this, but had no response. This guy added many correct info as well, so I waited for quite a long time, but finally deleted this. Do you happen to know if it is true or not? mikka (t) 18:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I never heard anything of the sort. If it lasted only 3 days, though, it was clearly a "soviet republic" in name only (how much can you do in three days?). -- Nikodemos 18:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism-related articles

Hey, I've seen your edits to some libertarianism-related articles I helped write, and they seem really good. I have a small request, though: Could you try to include more edit summaries? It would save me a lot of time when you make edits like this one where it's tough to see exactly what the changes are.

Keep up the good work!

Dave (talk) 21:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's just that my usual style of editing involves reading through the article in the edit window and simply tweaking or adding what I feel needs to be tweaked or added - then reading on. This means that I tend to make a lot of unrelated changes in a single edit, so there's not much I could say in a summary except "general edit", "various tweaks", etc. -- Nikodemos 21:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess that makes sense. It's just that when your edits cover an entire article, the software gets confused so that the entire diff page turns red and I can't figure out what you did very easily. Perhaps doing it in smaller chunks (a few paragraphs at a time) would help prevent that glitch in long articles/sections? I hope that what I'm suggesting wouldn't be too burdensome, because you're clearly an asset to Wikipedia. Thanks for your time, Dave (talk) 21:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, now that I think about it, I can simply edit one section at a time in the larger articles. I'll try to do that from now on, at least when working on libertarianism-related stuff. And btw, thank you very much for your kind words - but I'm not nearly as active as certain other wikipedians. :) -- Nikodemos 22:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete references

Like you did in the shortage economy article. This is the cause of my revert. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is basically a stub and you posted 4 books as references. Please forgive me for assuming that it was a little over the top. I'll rename the "references" section to "further reading", if you don't mind. -- Nikodemos 22:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I think your edits are not NPOV, but more like apologies for communism. I don't see you listing a single reference with arugments against the Kornai's theory. I compiled this article from referenced sources and elinks, and I see no reason why your changes are improving it. Feel free to explain this on mine or the article's talk page, I don't check yours that often. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, NPOV is supposed to be neutral. Your article had a clear anti-communist POV, and I fixed that with a bit of light editing. I don't need references for arguments against Kornai's theory because I haven't written any arguments against Kornai's theory. My changes to the article were quite minor. But just to humor you, here's a website with plenty of articles defending the planned economy against various critics: [3] -- Nikodemos 11:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My article is referenced with academic publications, you support your edits with some collection of net articles. I think academic publications have better NPOV then net articles, and I consider your deletion of references (or renaming them further reading) as well as reverting of my changes like ilinks and some others to be POVed at least, vandalism at worst. You are welcome to discuss changes on Talk, I'd be happy to reach a consensus. Please, don't just revert, I did incorportate many of your changes into this article, as well as agreed to your changes on Kornai and other related pages. You should also learn to compromise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please look over the website I gave you more closely. You will find that many of the articles (such as this one) are studies that first appeared in academic publications. This isn't just the personal website of some random guy, it's the website of a professor at the University of Glasgow. But, in any case, I haven't actually added any arguments to the shortage economy article, so I (honestly!) don't know what your point is. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just don't know what all the fuss is about. -- Nikodemos 14:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I assumed too much. Your usual edits are all right, but this time you had changed a bit - in my POV - so I reverted some of those changes. I am happy to see we are reching some compromise, now, do tell me why do you:

1. remove the phrase: which to Kornai were inevitable consequences of the 'classical' communism economic system
2. your second lead paragraph suggests (to me) that effects of shortage economy (i.e. shortages) resulted from demand failure, while Kornai makes it clear that it is a supply failury - i.e. not enough produced to satisfy everyone. Calling it demand failiure is misleading - unless one assumes that when there is not enough toilet paper for everyone then the solution is to use newspapers instead of asking the government to produce more of it :> Thus my changes to that paragraph, which you revert.
3. event 0 is a rare event in the shortage economy. Few products are freely available - from my childhood I remember even water shortages. Bread, milk, paper - almost everything is uvailable in unsufficient quantities in shortage economy. It is an important feature if s.e., and I see no reason why you would want to remove this tiny sentence.
4. what is wrong with explaining that the not-so-often used term 'forced saving' is a situation when a consumer saves the money since 'he is not able to spend it in a way he desire'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is funny - I just posted my list of objections on the article's talk page at almost the exact same time when you posted your above list of objections here. :) Please have a look over what I posted on the Talk page. -- Nikodemos 14:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Replied there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks: de Soto

Hi - just a quick thank you for your edits on the Hernando de Soto (economist) article - though nothing major, those are the little tweaks that make an already pretty good article better. bastel 23:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cult of personality

Actually I would guess that the picture is not the totality of my "logic" in reinserting the section of Castro considering that the previous edit asserted that, "There isn't even a single poster of Castro in the streets of Cuba," which, very demonstrably is false. Incidentally, the picture you listed notes that it was not even authorized by any candidate or campaign, much less the government itself. --TJive 10:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

From the intro of the article: "Cult of personality or personality cult is a term for what is perceived to be excessive adulation of a single living leader. The term was coined..." Nowhere does it say that it necessarily has to be paid for by the government. -- Nikodemos 10:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The article also goes on to say:

Personality cults usually characterize totalitarian states or countries which have recently experienced revolutions. The reputation of a single leader, often characterized as the "liberator" or "savior" of the people, elevates that leader to an almost divine level. The leader's picture appears everywhere, as do statues and other monuments to the leader's greatness and wisdom. The leader's slogans and other quotes cover massive billboards, and books containing the leader's speeches and writings fill up the bookstores and libraries. The level of flattery can reach heights which may appear absurd to outsiders....Personality cults aim to make the leader and the state seem synonymous, so it becomes impossible to comprehend the existence of one without the other. It also helps justify the often harsh rule of a dictatorship, and propagandize the citizens into believing that the leader operates as a kind and just ruler. In addition, cults of personality often arise out of an effort to quash opposition within a ruling elite. Both Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin used their cults of personality to help crush their political opponents.

None of which may reasonably be inferred simply by "excessive adulation", which can otherwise frivolously apply to anyone a particular author dislikes, and render the applicability of the term quite meaningless. Which is why the examples culled in support of this are all despots who utilize(d) their personality to help justify their extended rule.

Incidentally, in your fervor to protect El Presidente from this slander, you undid completely unrelated and legitimate changes would should be put back in the article. It is not hard to delete a single phrase that offends you. --TJive 10:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my undoing of those changes was intentional: One user removed the text noting that George Orwell never makes it clear whether Big Brother is real in 1984. The other changes, as far as I could see, consisted merely of breaking up or uniting paragraphs, with no information either added or removed.

Also, I suggest you take a closer look at your own quote:

"The reputation of a single leader, often characterized as the "liberator" or "savior" of the people, elevates that leader to an almost divine level. The leader's picture appears everywhere, as do statues and other monuments to the leader's greatness and wisdom. The leader's slogans and other quotes cover massive billboards..."

Is that the case in Cuba? Hardly. -- Nikodemos 11:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Since you are relying on block quotes to justify your deletion rather than specific arguments it is difficult to discern what exactly you are attempting to argue by referencing this specific passage.

I am attempting to argue that Castro's Cuba simply doesn't belong in the same league as Stalin's USSR or Kim Jong-Il's North Korea (at least as far as personality cults go). -- Nikodemos 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

So, I will go through it in a few points:

The reputation of a single leader, often characterized as the "liberator" or "savior" of the people

Castro is most definitely characterized in official media as being a "liberator" of the Cuban people from the Batista dictatorship. That much is indisputable. The actual titles do not matter, anymore than "Dear Leader" (Kim Jong Il) is substantively different in this context from, say, "Savior of the Fatherland" and "Maximum Leader" (as bestowed upon Castro).

