User talk:Scaife/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Scaife/Archive1: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes. Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advise, please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into you signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!--SarekOfVulcan 01:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (Better late than never, right?)

[edit] Arbitration Committee election

I notice you've added the word "Yes" to a vote page for Ajwebb here. However the page you edited was a redirect to the actual voting page. Unfortunately, I don't think you have suffrage in the Arbitration Committee election, because voters have to have registered their account by September 30, 2005 and have 150 edits by January 9, 2006. However, if you stick around and make some more edits, you will be entitled to vote in future elections to the Arbitration Committee. David | Talk 19:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic peace theory

This is a long-standing controversy. If you want to get involved in it, the questions seem to me to be:

Is the present text fair to DPT, both for and against?
Is it accurate as it stands?
Are any of the individual points listed on the talk page still justified?

I've read Layne, and skimmed Owen - and several other papers.

The chief Wikipedia policies that apply are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research; neither of which is quite the same as corresponding academic standards, so do read them.

The dispute (from my perspective) is that Ultramarine has read R. J. Rummel's website, and genuinely believes that Rummel has the Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Unfortunately, Ultramarine has a tendency to find that papers agree with what he expected to find.

I would appreciate such commentary as you still have courage to give.:-} Septentrionalis 23:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you understand him precisely. However, technically, his actions are not vandalism, which is defined in Wikipedia:Vandalism. I have been fighting this lost cause for months; and would prefer not to resort to deletion yet.

You are free to edit the article as you see fit. Only Ultramarine and I are bound not to revert. (Do read the three-revert rule, however.) Removal of redundant tags is also perfectly acceptable.Septentrionalis 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to go through with this, more is needed to delete an article. See How to delete an article. If you go through with those steps, I will support deletion; but I would recommend just re-editing the article: but Be bold!.Septentrionalis 20:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Huckabee

In regards to your comment on my talk page, what you've said about the disparity across the state is correct, but the statement I removed was referring to a loss of jobs in the state overall, which is incorrect. If you would like to ammend it to say what you just did and provide a source for it, I would be fine with that. - Maximusveritas 20:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference wanted

Do you have access to a journal? Ultramarine, whose understanding of statistics is doubtful, is brandishing a borrowed quote from DEMOCRACY AND MILITARIZED INTERSTATE CONFLICT, 1816-1965 Author(s): BREMER SA Source: INTERNATIONAL INTERACTIONS 18 (3): 231-249 1993 (excuse the full caps; I'm cutting and pasting). He is under the delusion that the statement "even after controlling for a large number of factors...democracy's conflict-reducing effect remains strong" means statistical proof of causation. It will take me a while to get hold of the paper; is it possible for you to see what the paper actually says and put it in the article? Septentrionalis 20:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JP Political Stance

I think archive 8, 9b and 10 all have bits on it. I'm mostly just getting fed up with that guy coming on every morning and adding "right wing" into the article. "right wing" is loaded and he knows it. Kyaa the Catlord 12:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

His userpage says he's into left wing theory. I'm not sure if he's adding right wing cause he's intentionally inserting POV or if he is being up-front about it. I'm terribly amused by him though, but I'm not removing right wing again. He'll just add it back and I don't want to engage in silliness. :D Kyaa the Catlord 13:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Nu

My pleasure. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Nu Copyvio

I think it's great that you are trying to add on to the Sigma Nu article however after looking at the recent additions I see that they are copy and paste info and thus are not allowed on wiki unless you have permission from Sigma Nu Headquarters. Many articles of fraternities and sororities in the past have had to be deleted because of copyvios. I for one believe that wiki is too copyright paranoid in regards to fraternity/sorority articles but many others don't think so. It would be best to rewrite the recent additions. Also, it's not really a good idea to have seperate articles on the founders of the fraternity. Unless they did something outside the fraternity of historical note, they do not meet notability guidelines and thus are articles to be merged to the main Sigma Nu article. The same thing happened to founders of Delta Tau Delta --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the copyright. I've always believed that histories of fraternities can be freely distributed by I've always had a run in with admins and others who think otherwise and actually want to see the e-mail. Keep up the good work --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as the founders are concerned, I admit I'm a bit hazy on it. If you take a look at Sigma Chi several of the founders have seperate articles while others don't or were deleted. There was a discussion about it and I believe the consensus was they had to do something "outside" the fraternity that affected society. But no other guidelines were given. If the founders of Sigma Nu did do something notable in society other than founding the fraternity, then the articles on them should stand on their own. I just personally like what Delta Tau Delta did. Having the biographies on the main fraternity page allowed for a more concise history of the fraternity instead of jumping from page to page, but then again that's just me. Beware though that someone might come along and try to merge or redirect the founder's indvidual pages to the main Sigma Nu article without discussion, which has happened in the past. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Rummel

