User talk:G-Man/Archive 1 Feb-Oct 2003
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy contributing to the encyclopedia and decide to stick around. There are always lots of enthusiastic volunteers working on the project, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask them at the village pump. Enchanter
Nice way to unwhitewash the Stalin article, G-Man ~~ Usually people just hack away without actually adding anything :) 豎眩
So why the separate ship canal article, when canal covers the same subject matter? Why not just add to it? I would never look for an article under "ship canal".
--jaknouse
Because Ship canals are a special category of canal. Any way if someone was trying to look up information specificaly about ship canals, it is better to have a article separately. Although you might have a point about the adding the info to the canal article, I might copy and paste and do that as well. User:G-Man
- Hi there. I've fixed the formatting on Ship canal. You might want to take a look at the wiki-text source -- there's several things you've been doing the long way round! ;-) -- Tarquin 15:50 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)
How do you mean exactly G-Man
- stuff like [[Canals|canal]] -- write [[canal]]s instead. saves on typing :-) and use # to make auto-numbered lists, * for bullter lists. -- Tarquin 16:14 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)
Oh thanks, I live and learn G-Man
From your edits to the Black Country article, it looks like you're fairly local, so I thought I'd say hello! --Sam
I recommend that you read the material of the historians and economists cited in the article. Considering the scope of your intersts, you'd really enjoy the material. I wouldn’t it state it so bluntly in the article, but the Soviet Union’s planned economy was a long-run victim of the fact that it was able to work in a short run (at the cost of prison labor, deplorable working conditions, and the emphasis on quantity over quality). Russia went from being a country of peasants to a highly urbanized, highly advanced, highly industrialized superpower in the brief period from 1929 (when the Administrative Command System (ACS) was established) to Stalin’s death in 1953, but this would explain the later failures of the ACS. The economy simply grew too large, advanced, and complex (because of Stalin’s ruthless harnessing of labor and capital resources) for it to be planned, and the population could no longer tolerate shortages of shoddy goods because of ever-improving living standards in a country going from the pre-industrial era to the industrial era.
Now about the other question you raised. Inefficiency, supply shortages, and poor quality are important topics, but these systemic problems are far greater problems once more attention is paid to consumer goods in the post-Stalin years. But the article does tie these problems to the Stalin era. If you read the article beyond Stalin you’d see that the article is stressing that the Stalin years laid the groundwork for systemic problems that would become pronounced well after Stalin’s death and indeed even today.
The article might not be written in the prose of Robert Conquest with which many readers are familiar, but it by no means calling the Stalinist administrative command system a “success”, which you accused it of stating.
Perhaps you’d get a greater sense of the logical flow if of the article if you read on past the Stalin years.
Since you are at a univerity I'm sure that you library will have one of the seven edittions of Russian & Soviet Economic Performance & Structure by economists Paul Gregory and Robert Stuart. They're probably the best experts on the ACS economy and they have a great understanding of its historical context and its role in Russian history. Historian Stephen Lee (an expert on single-party states) is also a great source on Soviet history prior to 1953 and economist Marshall Goldman is a great source on the ensuing years. 172
I'm glad that your adding content to the history of the Soviet Union page, but perhaps you should focus on something else that really isn't covered well in the article, like the Great Purges. Titular nationalities, ethnonationalism, institutional change, the Cold War, the Sino-Soviet Split, the origins of the Cold War, the Kosygin reforms of 1965, power struggles, de-Stalinization, arts and culture, the causes of the Bolshevik Revolution, Perestroika and Glasnost, the Andropov and Chernenko interludes, foreign trade, the Warsaw Pact, Soviet subsides to foreign regimes like Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam, the military-industrial complex in the post-Stalin years, the Cuban Missile Crisis, youth organizations, the Virgin Lands, Afghanistan, and the judiciary are among the many issues that come to mind.
In other words, the Great Purges were well-covered even before I added content to that section. Before you add more on the Great Purges some of the issues that I listed need to be addressed first.
The article already is quite long. Perhaps it would be best to shorten the content on World War II and the Stalin years so that we can add more content pertaining to the Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev years. 172
I think that history of the Stalin and WW2 years are too important a part of history to be shortened. The Stalin years are the bit I'm most knowledgable about, although I could try and do some research on other parts of the USSR's history.
Perhaps the article could do with splitting into two parts with a history of the USSR part 1 covering the 1917-1953 period and Part 2 covering the 1953-1991 period, how does that sound.
I like most of what you've written. Have you read Russia, The Tsarist and Soviet legacy by Edward Acton, that is my main history book on the USSR. G-Man 20/4/03
Thanks for your complements!
I really like your idea of splitting the article. Until now, I was worried that I was focusing too much on the prewar years. I was ready to delete a good portion of my content to make room for the post-war years. I look forward to working on that project with you.