True enough; however, this is not sufficient for a personality cult. See below. -- Nikodemos 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The leader's picture appears everywhere

Not only is this true, that the very much living Castro appears and has appeared on billboards, postage stamps and other official paraphernalia and propaganda, but he makes frequent and extended public appearances with large culled groups of faithful and cheering onlookers. This charismatic ability has served him not only in advertising and justifying particular policies but in extending his own personal tenure as ruler for decades now. Even those most timid in criticizing any aspect of Cuba or Fidel at all describe his relationship in this manner as "paternalist"; Fidel watches, Fidel looks out for you, Fidel is defending our revolution.

Every major politician who ever ran for a certain office in a democratic country had his face on billboards during electoral campaigns. A personality cult requires the face of the Great Leader to be everywhere - that is, is requires at least one or two billboards in every city, a multitude of propaganda posters, portraits of the leader hanging in all public buildings and many private ones, etc. You seem to believe that any dictator who holds public speeches has a cult of personality. This is not the case. -- Nikodemos 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

as do statues and other monuments to the leader's greatness and wisdom.

He is of course praised profusely in the official media and his birthday is practically a national holiday.

You intentionally missed the point. Where exactly are the statues and other monuments to Castro's greatness and wisdom? -- Nikodemos 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The leader's slogans and other quotes cover massive billboards

Fidel is an author but I do not know how proliferated his works are among the population. I do know that it does not matter as in this case his many personal and televised appearances serve the purpose of spreading every pertinent message he has. There are billboards that carry his likeness and there long have been, contrary to previous assertions.

How many billboards with Castro's quotes are there in Cuba? I personally do not know of any. -- Nikodemos 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, despite every effort to thoroughly sanitize his biographical page, there is still a reference to Castro's "apparent cult of personality", "despite his personal attempts to discourage it." --TJive 11:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I also notice how, in your instance of emphasizing what you assert basically to be an inapplicable passage that you remove from the context of a "liberator" or "savior" that personality cults appear in "totalitarian states or countries which have recently experienced revolutions" which contextualizes the following sentence in a manner that recalls Castro probably more than any other leader in recent memory and which also recalls that the "revolution" is a primary theme not only in official works but general discourse in the country, whose "revolution" continues and whose "revolutionary leader" as such remains over four decades after the fact. --TJive 11:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Again, you're implying that every revolution-themed dictatorship must necessarily be accompanied by a personality cult, which is simply not the case. "The revolution" is a pervasive theme in all communist states, but many of them did not have personality cults. -- Nikodemos 21:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"Compromise"

your "compromise" on Satellite state does not work when the version being RVed was blatant POV in the first place. the term is almost always used to refer to Eastern Europe. we don't call states like Angola and Mozambique Soviet satellites in the text even though they received substantial Soviet aid; similarly, leftist criticisms of Central American "satellites" is irrelevant. J. Parker Stone 06:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. In other words, you refuse to compromise. Thank you for being so "friendly" and "considerate". -- Nikodemos 13:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

i refuse to "compromise" when said compromise version contains irrelevant data, yes. J. Parker Stone 01:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Niko, please see this notice. The edits in question have nothing to do with the "satellite state" article specifically but rather the general intentions of a particular user. Thanks. --TJive 13:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but now I'm confused... which edits are you talking about? User:Coqsportif only started editing the satellite state article earlier today... -- Nikodemos 13:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes but the edits trace back to earlier versions and thus edit wars with prior sockpuppets; hence a one-man, multi-faceted war against edits which bear my name rather than substantive content. That is why "compromise" in this context is farcical. The intent is not to collaborate for a quality article but to destroy my edits. Yes, it is a long and convoluted story but the information starts there if you are interested. --TJive 13:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked at Coqsportif's edits to Satellite state? He's trying to insert the opposite POV from the one of the other user who kept reverting you. -- Nikodemos 13:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I described him as a "strawman sockpuppet" at the notice in question; while the same sets of articles are being edited throughout, in this case (it would be the fifth account) he attempts to set himself as having the extreme (and crudely-formed) opposite POV, either to discredit a certain viewpoint of contributors to the article or simply to disrupt contributions entirely. Establishing this pattern requires a thorough look at the contribution lists in question, but "Coqsportif" attempted once a general revert in the same article set, National Endowment for Democracy. In this case his first edit goes against the POV this account is set up as having, but once reverted, he attempted to insert something which implies the opposite POV (and thus conforming to most of his edits).