The tag represented the following question: Is it in fact true that the Correlates of War definitions are widely attributed to Rummel personally, or is this more inflation? Septentrionalis 00:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Out of courtesy to Ultramarine, I think we should try to retain the images in the article. They do give it a more lively appearance. I tried moving them to the History section, so that the are co-located with the introduction of Rummel and his ideas. I think I have my facts straight, and have made a coherent narrative out of three paragraphs that all sought to introduce Rummel for the first time. Robert A West 01:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I dunno

The diff you provided didn't quite point right.

You got yelled at LIKE THIS, so I guess that means you win though ;-)

Kim Bruning 09:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh!

Will Ultramarine ever learn to say, "Please" and "Thank you?" And will Mr. Anderson ever learn not to rise to his bait? And can four Wikipedians live in one article together and find happiness? I have paperwork due to the State of PA by Wednesday, so I really should absent myself from Wikipedia until then. I'll tune back in at the end of the week. Good luck. Robert A West 09:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I peeked! I admit it, I have no control. Where is Wikipedians Anonymous? But, the picture is great! ROFLMAOOOOOOOOOOheeheeheeheehee. Robert A West 09:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is just funny and I am adding it for my amusement

[edit] Problems? I ain't got no steenkin' problem!

Hey, good luck on your dissertation. I am falling into the same problems with my thesis as well.

I am relatively new here, but I am pretty sure that when a discussion thread [1] has been dead for a week or so it is ok to archive. Do you need consensus for this? Seriously, it probably wouldn't bother me if it was anyone else doing the complaining, but still I would like your advice. --Scaife 08:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyway... Cheers! --Scaife 09:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One example, that Pmanderson refuses to answer the objections to Gowa does not mean that the dispute has disappeared.Ultramarine 09:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow I have never had a stalker before.... I feel so wanted. --Scaife 09:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe, I think ultramarine was watching this page already, so unfortunately, no stalker ;-) Kim Bruning 09:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil conduct

I have not made any uncivil remarks. However, I have been called a stalker. Please state exactly what you object to. Ultramarine 09:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Next to typing in ALL CAPS before, which is considered impolite, you have also not assumed good faith thus getting into an unnescesary childish match with two other people. I take it those were merely brief oversights made in the heat of the moment. Kim Bruning 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rolling one's eyes can express exasperation ~~or condescension~~ .

They inserted this picture and you accuse only me? Ultramarine 09:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I was accused of being a stalker and you replied "Hehehe, I think ultramarine was watching this page already, so unfortunately, no stalker"? I also see discussions between you and Pmanderson on this page and his, and also direct intervention on his request without informing me or giving me a chance to reply. Unfortunately, I can longer consider you an appropriate mediator.Ultramarine 10:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I do apologize for not warning you about this; Ultramarine behaved similarly the other two times the page was archived.

I was considering proposing archiving myself, on the ground that most of the disputes in the archive are resolved. It might have been better to mention it first, since archiving can break links to a talk page; but custom seems to be that talk pages are archived when necessary, and anyone who wants to revive an archived discussion just copies it or links to it.

Do what you have to; but I am staying on. It is a bad thing to reward temper-tantrums by giving up and letting the individual concerned have his or her way. Septentrionalis 19:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC) ^{moved to current location by --Scaife 19:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Arbitration

Arbitration is an unpleasant and tedious process. Everything claimed should be documented by diffs, so if you are considering it, start collecting them now, including diffs of your talk page.

You will also want to look at Wikipedia:requests for arbitration/Ultramarine and the related workshop and evidence pages. The last time Ultramarine came up with a lot of quotes out of context, and suggested a Communist Conspiracy between the three complaintants, and also 172, SlimVirgin, and Ryan Delaney. This time you may reasonably expect to find yourself and Kim Bruning added to the list of Evil Suppressors of Truth; and I would not be surprised to find this message quoted as the admission of the Conspiracy to Suppress </irony>.

If you are still interested after that, I would advise sleeping on it again before acting. (This is, of course, advice on tactics; you were acting perfectly sensibly in archiving.) Septentrionalis 20:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the Arb that never ends,

For it goes on and on my friends.

Some people started editting not knowing who he was,

Now Ultramarine makes our edits go forever 'cause,

This is the Arb that never ends...