I'm familiar with that text by Acton incidentally. I have to admit that I'm biased toward some aspects of Acton's approach, such as viewing the rise of the Soviet Union in its late imperial Czarist context while assessing Russia's international setting (its geography, that old problem of the lack of access to the sea, and dependency prior to the Revolution). He does a great job of illuminating why the Communist revolution occurred in Russia, and not in a more developed industrial power with a larger working class. And his linkage of Yeltsin's super-presidentialism to Russia's longstanding political culture is persuasive, although I'd be a bit more inclined to argue that the nature of the "shock therapy" reforms contributed to this new authoritarianism just like other misguided economic policies in the past, like collectivization and the general abandonment of the NEP.
Let's expound on the post-Stalin years and then split the article into two sections, one on 1917-1953 and the other on 1953-1991.
Please see the comments on the Stalin talk page. 172
Hi, there is an edit-war on Communist state. Unfortunately your NPOVing occured after a large block of POV material that already exists in another article was pasted in again by the person who has doing this consistently. In reverting his stuff, your NPOVing was lost. When I get a chance, I will go through your changes and see which bits apply to the surviving text and make corrections. Apologies in any case. As you can see, there is an 'agenda'-based war going on there and all efforts to produce an NPOV are constantly being frustrated by the pasted in POV stuff of a small minority. Trying to make this article NPOV is proving a nightmare because of the actions of one person. ÉÍREman 23:42 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
Congratulations, you have just been made a sysop! You have volunteered for boring housekeeping activities which normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops basically can't do anything: They cannot delete pages arbitarily (only obvious junk like "jklasdfl,öasdf JOSH IS GAY"), they cannot protect pages in an edit war they are involved in, they cannot ban signed in users. What they can do is delete junk as it appears, ban anonymous vandals, remove pages that have been listed on Votes for deletion for more than a week, protect pages when asked to by other members, and help keep the few protected pages there are, among them the precious Main Page, up to date.
Note that almost everything you can do can be undone, so don't be too worried about making mistakes. You will find more information at Wikipedia:Administrators, please take a look before experimenting with your new powers. Drop me a message if there are any questions or if you want to stop being a sysop (could it be?). Have fun! --Eloquence 19:17 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thankyou I'll be careful not to let my new found power go to my head G-Man 13:26 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I've just been busy for a period of about a month. It's good to be back on this site. Always feel free to suggest articles that require work; maybe we can collaborate on some projects. 172
Hi G-Man. Nice article on the Settle and Carlisle - I've no quibbles about the data, but I've tidied up the article a bit, merged some sentences and fixed a few typos. Cheers! -- Arwel 11:46 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
--- Hi. Please keep an eye on User:BRG's edits to British placenames. Mintguy
Hi G-Man. Yes I have seen the Kosovo war article and it is indeed bias. I did also follow a bit of the page history and discussion and I don't think I have enough time or nerves to keep arguing with those of the Serbian viewpoint. At some point I guess I will make one edit and if it gets changed again, I'll leave it at that. Dori 22:32 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye on the economic history articles. They receive far too little attention on this site. I'd like to get to the Wall Street Crash article, but I'm going to finish the Great Depression and the New Deal. I figure that this will enable me to accomplish two tasks at once. At least much of the text on the New Deal can be used in both articles, after, of course, abridging the New Deal-related content for Great Depression.
BTW, Jtdril had a great idea. The Great Depression article should be made into a series, with links to the Great Depression in the US, Canada, UK, Latin America, Germany, etc., along with a short explanation of the Great Depression was from an international perspective. Right now, the vast majority of the content on that page should be redirected to Great Depression (United States). The series could be tied together with the kind of chart that I've added to History of the United States, a never-ending series on which I'm working now.
So that's why I want to stay on broad subject matter right now, until I complete these series. New Deal, Great Depression, and the History of the Untied States (1918-1945), after all, will enable me to use the fairly detailed account of the Roosevelt administration on which I'm working now.
Would you be interested in working on Great Depression (United Kingdom)? That would be great, since we're among the few people on this site interested in economic history. That is, economic history that meets non-polemical, scholarly, NPOV standards. 172
- I have another thought. I'm going to be dividing the Cold War article, which I've largely rewritten, into a series. Would you have any ideas for the periodization?
- I've also rewritten the Great Depression and New Deal articles. Although unfinished (especailly in the case of Great Depression), I'd like to know what you think. 172
I'm from Tampa, Florida, USA. (I guess you got the impression that I'm a Brit from the hours I keep.) 172 23:42 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- BTW, thanks for pointing out Gold Standard. We'll need to unleash the NPOV attack dogs on that one soon. The British Monetary Crisis, borrowed from the rejected text from Great Depression, is even more problematic. The same user responsible for those two articles is the same one responsible for posting that loopy rightwing polemic to the Great Depression. We should probably take care of these problems shortly. 172 01:54 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I like your pics of the multiple unit and freight on the Train article, great quality! However, here comes a bit of criticism ......
