Talk:The Global Market

SAY it is POV here rather then just removing essential paragraphs, Constantinopolis. He DID maintain a website and he DID promote sovereignty. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 16:24, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

I did not think there was anything "essential" about them. However, you seem to think so, and therefore you have put them back in. I saw your point and edited them. And so we are working towards a better article. Isn't the wiki wonderful? -- Constantinopolis 17:31, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Following the passage of Rights and Duties of UN States, I was invited to join TGM's site (which I apparently failed to bookmark). The Constitution, rules, by-laws and such were so overwhelming that I declined to sign up permanently, but I was quite impressed by the amount of effort he put into it. Judging by the forum threads for those three proposals, which still exist in the UN forums, his work was not especially well received, so that part is entirely accurate. → Frisbeeteria Θtalk 17:01, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

My objections refer to the sentence "He brought a great sense of detail and a sense of history to the UN", which is obviously POV because it praises him. He had a lot of staunch enemies - such as myself - who thought (and think) that he brought nothing good. (for the record, though, he was a worthy enemy) -- Constantinopolis 17:31, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Constantinopolis, *try* using the talk page please. Rolling back untill you provide an argument for your case. Especially considering both Fris and me think it is accurate. Don't politicise EVERYTHING. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 17:26, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

See above. And try waiting for me to actually write my comments before you start assuming too many things. -- Constantinopolis 17:31, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

I am very dissapointed that you have to let your personal hatred of players be a part of your editing.

Hah! You shouldn't be the one to talk, Knoot (given your sychophantic article on Menelmacar). But, at any rate, I'd appreciate it if you stopped adding your fascinating afterthoughts - I keep getting edit conflicts every time I try to post. -- Constantinopolis 17:31, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Right. Not consulting the talk page or explaining your reasoning after two people have edited it and THEN reverting edit back to exactly the way it was AFTER explicit requests by a sysop to discuss it is starting an edit war. I will take this matter up with the other sysops to discuss the next course of action that is to be taken. I would rather you do not make personal attacks and remain reasonably calm.

I do not see, for example, where the entry says that "his opponents were f*cking morons", as you pointed out in your edit.

AFTERTHOUGHT: The entry on Menelmacar is a compilation of her old factbook, by the way. Just so you know the source. Trying to fill an entry that is very much linked to up has little to do with sychophancy but rather with trying to help out with the Wiki. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 17:43, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

All right, so you are telling me to remain calm? With all due respect, you sound like you need a break from all this stress yourself. Now, let's see, how did I not explain my reasoning? Perhaps I need to explain the exact ways in which a personal opinion (i.e. "X brought a great sense of Y and Z...") constitutes POV? Surely, you, as a sysop - a position which you mention with such great pride - are aware of what constitutes POV?

Of course the entry does not say "his opponents were f*cking morons"; in my edit, I used something called a hyperbole in an attempt to drive my point across. Apparently, it failed.

Now, if we are to get anywhere, we must have a constructive discussion. Tell me, what are your objections to my version of the article?

Oh, and thank you for the informative afterthought. -- Constantinopolis 18:02, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Rather than rolling back everything you don't like or don't agree with, how about actually editing it so that it MIGHT meet your interpretation of POV: "His partisans said he brought a great sense of detail and a sense of history to the UN, while his opponents presented the case that ...". He's not around to make his own case, so we have to fill in the blanks. My first-hand experiences are just as valid as yours, and rolling them back doesn't make yours true or mine false.

BTW, I'm not one of his partisans. I thought he was a self-important jerk, even though we shared certain political opinions at times. Don't get all your exercise jumping to conclusions. → Frisbeeteria Θtalk 18:25, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Well, I am usually more agreeable than this - and I assure you that I do want us to reach consensus. Allow me to explain myself: I removed that sentence (this whole argument is really only about a single sentence) because I didn't see its relevance. Certainly, we could present a number of different views of TGM, by his opponents as well as his supporters. But do such things really belong here? I mean, most of the other entries in the Halls of Memory don't include a lengthy discussion on other players' opinions about the nation in question. -- Constantinopolis 18:41, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

( I mean, most of the other entries in the Halls of Memory don't include a lengthy discussion on other players' opinions about the nation in question.) That's because *I* created most of those based on WFE entries and forum posts, and *I* don't have knowledge of most of these players. The entire history of NS is player and nation/character interaction, and I had every hope that people would fill out those entries based on their interactions with those "Historic Nations". You're still around to define your natin's history, but these folks aren't. Anything that gets added will be by definintion subjective. Let's aim for NPOV, but not by excluding things we don't agree with. → Frisbeeteria Θtalk 18:59, 27 Oct 2004 (GMT)

A more generalized version of this topic is now underway in Talk:Halls of Memory. → Frisbeeteria Θtalk

Added as a compromise idea:

His proponents lauded him for bringing a great sense of detail and a sense of history to the United Nations, where it was not always appreciated. His opponents, on the other hand, >insert grief here< -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 01:10, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)

for the record, I originally used great in the sense of anal-retentive, and sense of history should have read sense of real-world Ancient History. → Frisbeeteria Θtalk 01:08, 28 Oct 2004 (GMT)

Forgive my remarkable incompetence in all things computer-related - the last edit was mine. I hope it's a reasonable counterpoint to the more favourable commentary thus far provided. Feel free to tidy any mess I've left behind and give me a good kicking if necessary! Ecopoeia