Talk:New Imperialism/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about New Imperialism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

talk to Talk:Economic theories of the New Imperialist era

Why does 172 keep removing the text here? Much of this was just posted yesterday, and the comments by erzengel (back in April) are certainly relevant. Pizza Puzzle

I'm placing it in this archive, not removing it. 172

Pizza Puzzle: anyone is free to archive talk. You can find the latest messages above in archive 6. This time I'm going to protect the page. 172

And anyone is free to unarchive it, which I have just done - there is no reason whatsoever to archive one day old talk on a matter which has not yet been resolved unless the talk page is so long that people cannot edit it (which it is not). Such archiving makes it harder to contribute to recent discussion. --Camembert

Pizza Puzzle, banned under the name Vera Cruz for his conduct on this page, is messing up the proper layout and format, gradually deconstructing this article in a series of so-called "minor edits." To avoid the Vera Cruz/New Imperialism debacle, well-chronicled on the mailing list and the talk page, this page will be protected. 172

Don't be ridiculous. Look at what you actually reverted - now seriously, does that look like "deconstruction" to you? I have unprotected the article, and have also unprotected this talk page: I'm intriguied as to why you thought either was necessary or appropriate. It is in any case very bad form to protect pages one is directly involved with. Please do not do this again, or I shall be sorely tempted to ask for your sysop status to be revoked. --Camembert

Don't be fooled by Pizza Puzzle's misleading claims that he is not Vera Cruz. Please read this message, from Jtdril on the Vera/Pizza relation:

Please don't treat us like fools, PP. Most of the people have known who you are from day 1. (A simple check of IPs, location etc apart from anything else shows it.) I don't care who you are. All I care is that we don't have a repeat of the Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber performances.You know why and how you got banned repeatedly before. Just avoid doing that again, OK, Adam. That way everyone will be happy and you will be able to continue to edit wiki and most people will simply deliberately ignore the past. It is in your interest to avoid opening up those old wounds. But if you return to your trouble-making old ways then you will be hardbanned again and this time it will be permanent. A lot of people, not withstanding the past, have trusted you and shown respect for you as PP because your standard of behaviour was a big improvement. If you piss them off by acting as before they will never trust you again and treat you to the same all out war waged on Michael and DW, with you being banned the moment you are caught on and every single letter and full stop you place on wiki deleted on sight. IMHO that would be a shame given the talents you could bring, and the contributions you could make, to wikipedia.

It is entirely in your hands. But don't insult the intelligence of many intelligent wikiepedians here by playing the "oh golly gosh. Who is this Vera?" lark. There are plenty of wikipedians who can establish within seconds what IP you are using, where you are physically calling from, etc. They have done so (they did it almost as soon a you first came on and established exactly who you are. Nobody on wiki will be fooled by protests of innocence. If you don't want to talk about who you really are, then just don't talk about it at all. But pretending you are not who you demonstrably are is one sure way of generating bad will towards yourself. Just drop the issue, keep up the standards you set as PP and don't revert to previous behaviour and all will be well. But it is entirely up to you whether you want to stay and continue to be a respected working colleague here on wikipedia or whether you want to muck it up and be kicked off. And if you get kicked off again it will be for good, and not a single wikipedian will be supporting your presence on wiki again. So stop messing and get back to work, OK! FearÉIREANN 04:42 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yet, after this message, Pizza Puzzle made this dubious claim on the New Imperialism talk page: "I don't have a clue why 172 thinks I am some other user. Pizza Puzzle"

Yes, 172, both you and Jtdirl think Pizza Puzzle is Lir, but that doesn't necessarily make it so, and it certainly doesn't make protecting pages that Pizza Puzzle (whoever he may be) makes perfectly good edits to acceptable. --Camembert

