User talk:WGee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, WGee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 05:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Arbitration enforcement 2 Sweden Democrats and SweHomer 3 WP:BITE 4 Working together 5 Sign talk page comments 6 Sweden Democrats 7 Please respect Flonights advice 8 Email conversation 9 Your questions about SD 10 Watch the POV 11 Explanation 12 Userpage design 13 Sam Spade and socialism 14 Uni 15 Censorship 16 Thanks for asking - long reply 17 WikiProject 18 Use of fair use images outside of main article namespace 19 RE:British National Party 20 BNP 21 AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say 22 About {{Communism2}} 23 Welcome to Esperanza! 24 Chavez 25 Table 26 Names of Russia 27 On "belittling and discriminatory comments" 28 A short Esperanzial update 29 Template:WOT 30 Front National 31 Anon edits and reverts 32 Economic rewrite (Hugo Chavez) 33 Mission Barrio Adentro 34 Email 35 Regarding 172's comments 36 Arbitration Request Filed 37 Show good faith 38 NPOV tags 38.1 On a related note 39 Thanks for the backup re: personal attacks 40 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible 41 WGee 42 Merci 43 That sucks! 44 August Esperanza Newsletter 45 FAR of anarcho-capitalism 46 Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations 47 Just a heads up I don't think Sandy is a she ;) 48 Communism template 49 September Esperanza Newsletter 50 remark 51 US English 52 FAR question 53 3RR 54 DTC 55 Bit of advice 56 Long overdue thanks 57 Communist state 58 revert wars 59 Progress Party (Norway) 60 November Esperanza Newsletter 61 Hi 62 RfC has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs) 63 Venezuelan presidential election, 2006 64 Request for Mediation 65 Photographs on the Homelessness article 66 Revert on Labour Party (UK) 67 please refrain from personal attacks 68 one policy you dont mention 69 Clarification 70 I believe 71 User Skypad 72 Possible Goodbye 73 Possible Goodbye 74 WP:POINT on socialism 75 Your POV revert of criticism of Hugo Chavez 76 Your reversion policies 77 Money 78 Socialism and William Thompson 79 EnglishEfternamn 80 BNP 81 Response to Socialism Edits 82 BNP Intro 83 supply and demand 84 The revert on Socialism 85 Re: Georgia as a liberal democracy 86 Redundancy 87 Manifest Destiny 88 Demigod Ron's Redefinition of Socialism 89 "pro-capitalism elites" 90 Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism 91 Assistance

[edit] Arbitration enforcement

Hi there! Note that an arbitration enforcement has been asked against Intangible here. If you've had some troubles with him recently (in particular on deletion of "far right" epithets given, with sources, to far right parties and personalities), please let us know there. Merci! Tazmaniacs 13:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden Democrats and SweHomer

Now he has gone ahead and added alot of unsourced and argumentative material to the article. On the talk page he also have started to make personal attacks. Assistance is needed. // Liftarn

Just revert to the last good version. He has alseady done three revers so he will now be in violation of the 3RR (you may want to notify an administrator). // Liftarn

Got your message -- I have been inactive for awhile because of university work, but will soon turn my attention to giving you help on this subject (if help is still needed). Cheers, --DragonFly31 20:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BITE

Hello Wgee (and Liftarn), I sense your frustration working with this new editor. I left a welcome message on SweHomer talk page and encouraged him to read our policies on WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Remember WP:BITE encourges us to work with new editors to help them adjust to our rules. If this editor contiunes to frustrate you, let me know and I will try and help. regards, --FloNight ^talk 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Working together

Copied from FloNight talk

Thank-you for your speedy response. But SweHomer (talk • contribs) is not new to Wikipedia in general. For example, on the Sweden Democrats discussion page he says: "Normally I hold the English wikipedia in high regard compared to the Swedish Wiki". Therefore, I think he has much experience with Swedish Wikipedia. He is even familiar with the Arbitration System for resolving disputes and knows all the proper formatting, etc.

Have you viewed the Sweden Democrats article as of now? SweHomer's "Response to the Controversy" section is what I'm talking about. He is trying to use Wikipedia to prove his conspiracy theories, and he is knowingly violating NPOV policy, which seems quite evident to me. The most incriminating evidence: "This is of course what EXPO/AFA wants. To grow, and to get their revolution they need enemies and destabilization." I'm sure you can agree with me that this has no place in an encyclopedia. This type of political discourse is typical of him.