Other editors of course are having to deal with the messes he is making as in this case I did not simply revert (or have to revert) all of his contributions on my own. --TJive 13:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you believe he is a "straw man sockpuppet" (though I can't imagine why anyone would want to create a sockpuppet that vandalizes in the name of the 'enemy' POV). In any case, I want to stay out of this. -- Nikodemos 13:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I can certainly understand this and I do not ask you to. However, I feel it is best that my actions at the article in question be explained rather than you believe I am shrugging off multiple users. It is something I have done before. --TJive 13:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

MT, certain people's "allegations" have nothing to do with some articles. "Satellite state" is typically used to reference Eastern European Communist states from 1948-89. "puppet state" and "banana republic" has been used for certain U.S. third world allies but that is not what the article is about. J. Parker Stone 01:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Like I said in my last edit summary, we have two options here: either (1) we define "satellite state" as a term strictly used for Soviet puppets (which is not currently the case; the definition is generic), or (2) we keep the current definition and include US puppets as well. Right now, the definition states: The term satellite state [...] refers to a country that is formally sovereign but that is in fact dominated by a larger hegemonic power. Clearly, by this definition, Eastern European countries during the Cold War can't be singled out as the only satellite states in history. -- Nikodemos 01:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

see the talk page, the term is not synonymous with "puppet state," and how Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe came about and was maintained is different in nature than U.S. influence in Central America and the Caribbean. J. Parker Stone 01:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean that you wish to go for option 1, yes? Very well. I will write a new version of the article to go along with that option and see what you think. -- Nikodemos 01:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

i don't really see why we have to define "puppet states" here. the Soviet Union set up satellite states to a) secure its western border and b) extend its influence. a simple link to puppet state in a "See also" would probably do it. J. Parker Stone 02:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Complements as to your UA language edits

Hi Niko, please accept my compliments with regard to a chunk of info you added to UA L article. As you know, we went through a number of going overs but the article is now better than it was, thanks! If you have time, please look at Bukovina's recent history and talk (this is not at all urgent, BTW). I don't want things to appear that I chased off a Romanian editor who objected to my edit there. We then had a little exchange of thoughts in talk, but overall, I think the edit was balanced. You see, I am trying to be even more cautious then usually, when dealing with UA-RO touchy topics after having been attacked, cursed and, finally, chased out of Transnistria article (an archived talk:Transnistria makes a fascinating reading, BTW). I certainly don't generalize and obviously aggressive and courteous editors are abundant of any ethnicity. Regards, --Irpen 04:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, though I really didn't do much. :) I only rarely get involved in articles about the history of Eastern Europe, BTW, because they tend to be plagued by a certain kind of editors (*cough* romantic nationalists *cough*) who insist on describing events from their country's POV. If you look further up on my talk page, you'll see a dispute I had with a Romanian editor of that kind. I'm sorry to hear you ran into trouble on the Transnistria article. If you need help on a controversial subject like that, I'd be happy to come along and give you a hand. -- Nikodemos 10:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

