User talk:Dorond

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela . 07:33, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

Image:World government hierarchy.gif has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:World government hierarchy.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Vandalism?

Hiya, how was I vandalising? Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 19:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what else to call removing a complete article on an important subject with a derogatory comment. This must be motivated by political views or a simple desire to sabotage and vandalise, not by any desire to inform anyone in an effective manner (which is what the Wikipedia is about). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorond (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's fine for you to reply here. I've got your talk page on my watchlist. The material at Federal World Government was largely speculation and redundant with world government - I'm sure you'll agree it's best to focus our efforts to make one great article than two average articles, rife with speculation. Also, please don't remove images from IFD - if you disagree with the deletion of them then please make a comment, saying you disagree rather than removing the listing. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 20:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the minimum, it is common courtesy to propose in advance a radical act like the one you performed, providing solid reasoning behind the proposal (clear of personal insults), and then waiting for responses. Obviously, quite a number of people (myself primarily) have invested many hours of their time to create and edit this article, and your actions showed an utter lack of respect for us.

To give you some historical background, I first invested much time and energy in editing the "World Governmnet" article, but it was quite hopelessly disorganized and incoherent (which it still is, in my opinion). After a while, I proposed to start afresh with a different perspective and outline, and was encouraged to do so by other editors. The result is the current FWG article, which I believe is far more coherent, informative and useful to readers with an interest in the subject. My belief is supported by a number of comments I received in person from readers, by the lack of complaints of the type found in the discussion page of the WG one, and by the more civilized discource on the pros and cons of the concept by editors. Out of respect and politeness, instead of simply deleting the previous article and replacing it with the new one, I created a new article (FWG), posted a link to it and requested reader comments before performing the deletion. Some readers asked me to leave the original article in place, and so I did, at least for now.

To the point: you want one great article and I want exactly the same. I suggest we start with the "FWG" one because it is more coherent, better organized, and does not overlap with other articles (on empires, science fiction, etc.). At the very least, this should be a topic open to other readers and editors, and not to be decided between the two of us. You are very welcome to lead the discussion and carry out polls (I'm very short of time these days). Until there is a clear verdict from the reading public, I suggest we let readers view both article and judge for themselves. --Dorond 21:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the title "Federal World Government" is way too specific. The idea of a world government is still a long way off, so creating two articles (say federal world government and unitary world government, plus all the other types of government) will involve a great deal of duplication. I suggest that we have just one article, and include that there are different areas of thought on how such a government would be structured. World government is naturally a better title for this.

Please note that none of the material in Federal World Government has been permanently removed - the good stuff deserves to be added to world government. You can get at the old version through the history.

I think the information on previous empires is very relavant to the idea of a world government. Science fiction is not so relevant but a short mention of it should be made (such as in a trivia section).

I suggest we stick with the world government article - it's got less speculation and wishful thinking in it, and while it's not as high-quality (FWG has some very well written speculation) it will prove a better base for working on. I don't think we should divide our time into two articles - it's important to work together on this. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UN

I was wondering, Dorond, if you could give me some websites that support your views on the UN??? I am working on a report on UN corruption and I have to present both views. LordRevan 02:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in response - I was away on a long business trip. I suggest you visit http://www.centerforunreform.org. Specifically, there is an article posted there reviewing the conclusions of the recent Volker inquiry. --Dorond 21:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Government

Your deleting of my edits is fraud. I have the impression that you only want views which are positive according to your ideology. It is a fact that Marx and Trotsky believed in a worldwide revolution resulting in a socialist society and that Hitler was planning to turn Berlin in the capital of the world. Denying it is fraud.Daanschr 21:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than calling names, I think it would be far more useful to this debate to show evidence that eitehr Marx or Hitler wrote something substantial about establishing a world government and/or that this was their agenda. Wanting to see a socialist revolution spread worldwide is similar to wanting to see capitalism or democracy spread worldwide. Neither directly implies a world government. As for the Nazis, they believed in establishing a large, powerful state, but I am not aware that they argued for establishing a world government. I am willing to be convinced otherwise if you come up with the evidence.--Dorond 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is evidence number one: Welthauptstadt Germania. Evidence two: the final sentence in The Internationale: The international ideal, Unites the human race.

The evidence is already on the talk page. You can't win this. Aditional evidence is enormous. It is in all major handbooks about worldhistory and communism. Let's mention the most clear example: Trotsky. Why can't he be in this article?Daanschr 18:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I missed it - where do you see a description of the concept of a world government designed to uphold international law in either of these references?--Dorond 19:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is said in the introduction that it could be communism or dictatorship as well. International law is created by those who rule internationally. I still have the impression that you only want to allow views which are positive according to your ideology. What you are doing is censorship and i am for unlimited freedom of information. You delete information that doesn't fit in your definition, while other definitions are possible as well.Daanschr 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encarta's definition is: "World Government, concept of a centralized global political organization and a common rule of law that would create international order and promote peace" (See http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761586535/World_Government.html). Looks even more "biased" to me than the one in Wikipedia.--Dorond 03:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both the nazis and the international orientated communists wanted world peace after a total victory followed by world domination. Germany tried to conquer the world during World War II, was creating the New Order and was planning Welthauptstad (worldcapital) Berlin. Communists (until Stalin with his socialism in one country) wanted worldrevolution or conquest of the world by communists. The state would slowly disappear afterwards as was stated in the texts you removed.

The global political system is centralized: Nazi capital Berlin and Soviet capital Moscow. These cities would be the centre of a world wide bureaucrazy.

A common rule of law: Nazi race-laws with a rase of lords, races of slaves and to be exterminated races. International communist rule of law would have been that of exterminating class differences and as fast as possible unescapable modernizations campaigns, followed by an assumed fading away of state and law.

Promoting peace: There would be worldwide peace if the nazis or communists had won, because all opposition would have been crushed. There would be one worldwide state with an army which immediately exterminates all resistance to maintain worldpeace.

So i agree with your definition, but i presume that the nazis and communists were both planning and already unifying the world politically.Daanschr 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you yourself admitted, you are presuming the plans and goals of these movements. These were not secrete movements, so there is plenty of documentation regarding what they planned. So let's not assume - let's check the facts. To the best of my knowledge, the Nazis' stated intent was to provide "living space" for their race, free of Jews, not to establish a world government or global laws. The communists certainly wanted to see communism spread and take hold globally, but, similarly, I am not aware that they had any concrete plans or a stated intent to establish a world government. The theory of "Socialism in one country" was about making socialism work in one country (namely Russia), not about world government.--Dorond 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Building the capital of the world means planning to rule the world. Trotsky and Lenin wanted to conquer the world, but Stalin was against.Daanschr 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of World government in fiction for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article World government in fiction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World government in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]