Robert A.West | Talk 02:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultramarine elsewhere

I see that there is a User:FWBOarticle who has encountered Ultramarine's tactics at R. J. Rummel. I expressed sympathy and asked for details, so check my talk page. Septentrionalis 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox Article

As I read the Final Ruling, preemptively replacing DPT with a sandbox article would be a substantive violation of the Final Decision in multiple ways.

It would be a violation of the instruction to seek consensus.
It would violate the "No Ownership" finding.
It would violate the spirit of the ruling against naked reverts.
It would violate the finding against two versions.

There is, of course, no proof that Ultramarine is planning to do this. The suspicion is reasonable, but he could in theory be preparing a version to present to everyone in a collegial way. There are two options I can see:

Bring the sandbox to the attention of ArbCom now and seek confirmation that my reading above is correct.
Wait to see what he does, and if he does, bring it up on the noticeboard. In such circumstances, I would hold both myself and Septentrionalis well advised not to revert, unless the replacement were naked vandalism, which is extremely unlikely.

Robert A.West (Talk) 16:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, and, if the situation comes up, the four points above would be a good basis for a posting to WP:ANI. This would be preferable to requesting an advisory opinion from ArbCom, I should think: They are likely not to give one; and the set of arbitrators has changed significantly since the decision, so they may not have an intention any more.

OIC. I sort of assumed that the same set of arbitrators retained jurisdiction over the case for a time. I haven't studied the procedures in the depth you have. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, ArbCom sits en banc except for recusals. That was one problem: so many Arbitrators had gafiated that it was hard to get a quorum. Septentrionalis 16:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Septentrionalis 03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I came into DPT as someone with a background in physics, finance and simulation, and consequently a fair understanding of statistics. My particular bias is

1. Some type of democratic peace seems to hold.
2. The assertion of a perfect democratic peace, which I found upon first editing the article, looked to me like a result of well-chosen parameters and definitions, and
3. It is folly to expect the democratic peace to hold when democracies are in the majority, or when a country is forcably democratized. Note that a democratic theocracy is not logically impossible.

I admit I began with some unsourced assertions: I plead the excuse that either they were things I learned so long ago (i.e. how you get from mere correlation to a legitimate assertion of causation) that the source was not to hand, or because I thought the criticism so obvious that it had to be in some paper, and I expected a little help looking stuff up. Insofar as Ultramarine is concerned, I hoped in vain.

Ultramarine makes editing tedious. This may be his goal for all I know. His relentless POV-pushing has driven away multiple editors. He has refused mediation once, and fought with the mediator the second time.

For the record: twice. Once by Kelly Martin when the arbitration was being requested; once now by Sdedeo (sp?). Septentrionalis 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

His interpretations of policy are as convoluted as a tax-protestor's reading of the law, and in application come suspiciously close to special pleading. As to his reading of sources, I leave that to your and Septentrionalis's expertise.

I have no problem with his politics, but if he wants to open a blog, he should open one. Frankly, if this type of behavior becomes widespread, Wikipedia cannot survive. I suppose that means seeking serious remedies, and I am out of my depth there. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So am I, but WP is an organization of amateurs. Septentrionalis 03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, but some amateurs are more amateurish than others.Robert A.West (Talk) 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, now we know. It's appeared on Talk:Democratic peace theory, and U requests comments. I think I'll give him some. Septentrionalis 19:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good. I will take a look when I get time as well. I am glad to see that he was preparing the sandbox for comment. This is much more pleasant than the alternatives. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

he's adding at least some of it to Never at War, if we care. I regard that as a non-notable article about a non-notable book. Septentrionalis 16:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverts

I think the system applied Ultramarine's revert after yours. Septentrionalis 22:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I did it again, but it will probably just stir him up. :) --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 00:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It did, but in a very odd way. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack_and_original_research_accusations_against_living_prominent_professor_and_researcher for what happened on Talk:R. J. Rummel. Septentrionalis 20:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have always felt he was a bit out of touch with reality.... Those are some strange accusations that he levels against you. Strange....--Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 20:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perpetual peace

Please consider perpetual peace.If you find anything on that page which is e false, not common opinion, or biased, do let me know or fix it. Ultramarine has found a new form of harassment. Septentrionalis 01:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This guy seriously needs to get a life. It looks fine to me. I reverted some of his changes, but I am afraid that by the time you read the article again it will not look anything like it did. --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 02:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. J. Rummel. Method is in the top of WP:AFD, and see my three edits preceeding this note to you. Septentrionalis 03:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This strained reading of the Nobel statutes rivals a tax protester's reading of the Constitution. And to what end? An assertion that a person plans to nominate is unverifiable and valueless. An assertion that he nominated is unverifiable and nearly valueless. Anyone who has to raise such a slender claim to fame is practically admitting to being NN. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I added this link [2] to the talk page as it is from the actual Nobel Prize site, and it implicitly states the rule. However, I am sure that our "friend" will find some complaint about this, especially due to the fact that it isn't located in the document that he wants it to be. BTW I still maintain that R.J. Rummel is NN, but I fear that for the time being the battle is lost. --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defamation