For now, and only if you have time, read Talk:Transnistria/archive 1 and Talk:Transnistria. That should keep you busy for a while, but would give you a good handle of what one has to deal with when "Romantic nationalists" get deeply involved. To get back to the article, I will have to set aside time I wanted to spend on others, but if 2-3 reasonable editors would agree to commit to work with an article together, I would join. Alone, I would get too upset with rude remarks from some editors. I do not generalize. Some editors from Romania did try to voice reason and compromise in the article, but the less civil ones were also more active (I don't want to call names). Again, I am not asking you to get involved, since I know that you may regret later and I am sure, you have other things to do in your life. But if you are interested, please drop me a note. Have a great weekend! --Irpen 16:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Draft of the next step

Please look at the draft in the top of User:Pmanderson/Preston_Brooks and edit, and decide if you would like to sign. Septentrionalis 21:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC) (Preston Brooks was an American bully of the nineteenth century

I have filed an WP:RfAr against Ultramarine. Septentrionalis 17:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Notification of you being an involved party in the following Request for arbitration [4]. Ultramarine 19:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of communism

I've been asked to investigate whether the ongoing dispute over the Criticisms of communism article is mediatable. From looking at the history and the talk page, it seems that there are two divergent versions of the article that differ in a significant number of ways. It would be in Wikipedia's interest to coalesce these versions into a single version. I would like to arrange a discussion amongst the editors in question with the goal of reaching a single, mutually acceptable article so we can end this dispute. Please get back to me over your willingness to mediate this issue. The four editors I've identified as party to this dispute are Ultramarine, Septentrionalis, Nikodemos and Robert A West; this message is being sent to all four of you. If any of you are willing to allow one of the others to act as representative (thereby reducing the number of parties to the mediation), or knows of someone else who should be included, please let me know. I am willing to act as mediator; if anybody is unwilling for me to serve in that capacity, I will instead help you to find another mutually acceptable mediator. Mediation is, of course, a voluntary process, and you are not required to participate in mediation. The page is currently protected, however; a successful mediation of this dispute will speed the process of getting the page unprotected, so I strongly recommend that mediation be pursued.

Regards, Kelly Martin 17:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Logic of an Opt Out Clause of the Social Contract

I'm writing because I hate to see consigned to the dusty cyber archives your wonderful statement of some time ago that you believe everybody should be offered an "opt out" of the social contract. I'd like to explore the logic of that statement, with the understanding that in doing so I'm exploring the implications of one of your principles, not any of mine (I don't believe I've ever opted in, and regard myself as 'out' until I do.)

But this is your talk page, so let's talk about you. Why would anyone offer an opt out? Well, its probably because the whole notion of social contract is at heart a theory of social obligation. You believe that governments should continue to exist, should continue to impose taxes, make regulations, etc. You recognise that doing these things by force alone is very expensive, and tricky -- just paying the prison guards alone can get tough -- that such impositions work better when a lot of the people subject to such taxes and regulations feel obliged to (not just frightened into) compliance. So a theory of obligation is a good thing, in your eyes. Am I right so far?

Yet the theory of obligation based upon the resemblance of membership in society to any actual contract runs into some obvious problems. There is no contradiction in terms in the phrase "anarchic society," and anarchists whether of Bakunin's variety or of Friedman's or of some others will want to know why they are thought to have given a promise to abandon and ignore their own convictions for the sake of assisting you in realizing yours?

Your answer to that reasonable question is the opt out. "You could opt out if you wanted to, but then you'd lose a variety of benefits, and since you haven't done so, you have implicitly opted in, so the effectuation of your contrary visions will have to wait for some other incarnation. During this one you should keep your implied promises."

But since no sovereign on earth offers such an opt out, I think we can take it as a legitimate conclusion from your premises that no society that now exists is legitimate, and there exists no such thing as an obligation to pay a tax or obey a regulation that one could through subterfuge avoid.

