User talk:Geoff Plourde/oldtalk

Ge o. 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CurrentRfAs

"Indo Aryan Migration " article

Please compare this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=107288902&oldid=107029876. Please note that Indo Aryan Migration is highly controversial topic bearing it's impact not only on South Asia but on world history. Migration of such people and causing a huge impact on South Asia is questioned by archeologists, anthropologists,language scholars and many others in concerned fields from India as well as Western world based on absence or presence of evidences which goes against this theory. This is just a theory and to oppose it's potryal as a fact is surely disturbing to supporters who are facing more stronger evidences and opposition even from Western world. Hence, they are deleting details which makes people to understand opposing sides ( like B.B. Lal 's links )

The problem is created by continuous deletions by Crculver or Dab.They are deleting Saraswati river 's mention in very vast Sanskrit texts, deleting B.B. Lal 's paper's links , Shrikant Talageri 's properly ref. sentence regarding Airyanem Vaejah etc.

Is it wrong to write that XYZ is supported by supporters ( content is already written in article as some fact ) and XYZ is opposed by opposers of this theory ? Is it wrong to present neutral situation instead of presenting something as a fact ( as done by Crculver,Dab )? This 150 years old theory has been modified from the root level as and when strong opposing evidences appeared, but it was proposed without any archelogical or anthopological evidences or literally deriving some wrong meaning from ancient Rig Veda texts ( opposed to traditional deeper Indian meanings ).

If you have any questions or doubts then do write to me. WIN 05:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you can see the same thing happening in Indus Valley Civilization article & talk pages rightnow. Indian or Western concerned scholars' ref. sentences are deleted and instead somebody else's sentences are cited. It creates wrong impression to readers. My stand is that do not delete points which is unpleasing ( even though from many scholars of exact concern field ). If you want to write other view then write it with ref. as XYZ is opposed by ABC. Then, let reader decide whose points seems to be more truthful. I think your help will be required in Indus Valley Civilization article also. WIN 05:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean "explain"? Any point in particular that hasn't been rehashed dozens of times Talk:Indo-Aryan migration? If you are interested as to why we are getting droves of confused pov-pushers on the topic, I recommend you read Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies). Confused political allegiances motivate people to tout utterly discredited remote possibilities as "emerging scenarios" or "recent developments", and we're trying to cut the crap per WP:Undue_weight. If you're into the topic, you'll just have to plod through the discussions and rambling prose of the articles; I've given up trying to make them anything like clean or readable, the best we can do is keep the worst propaganda out. dab (�) 08:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll just have to say ditto to what dab wrote. WIN's English is atrocious, and his additions to article and Talk space are not only incoherent and unintelligible, but extremely long-winded. He seems to have no formal training in the subject, and does not have a grasp of what the mainstream of the field considers acceptable academic sources. He has been a nuisance here for years now, and I've come to revert his edits as a matter of course, because I have honestly never seen a productive edit by him. Please note that dab and I have a long history of productive edits--though I've been forced to spend most of my time reverting vandalism and linkspam of late--, we speak English at a native level, and we are very familiar with the academic study of this field, so please do try to understand that WIN is a detriment to these articles. CRCulver 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that you have seen my above mentioned link and compared the points. Have you found any grammatically incorrect in it ? Are B.B. Lal 's External links or Saraswati river's addition `grammetically incorrect' as told by Dab & CrCulver  ? WIN 11:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not as clear as Dab has portrayed. Dab is doing exactly the same things that he is accusing others of doing and he is very uncivil in his posts. He frequently removes relevant, referenced material and replaces it with his views. He also misrepresents author’s positions and provides inaccurate references. To give 2 examples from current page: First, Indigenous Aryan Theory is Dab’s creation. I have requested reference for this theory, but none has been provided. Second his edit [[1]] has removed Hock’s statement and is misrepresenting Paul Thieme position regarding substrata. Please see Thieme’s position at [[2]] which is properly referenced. There are Hindutva elements that are involved in this debate, but at same time there are serious scholars who have published material against this also. Correct thing would be remove all propaganda (both for and against) and discuss published material acceptable to WP:V. Thanks.Sbhushan 15:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Geo.plrd, if you have no formal training in this subject, how do you know what is "POV"? I suggest you stay out of it. CRCulver 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Witzel is formally trained in Sanskrit and is Sanskrit professor. But then also he is found to mistranslate that famous BSS verse wrong ( forgetting basic Sanskrit grammer rules ) in his zeal to find some scriptual support to Aryan migration hypothesis. So, your point is invalid. POV should be kept aside and only published materials should be written as suggested by Sbhushan. This is controverial topic and hence published material should be refered. Dab's behaviour in the subject is like a dictator. WIN 12:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do nothing else, make sure that sources cited meet WP:RS (peer-reviewed sources should be easily available for a subject well-explored in academia) and make sure that the sources cited actually support the material in question. CiteCop 04:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for having tried to mediate between the different parties at the Indo-Aryan migration article. Even if the results may not have been spectacular, it was a praiseworthy and good effort. Thanks. --RF 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're still interested in mediating, I've posted my take on the latest flap on the Talk page. I'm involved, so my summary may be questioned. rudra 07:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies

Why don't you use meta:Meta:WikiProject on open proxies? This would help also sister project, not only English Wikipedia. --Derbeth ^talk 21:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. Have you tried to change this? --Derbeth ^talk 09:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced mediation

We're up to six trainees now with no actual requests for mediation yet. If you'd like to get some practice the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal needs help. BTW with this many people it's easier to post general stuff to Wikipedia talk:Community enforced mediation/Requests. Please bookmark it and thanks for volunteering. Regards, Durova^Charge! 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The LaRouche intro mediation case

Well, a lot has transpired since the request for mediation was filed. A new editor, Dking, is a published critic of LaRouche who was sued by LaRouche for defamation. He began to add his rather unusual theories to the article to the point where they dominated it. This led to a fierce edit war and ultimately to article protection. The article was briefly unprotected, at which point the edit war immediately broke out again, and it was re-protected and remains protected now.

There are a couple of editors with a strongly anti-LaRouche POV who took Dking's side in the edit war. They are Mgunn and Calton.

The other side of the edit war was a group of editors who might be described as either pro-LaRouche or, depending on your frame of reference, anti-Defamation. They are myself, MaplePorter, HonorableSchoolboy, and NathanDW.

There were four other editors who were anti-LaRouche but did not take part in the edit war: SlimVirgin, Will Beback, 172, and Cberlet.

In addition, there was one pro-LaRouche editor, ManEatingDonut, who was permanently banned by SlimVirgin and is therefore no longer in the equation.

Finally, the most recent addition to the talk page is from Pascal.Tesson, who is neutral on LaRouche but says the article suffers from an extreme case of Conflict of Interest, because so much of it was written by extreme opponents of LaRouche. I agree. Check out his post here, and then I suppose you should wade through the past two months of back-and-forth on the talk page. I hope that this summary of events was useful. --Tsunami Butler 07:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is a Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. --Tsunami Butler 22:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: East of Eden

Please let me take care of closing it. --Ideogram 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan migration

What is the difference between a "chatpage" and a talkpage? I find that too much time is wasted with idle chatter on talk pages already. If you want to move the article, you should make a proposal on talk, preferably after familiarizing yourself with the topic. If you find I am in violation of OWN, you should take up the matter with me directly, and failing that, open a user conduct RfC. If I "OWNed" the article in any way, it would have been cleaned up months ago. But since I recognize that the article cannot be "owned", it will probably remain broken indefinitely. The policy in question is WP:UNDUE. I am well aware of scholarly mainstream opinion on the matter. The article is under constant attack from editors who either cannot understand or do not want to respect WP's principle of WP:NPOV means that views are presented in proportion to their academic notability. I realize that the topic is not only academic, and that it plays an unfortunate role in Indian religious nationalist propaganda. This is why we have Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) which has the sole purpose of documenting the political side of the topic. We do get an endless influx of Hindu propagandist editors bent on misrepresenting academic opinion. WIN is just a comparatively harmless example of these. The only thing that stands between these editors and a Wikipedia that is instrumentalised for political propaganda is Wikipedia policy and the investment of editors ready to engage in anti-propaganda vigilantism. I am prepared to discuss with anyone who brings up clean academic references in good faith. I am not prepared, nor am I obliged by Wikipedia policy, to discuss anything else. regards, dab (�) 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for having tried to mediate between the different parties at the Indo-Aryan migration article. Even if the results may not have been spectacular, it was a praiseworthy and good effort. Thanks. --RF 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Audit

Hi. Please direct policy proposals to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) first, and get a sample of informed feedback, before taking it to the bulletin board. Though you may want to re-read WP:BURO, WP:VOTE and WP:STRAW beforehand, and if you still wish to pursue it then fix the text-formatting as there are line-breaks everywhere which makes it hard to read! Thanks. --Quiddity 06:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost

Right now, there are two specific positions I'm looking to fill:

• Features and admins- Compiling all the promoted administrators, articles, pictures, sounds, topics, portals, etc. It sounds like a tough job, but once you get the hang of it, it'll only take 20-30 minutes. See this week's Features and admins for an example of what you'd have to do.

