User talk:Salvador Allende

Can you explain why you added 150,000 civilians dead to the Iraq war page when the source does not state that? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the source is one uncoroborated source and provides a dubiously low estimate. Ity wasn't my source, I simply provides the generally accepted estimates, but forget to delete the erroneous source provided. Salvador Allende

Can you please see the talk page. The Lancet study is flawed, all other studies and the Iraqi government itself disagree with it. Myself and Kizzle have provided you with examples. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can read about the study here Lancet_study. Even Iraq Bodycount doesnt have a number that high. Its the only study with a 100,000+ number, or one within 30,000 over that number, furthermore it directly contradicts the number provided by the government itself. You cannot use a study over the factual number provided by the government itself. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke, your number just grew from 100k to 150k, once again in clear defiance of the IRaqi government itself. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more need for studies. I used the number provided by the Iraqi Health Ministry, which are their own facts. Please do not insert studies anymore as they are guesses on a number we now have a factual number for. Thank you for inspiring me to get the factual number from the Iraqi government itself. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War casualties

You seem slightly delusional as to the Iraq war casualties. What makes you so certain that the Iraqi Government figures are correct. They're hardly an unbiased source, and they don't take into account either indirect deaths relating to the war, or deaths which they did not have reported. As for Iraqi Body Count, it goes without saying that those numbers are a gross underestimate, as they themselve are very keen to point out that they only give deaths reported in the media. The IBC numbers should be taken as the lowest possible figure for fatalities as a result of the war. The Lancet study found figures that have not been repeated because no study has yet been done that has been so comprehensive. The Lancet found its numbers using the method of excess deaths, which is the common method of finding the death toll of other wars. In fact it is the only reliable method. As for the fact that I'm using the number 150,000 instead of 100,000; I've already answered that. Firstly, because Lancet itself said that 100,000 was probably an underestimate. Secondly, because the study was done nearly two years ago.

By the way, I'm to keep editing your manipulations until you stop.

--Salvador Allende 15:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provide 2 other sources with a number close to Lancet if you are so confidence in them, or do you think only they are reliable. Also you can revert all you want, if your only claim is that everyone but Lancet is corrupt, you may want to seek a more stable ground for your arguements. Lancet study btw calculated all violent deaths, not just those related to crime, please read the Lancet study page as you seem to misunderstand how thorough their research was. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't seem to understand. My claim is not that everyone but lancet is corrupt, if you stop to consider the range I keep giving then you'll notice that. I'm only giving the 150,000 as the upper limit, the highest number of fatalities that might have happened as a result of the invasion. The lower limit is from another source. By adding the Lancet figures I'm making the range more reliable, because more than 50,000 may have died. You don't seem to understand, either, the way in which the Lancet figures were found. Lancet got its numbers by measuring post-invasion excess deaths. Are you sure you directed me to the right article? The article seems to refute or at least respond to all the criticism directed at Lancet. --Salvador Allende 15:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have very similar edit patterns to another user, the whole read what you want to read thing. I will make you a bargain. Since Lancet is highly refuted, if you provide 2 other sources with a number within 10,000 of Lancets high, I will not revert anymore, fair? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you deleted this discussion? Is this not a fair compromise? If the numbers are valid I am sure you can find another source with similar numbers right? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no other study has been conducted that was similiarly comprehensive,that used the same methods or that included the same indirect fatalaties as Lancet. This is a great shame, and also quite amazing. But, for some reason, both the US and UK governments refuse to conduct any extrapolation of excess deaths since the Iraq war , and the intensifyng violence in Iraq. And I think my offer is very reasonable.--Salvador Allende 17:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you have 2 accounts you edit from? User:TeaDrinker and this one? Also this study was far from comprehensive, instead of checking with the health ministry it instead simply took a door to door poll in 33 locations sampling less then 1% of the people of the country. It then took those numbers and felt it was an adequate representation of the entire population of Iraq. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who the hell User:TeaDrinker is. You're describing a method used in pretty much every survey except censuses. The same method is used to measure the number of people killed by certain diseases, for example, and the numbers are accepted by western governments and international organisations.--Salvador Allende 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the way they find out how many people die of the flu is to goto door to door and ask, then figure if 1% of those people say they know someone who did, they then figure 1% of the total population of the country did. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More or less, yeah. --Salvador Allende 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Hi, Salvador and welcome to Wikipedia. I thought I'd mention that Wikipedia has a policy that strongly discourages users from taking the names of historical/political figures:

Wikipedia recommends that users avoid . . .

names of politicians, military or religious figures or events;

any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure.

