User talk:Funny4life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Great power

i) I presume that you are 67.184.82.28?

ii) The term Great power is very much connected with the Congress of Vienna. I quote from the article:

History
Different sets of great, or significant, powers have existed throughout history; however the term "great power" has has only been used as a one of scholarly or diplomatic discourse since the post-Napoleonic era Congress of Vienna in 1815.[1] The Congress established the Concert of Europe as an attempt to preserve peace after the years of Napoleonic Wars.
Lord Castlereagh, the British Foreign Secretary, first used the term in its diplomatic context, in a letter sent on the February 13, 1814. He stated that:
It affords me great satisfaction to acquaint you that there is every prospect of the Congress terminating with a general accord and Guarantee between the great Powers of Europe, with a determination to support the arrangement agreed upon, and to turn the general influence and if necessary the general arms against the Power that shall first attempt to disturb the Continental peace.[2]
1. reference: Danilovic, Vesna - When the Stakes Are High - Deterrence and Conflict among Major Powers, University of Michigan Press (2002) - p27
2. reference: Webster, Charles K, Sir (ed) - British Diplomacy 1813-1815: Selected Documents Dealing with the Reconciliation of Europe, G Bell (1931) - p307

iii) All contributions to articles must meet certain wikipedia policies: no original research, all claims to be verified from proper sources, and write from a neutral point of view. If you want to add anything to any article, you must have a source for it. This source must be a reliable and reputable one.

iv) I agreed that the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal were unsourced and therefore could not remain. Austria, Germany/Prussia, and Russia (which you have removed) are identified (and sourced) in the main text as having been participants in the Congress of Vienna (along with UK and France), therefore they were Great powers. If you have a problem with the others (Italy, Japan, Sweden, etc) then please note that sources were provided. These sources may be good, or they may be bad, but discuss the matter before simply removing them. Removal of sourced information is regarded as vandalism.

v) Poland-Lithuania cannot be listed here until you provide a source stating that if was a Great power. This source must be reliable, meaning from a respected academic, or published in a peer reviewed journal, etc (see WP:RS for more detail). Random pages off the internet (which do not actually mention the term 'Great power' in their text) are not sufficient, unfortunately.

vi) I have no agenda or POV. I am not a troll, nor have I an ideology that I am pushing. I am a long-standing editor on this page, with several months worth of contributions which prove my bona fides. Please be civil and please do not make unfounded accusations or personal attacks. I think that this is simply a matter of misunderstanding each other's intentions. I've found that in circumstances like this, if we all simply assume good faith, these misunderstandings have a habit of resolving themselves.

Xdamrtalk 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, there's one thing that I want to be clear about. This page is about the power classification 'Great power'. This article is not about nations which have exercised or been posessed of great power (where 'great' is used as an adjective). Great power is a classification just like Superpower, only lower down. The emphasis on the Congress of Vienna is not something that I have made up. This has been taken from published works written by academics in the field. I refer you to the quote above - the first use in a scholarly or diplomatic context was at the Congress. Since the Congress it has become a term of art in the field, but it was not in use before. Poland-Lithuania was without doubt a significant power, but that does alone not make it a Great power. By the same token, a nation such as England (pre 1707 union with Scotland, forming UK) was not a Great power, despite having had significant power it existed before the term emerged.
As far as the sources go, I really would urge you to read the following pages. We've rather got off on the wrong footing, so I doubt that you're inclined to take my view on them, but the following pages deal with wikipedia policy on sourcing:
WP:OR - ban on Original Research
WP:V - why sources are needed
WP:RS - what material is considered suitable for use as a source
Xdamrtalk 01:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have not removed (or added) any countries to the Great power page since we started this discussion on our respective talk pages (as you can see from the history page). Read the Wikipedia policy pages above, then decide whether your sources are good ones.
I will give you a friendly warning though (how you take it is up to you), your edits are becoming very disruptive and might be considered vandalism. Furthermore, you are not permitted to make personal attacks (WP:NPA). Insults such as 'racist', 'troll', and 'nazi' definitely count as attacks and might get you banned. Now, I'm happy to overlook this for now. I'll put it down to irritation caused by misunderstanding, but for goodness sake get a grip.
Xdamrtalk 10:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signatures

Hi. I have notived to you forgot to sign your comments. In case you don't know, when you leave a comment you add ~~~~ behing your post that leaves your signature. After all why hide such a funny user name ;-) Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maintain Civility

Xdamr is a good user who has helped do wonders on the Power in International Relations pages. The only basis you have of calling him a troll is because your completely unsourced nation is not included. Find a reliable academic source and then readd it and please maintain civility. Please read Wikipedia's Policies, espeicially WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 00:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning 1

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! .
Your conduct hurts the credibility of WP. Image a user coming across a discussion page and seining the editors calling each other trolls-he'll never trust WP articles again. Besides this is supposed to be a pleasant and friendly environment. Please respect your fellow editors and assume good faith. I believe strongly in keeping WP civil and will be forced to report your demeanor if you continue to disrespect other editors. So, please calm down and stay civil. BTW: Thank you for signing your comments on talk pages.'Signaturebrendel 23:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you leave a message on a users discussion page, not their user page. (No worries, common new user mistake) Also, yes you can state your opinion as long as it is in regards to the article not the users. The WP guideline is to comment on the article not the user. You may not publish your negative opinion of another users on WP. I can assure you Xdamr isn't racist, but that is not the issue. Don't comment on the user; who another users is and what you think of him is irrelevant. That said if you beleive that something in the editing of an article isn't going right you can make an RfC, a Request for Comment, in which other Wikipedians will comment on the issue. But please don't call other user names or comment on them, you may not be free to do so-that's one of the major differences between WP and a blog. Thx for understanding. Signaturebrendel 01:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copernicus

Stop editwarring at Copernicus, and do not edit user pages like you did here.-- Matthead  DisOuß   04:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French people

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to French people. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Wikigi | talk to me | 08:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messaging

Based on your edit here, I thought I'd let you know that it is traditional to reply on a user's talk page instead of their userpage. Just click where it says "Discussion". Useight (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaving messages for other editors

Hi there! If your intention was to leave this message for User:Nihil novi and this message for User:Matthead, it appears you left the messages on the wrong pages and your edits were reverted as vandalism (editing another editor's user page is generally considered quite rude). When exchanging messages with other editors, please be sure to always use their talk pages. You should also be sure to always sign your messages by typing four of tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Nicolaus Copernicus‎

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nicolaus Copernicus‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't believe that 3 reverts in 24 hours plus 13 minutes is the 'right' way to avoid 3RR problems. It is the edit-warring itself that is a problem. *Please* do review all the discussion archives regarding the nationalistic POV problems of the past. Shenme (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Please add your comments to a person's talk page, not to their user page. People get really upset by that mistake. (Which I've done twice accidentally!) Click on their 'discussion' link, and then on the '+' next to "Edit this page". That starts another 'topic'. Shenme (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nicolaus Copernicus. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Ckatzchatspy 07:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block - edit warring

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Vsmith (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)