• In the news- This position will take a little more time. It basically means following news stories about Wikipedia, and reporting on them (not just articles that cite Wikipedia, because there are too many of those to get anything useful). See this week's In the news for an example (although I'd really prefer the article to be longer than that, I had to publish a short version this week due to time).

However, what I'd really like most is a couple reporters to just fill in the cracks, reporting on things that don't fit into one of our features (things like Michael Snow's report on Wikipedia traffic from Google, and Sam Blacketer's report on the furor over Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing). If they're big enough for a full story, they get one; if you can only make a paragraph's worth of copy out of it, you can move it into the News and notes report, which covers all the small stories. Most of these stories can be easily taken by reading Foundation-l and WikiEN-l mailing lists. Also, if I see a story worth covering, I'll leave a note in the newsroom about it, under "special stories". If you do decide that you want to write about a story, just make a note that you'll take care of that particular story.

All stories are due around 17:00 UTC every Monday. If you'd like to take a stab at it, that'd be great; let me know if you have any further questions, or if you need help with your story. I'm not around much on the weekends, but I'll try to keep an eye on my talk page. Ral315 » 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, that sounds good. Report anything you're going to write to the newsroom. Thanks a lot. Ral315 » 09:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AMA (Frater Xyzzy)

Please look into this case due to it being very complex (Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Frater Xyzzy). Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche mediation

I am a bit confused. I saw your note on the LaRouche talk page about mediation. However, I already applied for mediation with Will Beback (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected/17#Free_Trade_and_related_articles) and it was rejected because Will Beback refused to cooperate. Is this a related matter? Are there two different mediation committees? --HonourableSchoolboy 22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche

I would answer the questions (1) Yes, DKings edits do not violate NPOV policy (2) Mostly ok (3) Mostly ok (4) yes (5) no, Dkings edit don't violate, but this is an area where constructive discussion could take place (6) no (7) no (8) no (9) yes. This my main problem.

For example I removed and ended up in a minor edit war over: He is reported to be highly regarded in Russia and China,

This is obvious LaRouche puffery, and the references don't even get close to justifying the claim. (You could not say "David Duke is highly regarded in the U.S." and then cite some nutty David Duke supporter that says he is a leading US politician.) Furthermore, the first citation is from LaRouche material (suspect, especially given the outcome of the previous LaRouche arbcom case) and the second citation simply doesn't say what LaRouche supporters say it says. -- Mgunn 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

My removal of the line, "He is reported to be highly regarded in Russia and China" is why Tsunami Butler started the initial arbitration request. I think reviewing that statement and reviewing the sources is very instructive because it shows the silly POV puffery and sloppy research that pro-LaRouche editors often have engaged in. What does this line even mean? I think an interesting discussion on the influence of LaRouche was given by DKing on the talk page...

"...I think the facts will show indisputably that the LaRouche movement has gained access to and varying degrees of influence with well-known and even quite powerful people in various countries at various times as well as garnering a large amount of media attention from the press in developing countries, where LaRouche's claims to be an important U.S. political leader are often taken at face value. The foreign press and apparently some foreign public figures (such as Dr. Mahathir of Malaysia) are attracted to his conspiracy theories and his criticisms of U.S. and Israeli policy. Foreign governments have also demonstrated interest in some of the elaborate and imaginative development plans that his EIR think tank churns out--for instance, EIR's promotion of the Kra Canal plan, which garnered LaRouche much publicity and government access in Thailand for some years. LaRouche has also gathered a respectful audience by his habit of boning up on the scientific and cultural achievements of the country he visits; in a speech in Moscow several years ago, LaRouche praised the work of several distinguished Soviet era scientists who are almost unknown in the West. This could not but have caused intellectuals in the audience with a nationalist bent to give him the benefit of the doubt in spite of whatever criticisms of his ideology they might have read. I think we need to distinguish between the following: (1) short-range relationships of mutual political usefulness with governments and powerful people (who often distance themselves from LaRouche when the relationship proves embarrassing); (2) relationships with senior citizens who once were powerful and/or influential but have latched onto LaRouchism in their dotage; (3) influence based on one or two issues (such as fusion energy or Latin American debt cancellation) but not on LaRouche's underlying ideology; (4) alliances of convenience (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) with notorious people such as Manuel Noriega, who called for LaRouche's release from prison while himself incarcerated; and (5) genuine longterm ideological influence (i.e., buying into LaRouche's world view). LaRouche's followers can easily provide examples of (1) through (4) from the mainstream media without relying on EIR (which makes me think the above dispute is basically an attempt to create a precedent for accepting EIR as a Wikipedia source). As to (5)--examples of lasting ideological influence with important public figures other than elderly retirees--this seems to be as rare as the ivory-billed woodpecker, but if LaRouche's followers can document such examples from reputable sources, I for one would like to hear about it.--Dking 00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)"