It's so frustrating that each time someone deals with this user under any name some naïve; well-intentioned user has to jump in play his games. Take a look at the talk archive. You'll see the disaster that I'm striving to prevent preemptively. He starts with a series of "minor edits" and before you know it he has hijacked the article. This article has been a personal obsession for this user for over half a year. It is the one that got him banned under the name Vera Cruz. His only objective is to annoy and humiliate me. Please, please, take a look at this article's history and you'd see that I’m taking the only measures possible to avert a disaster. 172

hijacking...preemption...*cough* Pizza Puzzle

172, I am trying very hard to keep my temper, but you are making it very difficult indeed for me. I am not "naïve" in this matter - I am well aware of the history of this article. It does not matter what has happened in the past, nothing untoward is happening now. And I repeat, protecting an article which you are directly invovled with is very bad form, especially when there is no need to protect it in any case. If Pizza Puzzle - or anybody else - continually makes changes to the article against consensus, then we can consider protecting the page, but this is certainly not what is going on now, and page protection is very much a last resort. In protecting the page, you not only keep Pizza Puzzle out of it, you keep all other non-sysops out of it as well. Protecting the talk page is particularly pointless. And I REPEAT: it is not useful to archive (some would say "hide") talk which is one day old and about an issue which is still unresolved. --Camembert

And for crying out LOUD: archives of article talk pages do not go in the user namespace!! --Camembert

That was just the existing format. This can be fixed later.

I did fix it. Then you unfixed it. --Camembert

I found this good quotation by a very trusted, respected contributor about Vera Cruz's conduct on New Imperialism. This will explain my sentiments:

"172, I don't think I can be much help. I cannot reason with VC once he takes it into her head to start "improving" an article with a thousand cuts and changes any more than you can. I don't mean that the task is difficult, I mean that the task, so far as I can tell, is impossible. It makes no real difference if there are dozens of other contributors bringing evidence and reasoned argument to the task: once VC has decided to "improve" an article it just becomes a mindless edit war until she either gets her way or makes a tactical withdrawl in order to concentrate on "improving" something else for a while. Sometimes, these really are improvements. I'm not sure if this is evidence of an intermittent desire to contribute useful information; a camouflage tactic for the real intent; or simply examples of the usual random changes which just happen to be useful ones.

The only two things you can do, so far as I can see, are (a) resign yourself to an eternity of filling up the Wiki database with endless reversions when you could be doing something productive, or (b) on VC's arrival, give up on whatever article she is infesting and go elsewhere." User:172

I understand what you sentiments are, there is no need for you to elucidate them further, but please try to understand the points I'm making, which I shall recap here:

Protecting a page is a last resort.
Just because you suspect Pizza Puzzle is Lir doesn't mean to say that he/she is.
Whoever Pizza Puzzle may be, and whatever they may have done in the past, their recent edits to this article are completely OK. If future edits are not OK, we can deal with that as it happens.
Archiving talk which is only one day old on matters not yet resolved is counter-productive.

I am going to leave this page for an hour and have several cups of tea. I hope things will have calmed down when I return. --Camembert

um - this page is getting kinda long, but I dont think archiving is the right idea since the last half of this is basically 172 arguing that Im a terrorist. Perhaps we can move all that to Pizza Puzzle is a Terrorist so that the actual discussion is visible? Pizza Puzzle

Yes, possibly the latter part of this talk page should be moved somewhere (if nobody else wants it, it can go on my talk page). --Camembert

This article got you banned under the name Vera Cruz. Over time, it will get you banned under the name Pizza Puzzle. 172

To Pizza Puzzle: Good ahead, create your own page on New Imperialism/temp and see how many Wikipedians agree with you. If you have enough supporter, then no one can stop you from modifying the main article. If you believe that you are right but most Wikipedians don't agree with you, then you should just stay away from the article and regret that nobody agrees with you. That's how democracy works. Don't let edit wars changed into the source of hate. Wshun

I can create temp pages all day long and nobody will ever see them. Pizza Puzzle

I don't think there's any point in a /temp page - Pizza Puzzle's edits are quite minor (and, as far as I can see, good), 172 is reverting them because of who he suspects Pizza Puzzle to be rather than because of what the edits are. --Camembert

The worry of Pizza Puzzle is relatively easy to settle. A simple way is to put a remainder on the current page. An alternative way is to create two temp page and temporarily change the main article into disambigious page--but it may not be acceptable to most wikipedians.