Have I read you right? Whether I have or not, thus far, there is a lot more that might be said. Were the (late) Branch Davidians an example of a community who tried to "opt out" in the manner that you would formalize? --Christofurio 19:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine has been accepted. As Ultramarine has made complaints against you also, your editing behavior will be considered as well as his. Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence. Fred Bauder 20:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. -- Nikodemos 23:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Black book of communism

Bit confused - i didn't revert. I just edited.. Are u the sole editor? -max rspct 11:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not the sole editor; in fact, it was the editor right before you (Ultramarine) who reverted. Then you made some edits to his reverted version... And I took the article back to my version, which I believe is far closer to what a book review article should be like. I am afraid there will be a dispute around it, however, and you are more than welcome to comment on the Talk page. -- Nikodemos 20:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Castro Cult dispute

You've had a discussion on this subject with TJive which he added to Talk:Cult of personality#Fidel_Castro. After a long discussion I've now written an abbreviation that, in my view, settles the matter. Maybe you'd like to have a look and have another say on the subject. I've written a text for the article on 16 September, but that keeps on getting removed and put back again. So some more input is needed (possibly a vote?).

I've also sent this message to the other previous contributors to the discussion, Cryptnotic, TJive, Willmcw and Joolz. DirkvdM 09:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Silverback

Please take a deep breath, walk around the room, and reconsider the tone of your comments. If Silverback is a Wikipedia troll, you're feeding him. If he's not (and that's my bet), yelling at him may be counterproductive. (If you stand by them after reconsideration, fine; they're your comments.) Septentrionalis 03:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not consider my comments to be yelling; exasperated, yes, but not yelling. I'm sorry if they came off that way. I did not insult Silverback in any way; nor do I intend to. -- Nikodemos 04:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You didn't insult him; but you did appear very angry, which is troll-food. Septentrionalis 04:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to question

The empirical support for the democratic peace theory is certainly a very strong argument against all forms of dictatorships, both left and right. I have also spent a considerable time arguing against scientific racism in several articles, one attempt by the extreme right to undermine liberal democracy. Ultramarine 21:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It has been my intention for some time to describe findings from research on economics and happiness. Unfortunately, the current conflict has left me with little time for it. The results may not be what the more fanatical "right" supporters of capitalism would like and may provide some interesting support for more "left" (but not communist) policies. It is still only a stub but I have now started here User:Ultramarine/sandbox Economics and happiness. However, my position in arbitration case is the same as before. Ultramarine 17:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOVenforcer's hit list

You should be aware that User:NPOVenforcer has added you to his enemy's list on his User page. Welcome to the club. :P Kit 18:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. He seems to be a particularly persistent troll. -- Nikodemos 02:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

An RfC has been formed on this topic: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NPOVenforcer. I have not signed off on it yet, but plan to contribute later. Kit 14:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As of this time, User:NPOVenforcer has been indefinitely blocked by User:Ral315 as per the reasons stated on the RfC above. Ral315 has also deleted the enemy's list. Kit 06:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi there! I came by your talk page because it says you are a native speaker of Romainian. There is a famous violin piece called Hora staccato. Could you tell me what "hora" means in Romanian? Thanks for your help! --HappyCamper 02:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a kind of dance, where the dancers form a circle and place their hands on each other's shoulders. See Hora. -- Nikodemos 22:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Salut! pe pagina: Moldovan language se duce un adevarat razboi pentru sustinerea limbii romane, tu de ce nu iei apararea?

Edits at Fascism

Hi. I just spent a while with that article with the goal of citing everything and removing all weasel terms. Would you be willing to rethink the wording of some of your additions? Anything that is not scrupulously referenced is an invitation for every other editor to add some more uncited material. Thanks for considering it. Jkelly 04:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Generally, the introduction to an article is supposed to summarize the issue at hand, rather than offer a rigorous analysis with citations. We could write an introduction that simply quoted a number of dictionaries and history books on the subject of fascism, but that would confuse the reader and look, well, ugly. I think we should leave the dictionary quotes where they are now, in the "definition" section that comes immediately after the intro.

