User talk:Maglev Power

Burma

Please get consensus before making any large changes. BJ^Talk 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias are based on facts, not "consensus." I am not aware of a single sourcebook or encyclopedia that has an entry on Burma as opposed to Myanmar. Myanmar is the name recognized by the UN and the majority of world states. Maglev Power (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue, since you've already been warned several times (3), you could be blocked from editing. If you are going to make a major change, please gain a consensus to do so. That is how we operate on Wikipedia. I am aware that you appear to be a new user here, and would like to help you out here, if you want. If you have any other questions, feel free to let me know. Meanwhile, please take a look at WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have the authority to threaten to block anyone. You are not an administrator. If you want to help improve this website, work toward writing a factually accurate encyclopedia, not playing keystone kop. Maglev Power (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no consensus and we've been discussing this for months now. Any moves must be listed on WP:RM and follow the respective procedure. Thank you. Hús ö nd 05:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt this site can be so legalistic. Being factually accurate and encyclopedic must trump polls and legalisms here if this page is to be a serious encyclopedia article. Maglev Power (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, moves are not required to be discussed at WP:RM. There was a consensus on the articles talk page, however, the moves were being attempted incorrectly. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no controversy here. Myanamr is the UN-recognized name. Myanmar is the named recognized by the majority of the world's states. Even Wikipedia has used the name Myanmar for years. The timing of the move of the article to Burma makes it clear what's happening is that a handful of users have succeeded in masking a blatant political statement under the guise of "consensus." Maglev Power (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project tags

Please stop stripping these from articles. The tag is simply a organisational topic, not a judgment on the subject of the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the category implies that Wikipedia is classifying specific states, leaders, and governments as totalitarian. The term "totalitarian" is a subjectively applied pejorative term and can never be NPOV, and thus a violation of Wikipedia policy. As an organizational topic, the category can go in articles like "totalitarianism" and in articles pertaining to theorists who wrote about the subject; but Wikipedia has no business making these judgments given its own editorial policies. Maglev Power (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather recommend you bring the issue up for consideration by the wider community -- perhaps via the village pump or miscellany for deletion, or some other forum to propose a change of names. You do seem to have a point that's worth considering, but your current method of resolving that point invites edit warring and isn't any permanent fix (the tags you're removing now will very probably be replaced eventually, if they continue to exist; surely you can understand the futility of this). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody tagged Bush's article under a "war crimes" project, I'm sure that would be promptly rejected. This is no different. Controversial placement of project tags is just advancing POV by another means and Maglev was right to remove the tags, in my opinion. Everyking (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Santin, Everyking hit the hail on the head. Removal of the tags was appropriate. Just like removing a factual error from the article, removing a categorization that violates encyclopedic editorial guidelines must be done. Maglev Power (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you have now violated WP:3RR on Talk:Saddam Hussein. WOuld you please revert yourself? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am one revert short of violating the rule. Would you please respond to the merit of the edit? Following encyclopedic guidelines like NPOV matter much more than bureaucratic trivalities here. Maglev Power (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on Talk:Saddam Hussein, I have blocked you for a period of 24 hours. [1], [2], [3], and [4]. You may contest this block by adding the code {{unblock|reason here}} below this message. Spebi 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not waste any time arguing with an editor using an account that is only four days old and whose edits are mainly minor deletions and long arguments on talk pages. This editor is clearly a troll.--Amban (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Path

Hello! I reverted your edit on Talk:Shining Path. This has already been discussed at Talk:Shining_Path#Totalitarianism. Feel free to state your opinions there! --ElPeruano (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the Shining Path never took complete power of Peru is speficically mentioned at Talk:Shining_Path#Totalitarianism. Please contribute there. --ElPeruano (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing Totalitarianism

You are removing the word Totalitarianism from many articles. Please get cosnesus first before proceeding. Igor Berger (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please cease removing the tags you're stripping from dozens of talk pages. The speed you're doing these edits at is a concern, and your edit summary of "remove subjectively-applied pejorative term that can never be NPOV" suggests a point of view of your own. I would suggest discussing the removal of the tags at Wikipedia:WikiProject Totalitarianism prior to continuing your edits. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term “totalitarianism” is hotly contested by political scientists. It is a serious violation of NPOV and NOR for Wikipedia users to be randomly and arbitrarily inserting this tag in pages on specific regimes and individuals. The tag can go in articles that directly relate to the subject, such as totalitarianism and post-totalitarianism, books on the subject, and theorists who contributed to the concept such as Hannah Hannah Arendt. I am only removing the tag from where it does not belong. Maglev Power (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag, as noted below, is to identify articles that fall under hte auspices of the WikiProject Totalitarianism, and doesn't necessarily place it into the categories. I'd request that if you feel the group shouldn't be working on certain article,s that you go to their discussino pages and discuss such removals before you do them. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many political scientists disagree that many of the subjects from which I was removing the tags are related to totalitarianism. Including the tag implies that Wikipedia is pushing a particular POV. I am not removing the tag from every page, just where the tag is a source of scholarly disagreement. Maglev Power (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then discuss it with the WikiProject that placed the tags in the first place. And I suggest not changing the scope of a WIkiProject without discussion with the actual group involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that there is a discussion regarding your tag removals at the administrators' noticeboard. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing articles from Wikiprojects