However if it is just minor edits, then it means the edit wars between 172 and Pizza Puzzle becomes personnal, then I am afraid /temp page is not a good idea and that they have to settle their differences in a more civilized way :P. Wshun

The following was moved from the Wikipedia:Village pump

User:127 protected Talk:New Imperialism, apparently to prevent me from discussing the page with other users. He also moved a huge section of text written yesterday (and today) to an "archive", the entire page he moved was nothing but discussion regarding potentional changes to "his" page; something he apparently doesnt want happening. Pizza Puzzle

Now he just protected New Imperialism because I moved a "see also" out of the middle of nowhere and put it somewhere visible. Is this guy the owner of the site or something, I don't think he likes me. Pizza Puzzle

Wikipedia_talk:Protected_page might be a better place to discuss this. The page history makes it look like there's an edit war going on. If this is the case, and 172 is involved in this, then he should not be protecting the page anyway. <quote>If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are involved to be protected, it is recommended that you contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. (from :Wikipedia:Protected_page)</quote> Angela 23:08 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

For the record, I just unprotected both pages. I am, frankly, at a loss as to why they were protected in the first place (especially the talk page). --Camembert

I suggest we create a formal mechanism to declare an edit war and rules to control it. We ban those who disregard the rules. When there is an edit war, each side should create its version like New Imperialism/temp1 and New Imperialism/temp2 and let others to choose which one is better-through a voting system maybe. No matter what the voting result is, the ones involving in the edit war should not start the war again unless they get new ideas. During the edit war, the article may be protected--not because we want to ban somebody from modify it, but because we don't want the edit war affecting the general public. Of course, we have to choose a mediator acceptable to both sides to oversee the edit war. Wshun

Its a good idea except that one user will leave his article at New Imperialism and the other will be forced to the temp page where they will feel marginalized and left out. Pizza Puzzle

We have Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles to report "edit wars". I'm not sure if a set of formalised rules on how to handle them would be possible, but feel free to have a go (you could start with a note on Wikipedia talk:Current disputes over articles, perhaps) - everyone would be grateful to you, I'm sure, if you could come up with a workable system. --Camembert

Each side should create its own version? That's an awful system. To suggest that we create two POV articles and vote on which one is the best seems quite bizarre to me. Each side should work together to produce an acceptable compromise. Lengthy discussion, not voting, is the best way to acheive a well-informed and intelligent result. (posted via edit conflict, twice)-- Tim Starling 00:11 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but what do u do when people refuse to discuss? Or when they insist that discussion must continue indefinitely? Pizza Puzzle

You need a good mediator to help out. User:Stephen Gilbert is doing a great job at sorting out a long running edit war on the Open Directory Project page. A temp page has been created when all concerned parties put forward their suggestions for and against various things being included. Angela

Each side with its own version is an awful system, but it is better than an ongoing edit war which may change into nonsense hatre. To win an edit war, one may need continuously modifying its own version to be plausible to most wikipedians. I believe naively that the winning version would be as NPOV as possible. Do not underestimate the power of voting. Wshun

Both sides doing alternative versions is the worst possible solution. The problem here is that we have an article that is far too big (50K!!!!) and with a bad history of edit wars, some of whom involved both protagonists and which got one banned the last time. Each side sees not merely what is happening now but is influenced by the past, seeing edits now as part of an ungoing war. 172 was wrong to protect the page, but Pizza Puzzle is hardly contributing to a good working environment by plonking large chunks of text onto 172's talk page and by provocatively implying a simple archiving of a talk page was censorship. It is in PP own interest to avoid a rerun of past battles that caused so much bad blood last time. FearÉIREANN 01:35 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

... Pizza Puzzle

talk to Talk:Economic theories of the New Imperialist era

End of content moved from village pump