The thumbnail is 350 pixels wide (which is fine) but I think the reader is going to be very disappointed (and perhaps annoyed) to click on the Larger Version link and find almost no increase in size (to just 450 pixels wide). Is there a reason why you did so tiny an increase?
I do my Large Version at 750 pixels wide at no more than 100K big. Your quality looks good enough for a great 750 pixel wide pic so why not! I chose 750 pixels so that a person using 800 by 600 screen can see all the pic. Have a look at Brixham as an example. Best Wishes,
Adrian Pingstone 16:33 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Hi! Sorry about my criticism of your pics, it hadn't occurred to me that you used a low res camera, mine is 3 megapixels. Yes, 550 pixels looks OK. I'll try to find a mallard (train) pic. Best Wishes,
- Adrian Pingstone 07:16, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It's funny that you mentioned my nationality, thinking that was a Briton. I've just now noticed that in one article someone went around and changed all my American English spelling, methodically changing all the words ending with -or (like labor), -er (like center), and –izing (like maximizing). I wonder where else that was done. I suppose that it was appropriate, since it was an article pertaining mostly to Great Britain. 172 12:27, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of inviting you to that New Imperialism mess. After all, it would suit my interests to have a cool head like yours involved. But that would be cruel. Simply put, New Imperialism was my biggest mistake on this site. It's been more of a diaster for me than Irish Potato Famine was for Jtdirl. It's a protracted, multi-fronted dispute involving many different arguments put forward by many contributors. It's also a continuation of an edit war involving Vera Cruz months ago. Now, that banned user (Lir/Vera Cruz/Adam/Bridget/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber/Pizza Puzzle) is back, determined to make the article into a jumbled list with a headline for every sentence. Actually, a proper explanation of the dispute would require more text than the entire series. 172 05:38, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi, G-Man, I hope my changes to Depression/UK weren't too drastic - feel free to work on the older version if you prefer, as I realise it's in progress. Graculus 00:56, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
--- Good job so far on Great Depression (UK). I'm sorry that I haven't gotten to it, as I'm still finishing Great Depression (US), New Deal, and New Imperialism. 172 04:55, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Have a good holiday! Hopefully I can get the Great Depression article done. 172 18:35, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hi G-Man. See User talk:Andy G for my answer to your question. Andy G 19:05, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Welcome back! I myself have been somewhat inactive on Wikipedia in recent weeks. Hopefully we'll be able to get back to the Great Depression articles soon. 172 19:14, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks! A lot of the stuff I've been putting in has been from my rather extensive set of stuff on Everything2; I've been slowly Wikifying it.
I should probably comment on the Locomotive page that high-speed gas turbine trains have been done, and successfully; it's only the fuel crises in the 70s that killed them off.
I'll check out that Vacuum brakes article and see if I can fix up anything ...
--Morven 22:27, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
It might have been better to rename 'Rail' to 'Rail tracks' in order to keep the history, then to turn 'Rail' into the disambiguation. Also, I always see CWR, for Continuously Welded Rail, as the term used, never CWT. Is this a new usage? --Morven 23:28, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Ah, better. I added some more stuff to the page too about US practice. --Morven 23:44, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Please see discussion at User talk:Nikola Smolenski about Kosovo War. --Dori 18:39, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hi, you just did the same as I did earlier and delete one of those ridiculous duck things. However, if you check the author's other contributions, it seems he is turning them into quite normal looking articles. Secretlondon already told me off for deleting one so I rescued the one you just deleted too. It might be best if they are merged at some point though, but it seems they can't be instantly deleted. However, I don't blame you for deleting it. It's about as close to patent nonsense as you can get. Angela 23:15, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Oh! ok then G-Man 23:32, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Probably should get listed on VfD, though -- I don't think that every mention of a character in a cartoon needs its own article. --Morven 23:43, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Yes you're probably right, if every fictional character in the world was listed on the WP it would probably be abot 10,000,000 articles long and filled with useless information G-Man 00:00, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
IMO minor characters in a fictional work should (if writing about them is considered necessary) be written up in the main article or in a 'Minor characters in [Work]' article ... avoid too much clutter. Especially such as all these McDucks, who I suspect only got brief mentions if at all in the actual original.
BTW, made a few more changes in Railway signaling but it's far from done. I'm planning to draw up some pictures of the aspects of different signalling systems to help illustrate them ... --Morven
[edit] Multiple personalities
I don't think there is. A developer could check the IP of two usernames, but even that might not give a defiitive answer if someone has a floating IP. There's certainly no way of doing it if you are not a developer. Angela 20:09, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