Having said that, I am sure you have noticed that I have rewritten the intro to be as balanced as possible. My goal is to finally put a stop to arguments over the definition of fascism by simply stating the fact that there is no universally agreed upon definition of fascism, and the (very important) fact that everyone attempts to define fascism as the opposite of their own views. You are more than welcome to edit the new intro if you consider it necessary, of course, but please bear in mind the two facts mentioned above. -- Nikodemos 04:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Right-wing politics

Could I ask you to look in at Talk:Right-wing_politics#Two_versions? I tried posting to WP:3O, but no one seems to be chiming in. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I am very pressed for time these days, but I'll try to look over it... I really believe we should work out a better way to deal with inevitably controversial articles like that. -- Nikodemos 05:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggested merger of Japanese fascism into Japanese nationalism

May I ask why you feel that the article on Japanese fascism should be merged into Japnese nationalism? You didn't put any reasoning for this change in the talk page for Japanese fascism. - DNewhall

As the article itself states, the application of the term "fascism" to Japan is controversial. The article on Japanese nationalism is longer, more detailed and better written, and already discusses the potentially "fascist" side of Imperial Japan. Japanese fascism, if it exists, is clearly a subset or a particular manifestation of Japanese nationalism. -- Nikodemos 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD

Hello again. Recently I've been having difficulties in getting a sufficient amount of feedback from the top caliber editors of the history and politics articles-- needed in order to establish a consensus in the vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. It'll be much appreciated if you can take a look. Regards. 172 22:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Our forum

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant cathegory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedian%27s_notice_board

--Anittas 19:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

romanian Alexander for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated User:Alexander_007 as admin. Let's vote for him! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 20:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

User:RJII

I'm considering opening a RFC against RJII if he doesn't cut it out. Would you be willing to join in this? Firebug 05:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but I'm sad to say he's been at it for an entire year. He's not technically breaking any rules, but I'm sure we could find dozens of users willing to testify that he is a POV warrior. -- Nikodemos 05:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And just what "POV" am I warrioring for? I'm ready to be amused. RJII 06:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism. There is more than ample evidence. -- Nikodemos 06:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Please do start an arbitration case against me trying to prove that I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I'm ready for some laughs. I haven't the slightest inclination to push any POV on Wikipedia. RJII 06:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And I haven't the slightest inclination to get bogged down in a lengthy arbitration case with you unless you truly give me no choice. If you wish to hide your POV, be my guest, but, while you're at it, try to be more reasonable in resolving disputes and you'll spare us both a lot of effort. -- Nikodemos 06:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You're the one that needs to be more reasonable. You are a clear violator of Wikipedia ethics, as has been witnessed in the economic fascism vote. You even campaigned for votes (which is not against the rules but considered unethical), and not even that, you misrepresenting the contents of the article to the people you were trying to elicit votes from. Then when you lost the vote, you redirected the page without consensus. And, this is only the tip of the iceberg of unethical behavior from you on Wikipedia. RJII 07:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not campaign for votes; you will notice that I did not tell anyone how to vote, but merely informed them of the situation. While we are on the subject of unethical behavior, however, I wonder what one should think of your obvious (and not very effective) attempts to conceal your own political views in the hope that this will dispell any suspicions of you being a POV warrior. Off the top of my head, I remember three different users noting the fact that you are an anarcho-capitalist, and I remember you fuming with indignation every time at the horrible, horrible thing they did in daring to guess your POV. You should relax, RJII - after all, this is "just a game", and there's no point in hiding something that everyone knows. -- Nikodemos 07:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind if you think I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I think that's absolutely hilarious. But, don't assert it to others without proof. And, you did campaign for votes. You left messages on the Talk pages of individuals who you had good reason to believe they would vote against the article. And, beyond that, you misrepresented the contents of the article which was doubly shady. Please don't claim that you left the note on the Talk pages of random individuals. You picked those individuals because you had some familiarity with their "POV" and felt they had a a bias that would help you in your quest to censor the article (and you distorted what tha article said to sway them). RJII 07:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be making a whole lot of unfounded assumptions there. As a matter of fact, it is true that I did not choose those individuals randomly - I chose them because I knew them as outstanding contributors to history articles. POV had nothing to do with it. How would I know if an editor's POV was for or against the existence of "economic fascism"? All I knew was that they were good historians. -- Nikodemos 07:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for another laugh. RJII 07:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you're amused. Now please don't assert things to others - you know - without proof. -- Nikodemos 07:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting without consensus and against the vote (vandalism)