Your statements can be considered defamation. Remove them. Ultramarine 05:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What statements? --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Most of his "books" and "papers" are only published on the internet, any contributions by him that were published in any major scholarly journal is minimal and absent after the mid-1980's". Simply false and defamation. For example Death by Government was published in the 1990's. Remove. Ultramarine 05:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't. Notice I used a qualifier..."most". Besides one book published after that time period is statistically insignificant. --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of his books were published in the 1990's and certainly not on the web. I would advise removing this statement.Ultramarine 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And if I don't... are you threatening me? --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Don't worry about edits here; that is a sandbox for newcomers to test their editing power. As long as they don't erase the first two lines, or spout really bad profanity, feel free to leave them be, as it isn't vandalism. Cheers! --M ^o P ^E! 06:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading edit summaries

Hello,

Please don't use misleading edit summaries (ie, "rvv racism") for edits that have nothing to do with what the edit summary claims. [3] -- Curps 07:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You know sometimes auto-entry works against you, so it was entered in by mistake when "rvv" was all that was supposed to be entered. However, I am glad that you had a chance to come by my talk page and criticize me for a simple mistake. Cheers! --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 07:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in progress report

Hi Scaife. I noticed you added an entry to Vandalism in Progress. That page is only for very specific cases, as described by the page's guidelines. Your alert would be better placed on Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV), where it will usually be processed within minutes. Many alerts that are incorrectly placed on Vandalism in Progress are never dealt with, simply because they become old before an administrator gets to them. Thanks for your efforts. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 15:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for anti-vandalism on Max Plank

A quick "thank you" for fighting the good fight against today's vandalism of the Max Plank page. I was just listing him at the Intervention against Vandalism page when you beat me to it. Good to see swift action taken againts this persistent vandal thanks to you. Best Gwernol 18:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: fast summaries, I use popups which fill that in for me automatically. Its a great tool for RC patrolling. Gwernol 18:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby and soccer

This is a popular misconception. Soccer hadn't even been codified at that time. Each public school played entirely different games, all called 'football'. It is not true that Web Ellis broke the rules by handling the ball, Rugby school rules had always permitted handling the ball. They didn't allow for people to run with the ball, you were supposed to catch the ball and kick it out of hand. The rules of early rugby are written down and were also documented in the book "Tom Brown's school days". They do not come from soccer.GordyB 22:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The article entitled Football is well worth reading. There are some links at the bottom of the page that will probably confirm much of what is written on the page. History of rugby union is also not bad. If you are interested I can probably find more links.GordyB 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Page Vandal

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page. I appreciate it. Tachyon01 23:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thank you; I have answered (neither yes nor no) on my page. Septentrionalis 22:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] smotherbox vandalism

My vandalism to the smotherbox page was intended to make a point. Wikipedia does nothing for its credibility with articles like that, and then to beg for money because they need more server space? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.87.133.110 (talk • contribs).

I refer you to WP:POINT. --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This sort of thing makes me wonder if Wikipedia shouldn't restrict edits to signed-in members. How do you have a meaningful discussion with an anonymous IP? Robert A.West (Talk) 05:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that you can, but the fact that this is an "open" system is the spirit of Wikipedia. It's our jobs as registered users to educate and revert, I fear. --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gitmo Edits

Your edit summary of "rv v" implies that your edit was a revert due to vandalism, however this appears not to be the case. In the future please be careful in using this summary. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Scaife. I was reverting the vandalism that occurred on that page. As I was doing it, I noticed a typo. Two birds, one stone sort of thing. The you ended up getting the revert in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montco (talk • contribs).

No problem, I do it sometimes too, just a friendly "nudge". Cheers! --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Booya

Hi...noticed you did a rollback on the Booya page... You removed a piece about Booyah sex tape ... I did a Google search using terms Booyah and blacksonblondes and (unfortunately) there does seem to be such a connection....I think it needs to be reverted again? KsprayDad 06:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say go ahead, if there is a link to the source... When I read it, it looked like vandalism. --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neopets

Hi! Thanks for dealing with vandalism to the Neopets article. I just wanted to point out to you that you may want to look deeper than one revision in the edit history when doing so, however. The anon made two edits in a row, the second of which you reverted but the first of which remained. Just a heads up. :) Hbackman 07:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, mate. Cheers! --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 15:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. Anywho, if you have any suggestions as to how I could improve so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! —akghetto ^talk 07:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ultratheory