I think, if you read the discussions surrounding this one edit, I think it will give you a good feel on the overall nature of the disputes. -- Mgunn 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In the above quoted statement I invited the LaRouchians to present documentation to prove that a single political person of real influence has bought into LaRouche's ideology. In the three months since I made that invitation, they have not presented a single example in China, Russia or anywhere else.--Dking 20:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC re User:Dbachmann

I have opened an RfC related to IAT at [[3]]. Could you please add your views to that.Sbhushan 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment from an article page

Thank you for helping out with the Biography assessment drive. Good news. Outriggr recently designed a script that will cut youf biography assessment time down by about ten fold (what took ten hours now may only take one hour with Outriggr's script). For more information, please see the 'assessment from article page' discussion. -- Jreferee 20:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MyWikiBiz

Regarding [4], please do not attempt to offer legal advice, and especially not in your capacity as a RFCU clerk. Please stick to the intended purpose of RFCU and direct all other commentary elsewhere; this applies even more so when you are acting as a clerk. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion by Dab in Sarasvati River for ref. sentences

Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=114746860&oldid=114729960 for my additions in Sarasvati River article. They are well ref. and taken almost straight from the writer. Then also Dab is deleting in the name of `grammatical'. Dab is deleting as they gives those informations which can give reader better understanding about whole subject ( but that is unpleasing to AIT/IAM theory supporters like Dab ).

So, I urge you to check it and write about it in the talk page. WIN 11:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche intro

I'm going to remove this case from the list of MedCab cases. You can continue to mediate it without MedCab oversight. --Ideogram 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Geo.plrd/Embassy

I don't think this is an acceptable use of Wikipedia space, as it is in no way related to working on Wikipedia (per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE). Please remove the banner from Talk:Conservapedia, and find another way to act as a go-between for Conservapedia. Thank you. --Quiddity 18:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain what policy would stipulate, but I would imagine that it should be kept off Wikipedia entirely. You might like to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) for a precise answer. --Quiddity 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy preventing this is WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hostile and ultra-consevative Admins on Conservapedia?

Hi, I post this question/comment here since it seems your embassy might be removed in the near future.

background

I just posted the following entry on Conservapedia: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ASex&diff=47840&oldid=47807 and I got banned for it. I guess I shouldn't have told them/you we weren't married yet...

Also it seems I got infinite ban for the comment... http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:PER9000 PER9000 14:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I cannot contact the admins since I got banned on all pages. But I am encouraged to contact admins :-)

People like this (you?) scare me - I think this is worse then doublethink/crimethink.

some questions

• I'd honestly like to know your definition of family friendly.
• Also I'd like to know if you find it "appropriate" of an encyclopedia (even if it is censored) to tell nothing about sex (not even mentioning that sex is how all (higher) life reproduce)?

PER9000 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is also not the page to talk about Conservapedia, this is Wikipedia. WP:NOT also applies to talk pages. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

HignInBC: I agree, sorry about that - I'll try to move this discussion elsewhere. PER9000 15:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

GEO.PLRD: could you please post a reply to my using the form in my blog instead of on this page. Thanks. // PER9000 15:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Geo, I think it might be best if you did not conduct Conservapedia business here. The two projects are incompatible on a number of levels. I note CP has email enabled, so I suggest you use that instead. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Starwood Festival

An RFC on the mention of child care and youth programming in the Starwood Festival article has been opened[5]. If you are interested, please read the information there and the discussion that led to it immediately above it[6] on the Starwood Festival discussion page. Your input would be appreciated. Rosencomet 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)