Hello,

I would like to ask you to stop removing articles from Wikiprojects. You are not, as you seem to believe, removing them from categories, which is a different thing altogether. A category is something that goes onto the article page (we call this the "Main" or "Article" namespace). Categories allow for the encyclopedia to be organized so that readers can more easily find information. There are policies governing whether an article can be included in categories, however: policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V. A Wikipedia:Wikiproject is a group of editors that have banded together, typically to edit a collection of related articles. They place a template typically at the top of an article talk page in order to mark that the article is within the scope of their Wikiproject. This is in the "talk" namespace, whose function is to improve the article, not to categorize pages in the same way that the article namespace does. Generally, there is no specific policy which applies to whether or not an article may be placed under the auspices of a Wikiproject: thus WP:NPOV and WP:V need not apply.

If you truly feel that Wikipedia:Wikiproject totalitarianism does not deserve a spot as a Wikiproject, then you can consider subjecting it to the deletion process. The village pump may also be a place to go if you wish to seek assistance. But deleting all of the articles from a Wikiproject by removing the template could be considered a form of disruption. As I see that you have been warned about this before, I suggest that you discuss this sort of thing in the future before implementing it. Thank you for your cooperation, Silly rabbit (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling for the page to be deleted, just removing it from pages where it is contentious and irrelevant. Maglev Power (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:NPOV and WP:V need not apply?" We are not playing lawyers here. Let's get real. A project that interfers with prompting NPOV and NOR on a particular page does not help and should be removed. The project is relevant in pages like Hannah Arendt, totalitarianism, post-totalitarianism, etc. It is not helpful to include the tag in pages where the description of the subject as "totalitarianism" is disupted. Maglev Power (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be helpful to you, but did you bother to ask the editors at the Wikiproject what they thought before undoing their additions wholesale? Silly rabbit (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to go read more about Wikiprojects here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide before you continue engaging in what several editors clearly think is destructive behavior. Wikiprojects are not what you seem to think they are: they are a group of editors who got together and agreed to edit articles on similar topics. They are not, and never have been, a means for categorizing article content. Silly rabbit (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read about Wikiprojects, thank you. The tags make an implicit categorization since they are displayed prominently on talk pages stating 'this article falls under a project on totalitarianism.' Whether or not they are actual Wikipedia category pages is a moot point. Maglev Power (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: This topic was reported on WP:AIV; the discussion has been moved to WP:ANI. — ERcheck (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your threat is a violation of Wikipedia's longtime consensus on the subject. I invite you to go the past deletion discussions that bring up the same concerns that I am stating now. See the pages leading to the deletion of "list of dictators" (previously list of totalitarian dictators) [5] and the category "totalitarian dictators" [6] Maglev Power (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects are NOT catergorization. They are not in the mainspace. They are groups of editors interested in the same thing who get together to help build a better encyclopedia. See, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism. --ElPeruano (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are an implict categorization because they declare on the talk pages the article relates somehow to totalitarianism. This is POV. Maglev Power (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. I'm also concerned about your justification for deleting this project from things like Secret police. You're right in that the topic of secret police isn't exclusively related to totalitarianism, but wikiprojects don't have to be on things that they relate to exclusively. For example, Simón Bolívar is included in the WikiProject Central America, but not everything about Central America is related to Simón Bolívar and not everything about Simón Bolívar is related to Central America. That's why Simón Bolívar is also part of the Venezuela, Colombia, biography military history, Peru, Ecuador, and Freemsonry wikiprojects. See how that works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPeruano (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Maglev Power (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

You did not provide a reason. However, it seems to me that despite other editors strongly objecting to your edits, you did not feel that their consensus was sufficient and continued to implement changes despite being warned not to do so. Please be sure to read up on our consensus article, and in the future, please try to discuss changes more democratically. — slakr^\ talk / 02:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

For 24 hours. Your determined attempt to get your own way is disruptive and cannot be tolerated. Consensus is the way forward, but you seem to have rejected it. Accordingly, to prevent further short-term damage to the project, I have imposed this block and suggest that you talk this through on the appropriate project talk page. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that had I been aware that you were also blocked ten days ago for the same conduct, this block would have been substantially longer. As it is, you are not yet blocked indefinitely, although I don't personally rule out that option. That is in your hands. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB, as a courtesey, I have added a standard block template above which has more information about the process. Ronnotel (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein

About your last edits in the article, please do not remove referenced material. Imad marie (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gore's book

Please focus on the content and avoid attacking other editors in edit summaries and talk page discussion. Referring to other users as POV warrior and edits as outright censorship are not helpful in a colaborative work such as this. Please read WP:NPA and WP:Civility. Vsmith (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Al Gore and the environment. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore

Will you be willing to cosign an RfC against Gamaliel for his/her reversions on Al Gore-related article? My edits have been steamrolled from the start, with little attention to the discussion on talk from Gamaliel. An RfC would be designed to generate community intervention against such abusive editing practices. Bancroft EIR (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]