He thinks the "Response" section is a place for him to write an essay from the Sweden Democrats' point of view. I told him it is not, but he just won't stop. He is really degrading the encyclopedia, for he is turning Wikipedia into a place of politcal debate. I have nothing against addressing the allegations in a neutral way, complete with sources. In fact, I created the "Response" section and wrote the first paragraph. But what he's doing is just unnacceptable.

I ask that you ban him, at least temporarily, because he is not doing this out of ignorance. Or if you could intervene is some other way, that would be helpful, too. We simply cannot work with him, for he insists on including his personal beliefs in Wikipedia articles. WGee 22:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wgee I see that you are having problems working with this new editor. I need for you to stop calling what he writes rants and conspiracy theories. These are derogatory terms and do not help the situation. We need to work with this editor so the content is put in the proper form. Remember, one of the most important rules on Wikipedia is assume good faith. You do not know his intentions. Could you back off and let me work with this editor. Let's see if we can get proper sources to verify the content, okay. It is not going to hurt anything if the article is a little of the mark as long as the content is not a copyright violation or libel. If the material is not properly sourced in 24 hours we will take it out, okay? --FloNight ^talk 00:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied from FloNight talk

OK, I'll refrain from provoking him with such terms, though I do feel they are totally justified. Also, I should clarify that rebuking SweHomer's opinions and theories, no matter how scathing the terms, is not a personal attack.

I'll continue to monitor the article, but I won't edit it for a while, and I'll let SweHomer finish all of his edits. If he finishes, however, and the "Response" section is similar to how it currently stands, I will be sure to take action. But hopefully you can remind him of Wikipedia policies and prevent that from happening. WGee 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you WGee! This way is really much better. Let him finish writing the text. Then we make sure it has proper sources and is written in an encyclopedic manner. Remember, articles always turn out better when people with various pov work on them together. Everthing ends up being better sourced and more balanced pov. I'm sure that will be the case here. Be patient! It takes a days or sometimes weeks to work it out. Also read WP:DR. Banning someone is not a first step in dispute resolution. : ) You need to ask other editors fo help, get a third opinion, take a straw poll, or other ways to build consensus. Simply taking out content over and over again doesn't work. Of course if you take it out, then the other editor will put it back in. Round and round it goes, and you have an edit war. I'm speaking from experience! Everyone makes these mistakes until they learn the better ways. Remember WP:AGF, ask for help from other editors to build consensus, and be patient. --FloNight ^talk 01:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, before the day was out WGee launched into some forty-four edits of the article, misleadingly marked as minor (see below). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sign talk page comments

Please sign talk page comments with four ~ . This puts a your user name and date. thanks --FloNight ^talk 14:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden Democrats

1. I spent a great deal of time going through this article, introducing Wikipedia style to headings, etc., only to find that you've reverted most of my corrections, introducing a host of other errors. I've redone the work; please don't revert again.
2. Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please respect Flonights advice

Again you are taking turns in reverting. Can you please stop this and restore text to the version FloNight put it in?

"Do not remove or re-insert text without discussion leading to consensus. You have been asked nicely by myself and Mel."

I put this in the "talk" page of everyone, so there can me no further accidents. These to reverts were of course not done on purpose, you both just missed to read what Flonight wrote.SweHomer 11:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email conversation

Yes, my e-mail is not activated. It's one way of ensuring transparency: all my interactions at Wikipedia are conducted on-site. Is there some reason I should change this policy? Durova 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, I did not accuse SweHomer of anything in my original message to Durova. As you can see, I simply told Durova what each side was complaining about. Also, why do you see the need to privately discuss things with editors? From first glance it seems rather suspicious. ---WGee 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It has absolutely nothing to do with Sweden Democrats or any of that article's editors. I wanted to ask Durova a question about a completely unrelated matter. FloNight talk 20:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions about SD

The logo, i dont know. It should be changed, and fast. First time i did see it (BNP). I know it has been critizised, but i dont remeber the arguments. It also resembels the "conserative parties" logo, but not so close.

The name is changed, from BSS to SD. So that is done.

"the older members". That is hapening all the time at an accelerating rate - but its hard to expel them only for beeing members a long time. There must be a reason, and if they have a extermist view, this will sooner or later show - then the creativity is quite good. There was a case not so long ago in Trollhättan, where no obvious reason could be found - but he got expelled for not following economic procedures properly.

