Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Global Market"

Revision as of 14:02, 27 October 2004

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)