A good and useful article. Not, I think, Ultramarine, although he probably is Swedish; it shares the characteristic misspelling of Russett, which I recently corrected at Thucydides. This author likes Doyle, writes good English, and acknowledges that the existence of exceptions is controversial. I'll put in as a supporting External link. (Btw, do you think the present text is too Rummellist? I don't mind either way, it will use up Ultramarine's ammunition if you do.) Septentrionalis 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have always thought that it was too Rummellist. I would like to see a balanced article, looking at the theorum from both sides of the debate, however that seems not to be happening. It is very frustrating due to some of the information in the article being very misleading.

Then please do put in 35, 36,37.... Septentrionalis 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW thinks for your opinion on the paper. To be honest I just skimmed it, but the opening couple of pages were very Rummell heavy, so naturally....--Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 19:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the article -- too rational for Ultramarine. It seems beyond him to admit that at least some of the proposed reasons for dyadic pacific behavior will weaken as there are fewer authoritarian regimes, which may well affect the future validity of the proposition. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a very precient argument. It seems that from quantitative methods we learn that as cases approach zero, so does confidence. I read somewhere, I wish I could remember where, that since DPT focuses of "small-n" cases the are statistically outliers and therefore statistically insignificant. --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 19:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Spiro (1994) as cited in the article (unfortunately JSTOR), it's also one of Gowa's arguments. Septentrionalis 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many measures of statistical significance -- I haven't done the computations myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if DPT meets some and not others. Interestingly, a statement of the form "Democratic dyads are half as likely to fight as dyads that include at least one non-democracy," for a reasonably generous definition of "democracy" is more apt to pass significance tests than "Democratic dyads never fight" for a very restricted definition.

Also, IIRC Septentrionalis and I made that very point to UM long ago -- it is somewhere in the archives if anyone cares. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I also did a proposed compromise at the Neoliberalism article. Septentrionalis 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paquisha POV

Hello. I reworded a paragraph that puts Ecuador in a bad light regarding its long history of disputes with Peru. As it was, it was directly pasted & copied from the link that appears at the end of the paragraph. It suffered from lack of NPOV because Ecuadorians may object to that, seeing it as a point of view, respectable of course, but biased. You lost no time in deleting my edit, adding the "remove POV" notice. Ouch! May I ask you to edit this in a way that says "according to some sources"? At least, it sounds more neutral and less biased, more encyclopedic, if you will. Regards. Andres C. 19:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Andre, I went back and read my edit and I see your point. I attempted to make it sound a little more NPOV. I hope that it acceptable. I fear that calling out either the Ecuadorans or the Peruvians may be inflammatory. Cheers! --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 19:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salt_Lake_City_Tornado

Salt_Lake_City_Tornado

I think you made a mistake. :-) I am not a vandal. 71.213.46.53 04:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No one said that you were. Cheers. --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam and Steve

You're not an admin. So quit pretending to be one. The best thing to do in these situations is to revert the offending edit and then find out the root cause before you put a test4 template. BlueGoose 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You put a test4 final warning tag without putting a test3 or test2 tag. My warnings have been minor test1 warnings on his page. If you think the vandalism is so severe, put an onlywarning tag, but I believe that discretion is only left to an admin. BlueGoose 05:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Read what I wrote on his page. BlueGoose 05:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, it really doesn't matter what you believe. To quote the policy, "Note that these templates need not be used sequentially. If the edit is clearly vandalism, consider starting with {{test2}}. For continuing severe vandalism, {{test3}} may be skipped and a {{test4}} given straight after a test2. If, however, you are not sure that the edit is vandalism, always start with {{test}}. The ~~~~ in the templates below cause the time and your signature to be added to the warning." To read further see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Cheers. --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to read this and get back to you. BlueGoose 05:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy does NOT say you can skip from a test1 to a test4. According to this link, skipping one step seems permissible but not the entire process. Either way, I'll put both of our edits back up on his talk page. BlueGoose 05:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, anyway thank you for making a big deal out of absolutly nothing. You have succeeded in wasting my time over something that was ultimately insignificant. I really don't care if you like me using vd1 or vd2, I chose vd2 as the vandalism was vulgar and the perp had a history of such editing. As for the 3RR, do not delete my comments on a talk page (see WP:POINT) Cheers. --Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The perp? You take this CVU stuff way too seriously. BlueGoose 05:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, are you trying to piss me off? You said your piece, now leave me alone.--Scaife ^(Talk)

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 05:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/a/User_talk%7EScaife_Archive1_5f7c.html"