The few that is left are very bissy bees, they work hard for the organisation - to keep what little influence and power they have left, still probably dreaming of gettin back into power. I would estimate their numer to between five and ten on any important level. But all this is of course only my private speculations.SweHomer 23:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watch the POV

I reverted your recent edit of National Democrats (Sweden). Calling them neo-Nazi when they clearly don't have a Nazi party ideology is not accurate. The current wording is very reasonable and makes a decent representation of both how the party perceives itself and how they're viewed by non-sympathizers in Sweden.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

Sorry if I removed your comments, but I didn't mean to. "Remove redundant comment" was in referal to Sam Spade's "see above section" comment - I had moved the section so now that comment was within the section, so it was redundant, and so removed it to avoid confusion. -- infinity0 19:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage design

Steal away :) Its basically a bunch of subpages on one big page. If you need any help, I'll be sure to provide it. Cheers! ^_^ _-M ^o P-_ 01:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade and socialism

User:Sam Spade keeps reverting socialism back to his own version without attempting discussion. The next time he does this, could you please point this out to him? Thanks. -- infinity0 21:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If Sam Spade continues in this way, we may have to start an RfC of him. Are you active enough to participate? -- infinity0 22:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have started a draft RfC on Sam Spade at User:Infinity0/Drafts - feel free to add anything you think is necessary. I hope that it will be unnecessay; but if the situation continues I will be forced to formally submit it. -- infinity0 22:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uni

Heh, sorry, "Oxbridge" is as specific as I am willing to reveal right now :P Tutition fees in the UK are I think £3000 a year or so, might be a little higher. -- infinity0 17:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Hi there, our template for support of the Iraqi resistance was speedy deleted in spite of consensus to keep it, I complained here and here. ROGNNTUDJUU! 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish you were right about privileges revoked for admins who delete from my user space. NicholasTurnbull did just that, and other admins have not even warned him yet. He also deleted our template that had been there for a while and was voted to be kept. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, do not tell me, go to the pages I listed above to support my complaint, please. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot keep the content on my user space, the page was not only deleted but also blocked. ROGNNTUDJUU! 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for asking - long reply

(Copied from my talk page for continuity)

What is your motive? If it is that you don't support the use of Wiki servers to bolster political opinions, then you must essentially make all userpages neutral, which defeats the purpose of a personalized userspace and necessarily requires censorship. And I don't see what is so terribly wrong about notifying others of one's biases; nonetheless, I am willing to confine such blatant notifications to userspace only. I am in the process of gathering the code for my userboxes, provided their pages aren't blocked by those who wish to obstruct the freedom of expression on userpages.

Hopefully you are not opposed to my expressing my opinions in userspace, for then you would also be opposed to a fundamental concept of Wikipedia: the collection of a wide array of different viewpoints to essentially achieve NPOV. I mean, we express our opinions (either naturally or intentionally) through article discussions and through editing, so why shouldn't we be allowed to express them on our userspace. Do you agree or disagree with this logic?

I'm making a lot of assumptions, but you are free to respond.

--WGee 04:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I distinguish between using one's userpage to express one's political views and using Wikipedia resources to organize along political lines, which is precisely what template-style transclusion enables, whatever namespace it's in. I tolerate the former, and actively oppose the latter. Thus, it is not necessary to "make all userpages neutral". It's simply necessary to insist that transclusion be used for encyclopedic purposes only.

As for the idea that refraining from politicking "defeats the purpose of a personalized userspace", I invite you to check out User:SlimVirgin and User:Geogre's pages. Those are my two favorite examples of very expressive, individualistic user pages that serve as counterexamples to this part of your argument.

I don't think there's anything wrong with notifying others of one's biases. I think that using userboxes to identify oneself is cheap, lazy, simplistic, and overly given to the type of polarizing categorization that's the source of all of humanity's problems. (How's that for a POV?) There are plenty of people who really like leaving that kind of thinking behind when working on Wikipedia, and I think we should encourage more of that. I think an encyclopedia should be written by those who have a more nuanced approach to the world of their ideas than userboxes allow for. That said, I don't think censorship is necessary or even desirable for various philosophical reasons. I think we should be able to establish in some other way a culture of critical thought, examination of all points of view, and non-partisanship.