Would you consider changing your username? Slac speak up! 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi slac, thanks, I didn't notice that advice before. My name originally was "Remember Salvador Allende", but I felt that was fairly theatrical and a bit of a mouthful. I would prefer to keep my present name, Allende is a minor hero and I feel very emotional about the circumstances of his death, the name's meant to be a tribute. I wouldn't want to keep if it could be seen as offensive, I don't really think that it would, but that's just my personal inclination, if you feel differently please tell me. If, on the other hand, the name's only effect would be that people identified me as a bit of a lefty or to annoy conservatives, then I've no problem with that. Please give you response, as I'm new to the site's etiquette.

Thanks for your reply. I think there are a couple of points here:

Whether the name is offensive;
Whether having a name that identifies you as holder of a particular political position is okay or not.

As far as the first one goes, I think the majority (but not all) of people who adopt the names of historical figures do so as a form of tribute to them. This of course is understandable, but some people are of the opinion that this is bad for Wikipedia, mainly because: it implies the editors may be editing for partisan reasons, rather than for the benefit of NPOV; and secondly because, with an eye to how external people view Wikipedia, it may appear as a negative to have people adopting the names of historical figures to edit.

Now there are people whose usernames reflect some aspect of their beliefs. I think that many users, with good reason, want to discourage this - it evokes similarities to the debate on userboxes. I think consensus here is not completely clear cut (although there would be more views against it than for it). Jimbo Wales and others have spoken very strongly against userboxes that proclaim people's political beliefs, but there is a degree of leeway. My personal view of incorporating political references (as opposed to actual names) is okay, provided it's in a subtle sort of way, since editing patterns are more important in forming impressions of a user than their name. But there's a big difference between openly acknowledging one's own biases when editing, and trumpeting them loudly, which could be seen as being to the exclusion or supression of other views. It's difficult to avoid pre-judging users who have a username that clearly expresses a POV, as I have encountered with some right-wing users.

I think, if you wanted to get a good sample of community opinion, you could start a listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the appropriate category. My prediction would be that most users would counsel you to change your name. As far as what you wanted to change it to - my advice is to keep in mind my words above - subtlety is probably the best approach. But this is my opinion, and there are probably some other users who might feel you could incorporate Allende's name or a statement about him into your username somehow. But in any case your editing practices are more important than your username. Happy editing, and have fun! Slac speak up! 04:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just happened to be browsing, and I saw your discussion on the Fidel Castro page. I would suggest a new user name as well. No offense, but you'll probably be taken more seriously with suggestions on subjects such as that with a politically neutral user name. Just a suggestion.--Ccosta 07:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Falkland Islands is currently protected. When it is unprotected you will not repeat your pushing of tendentious edits without first achieving consensus on its Talk page. If you do, you will be blocked. Also, if you do not remain civil on the Talk page you will be blocked. Wikipedia is not the place to have your battles. Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Your username has been blocked indefinitely because it is either inappropriate or too similar to an existing username (see our blocking policy for more information). You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username, and in a constructive manner. See Wikipedia:Username for guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia under an inappropriate username. If you would like to discuss the block, you may edit your talk page or email the administrator who blocked you.

Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible—if this doesn't happen within an hour or so, please email an administrator and explain the situation (see the list of administrators).

If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new one, leave a note on Wikipedia:Changing username. This can only be done before you create the new one. If you wish to create a new username, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username for information.

 ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]