According to the adminstrator who took the vote, the result was "keep." You are committing vandalism by redirecting the article without consensus. Your behavior is being reported to that adminstrator. You didn't get your way with the vote so you resort to this. How pathetic. RJII 06:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not alone in this, and the majority decision was against keep. Your own behavior is hardly exemplary. -- Nikodemos 06:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, pathetic. RJII 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

RJII user conduct

I opened a RFC against RJII. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII. I would appreciate it if you would join the RFC since you also have been the target of his POV pushing and personal attacks. Firebug 21:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this: User:Nikodemos#Average End Quality Hypothesis Also, we should talk sometime soon about our unfinished collaboration on the Nazism in relation to other concepts article. Regards, Nikodemos 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

One problem is that quality declines steadily on protected articles. Some ideas have been proposed similar to yours, where updates need to be cleared by some "editor-in-chief", but that hasn't been popular. As far as discussion regarding socialism and nazism, I've been doing quite a bit of that. Have a look @ User_talk:Kade#Fascism_2. Sam Spade 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, how can the quality of a protected article decline? If it is protected, it will stay the same, and thus its quality will also stay the same. -- Nikodemos 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The world turns, new info becomes available, and a frozen article thus declines, much like the 1911 britannica. Sam Spade 20:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

True enough, but this process is very slow. Unless we're talking about an ongoing event - in which case it wouldn't make sense to protect the article anyway - you cannot expect it to become obsolete any time soon. Most of the 1911 britannica was perfectly good in 1915, and some of it is still not obsolete even today, almost 100 years later. There is only so much you can say about certain topics; I don't see any new info becoming available on the Pythagorean theorem in the near future, for instance. Perhaps the protection policy for exceptionally good articles should come with a time limit (say, for example, between 1 and 5 years, depending on the topic). -- Nikodemos 21:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think article quality generally improves when articles are unprotected. I think there are exceptions to this which can be addressed by reverting to a stable version. What do you know about Wikipedia:Pushing_to_1.0? Sam Spade 22:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My AEQ Hypothesis predicts that there is a general trend (not just isolated exceptions) of high quality articles being harmed by continual editing. This prediction can be tested with a survey of former featured articles, as I explained on my User page. If it does turn out that a former featured article tends to lose quality over time, then action must be taken. If it turns out that former featured articles maintain their quality or get improved, on the other hand, then my hypothesis is incorrect. What do you think about the idea of such a survey? -- Nikodemos 22:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know anything about pushing to 1.0 beyond what the article says... -- Nikodemos 22:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

A good test sounds great, I am all for some empirical wiki-research ;) Sam Spade 01:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration against User:RJII

I opened a RFAr against RJII for POV pushing, incivility, and refusal to take the RFC process seriously. If you would like to join it, feel free to do so. Firebug 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

re:

a couple of replies to your comments @ User_talk:Kade#Fascism 2. Cheers, Sam Spade 05:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

socialism in practice

There is no universally agreed upon "socialism in practice". Some say that welfare states are socialist. Other say that communist states are socialist. Yet others say that socialism has never been applied in practice. In any case, since equality is the very heart and soul of socialism, saying that socialism rejects equality in practice is like saying that socialism rejects socialism in practice. If X rejects equality, then X is not socialist. End of story. All socialists agree with this. -- Nikodemos 11:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

equality is not the heart and soul of socialism. Lies are. And socialism does not reject lies in practice ;) Sam Spade 21:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine case. Raul654 17:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)