I'm not "opposed", as such, to your expressing your opinions on your userpage. I'd be more impressed if you approached Wikipedia with a strong desire to transcend your POVs here, and work for the higher purpose of building a good, accurate, neutral information source for everyone. Here, I'm an encyclopedia writer first, and everything else second. It's just a sense of having a role, in a context. I teach for a living, and I don't get political in the classroom, because that's not my role there.

I do disagree with your logic though. This sentence in particular is a non-sequitur: "we express our opinions (either naturally or intentionally) through article discussions and through editing, so why shouldn't we be allowed to express them on our userspace." Maybe we do express our POVs while editing. It doesn't follow from this fact that we should be allowed to express them explicitly on userpages, although I don't oppose that. The fact that we necessarily reveal ourselves in our edits doesn't even logically imply that we should have userpages at all, although I certainly am not arguing against those.

Also, the fundamental idea of Wikipedia is not that a bunch of people editing from disparate points of view will somehow "average out" to a good balance somewhere in the middle. The fundamental idea is that each editor strives for NPOV, and then maybe we get there.

Sorry for being verbose; I hope I've answered your question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should only intentionally publicize our opinions on our userpages (or talk pages), if we so choose, which is why I am attempting to gather all codes for my userboxes.

Also, I find it somewhat paradoxical that you are suggesting how I should reveal my personality. Others might not hold such strong or polemic political views as I; accordingly, they might not feel it necessary to reveal themselves through their beliefs. Conversely, my beliefs play an important role in my life, so I see it necessary to reveal them in order to indicate what type of person I am.

And yes, I've heard the argument before about userboxes being a cheap and lazy way of simplisticly revealing your opinion. Well, as a secondary school student I don't have the time or the deisre to write a long exposition about myself. If somebody would like me to elaborate on my beliefs, I will, step by step. Moreover, userboxes themselves do not create a culture that discourages critical thought, for critical thought is demonstrated all the time through editing and talk page discussions. Also, my userboxes are intended to be only a superficial insight into my beliefs, not a strict definition of all that I believe in. And you should not characterize those with divisive or polemic opinions as a bunch of closed-minded, POV pushers; I strive for neutrality and balance just as you do, but keep in mind that neutrality is subjective.

Also, you would like all users to transcend their personal beliefs here on Wikipedia. But I find such a suggestion anti-humanistic, for humans will naturally always defend their opinions, though some in more subtle ways than others.

Furthermore, neutrality is not objective; therefore, Wikipedia is a mosaic of different POVs, which is why it must operate according to consensus to achieve neutrality. In other words, when all editors strive to achieve their definition of NPOV, the result is an intersting blend of POVs. Its creators certainly relaized that.

Oh ya, and my non-sequitur. What I was trying to say is that we "might as well" express our opinions on userpages, since we are inevitably going to reveal them through our editing. I find it deceptive that some editors, and administrators in particular (though maybe not you), portray themselves as neutral, especially in controversial articles.

WGee 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject

Hmm, wikiprojects on one specific topic are usually frowned upon. On the other hand, I am willing to help out, but I don't think I will have much time to. You could list the articles which are flawed and why they are flawed, and post it up on Talk:Socialism asking whether people are interested - that might help. You could also message the talk pages of people who are interested and ask them to comment on your ideas. I am willing, but I don't know where to begin - you seem to, though.

Also, you may want to comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Spade - but please keep it constructive; it's supposed to try to make Sam Spade see what his faults are, not for people to go and attack him. -- infinity0 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of fair use images outside of main article namespace

I've removed Image:Communist Party of Canada logo.png from {{User Canadian Communist}} twice now. Use of fair use images in template space is not permitted by Wikipedia policy as outlined at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9. Please do not re-add a fair use image back into the template. Thanks, --Durin 20:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:British National Party

Thanks for pointing that out. The problem vandal was blocked, so there really isn't any need to go into semi-protect. However, since you've been watching it, give me a ring if anything new develops. Thanks. --Jay(Reply) 18:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BNP

Why did you remove fascism from the infobox? Reubensutton 11:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it is so far a mere allegation, and there are no reputable sources to back up the claim. Thus, I'd ask you not to add "fascism" to the infobox box in the future. -- WGee 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 00:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About {{Communism2}}

I spent a lot of time creating that template, aroused by the fact that I think at that time the original template was being proposed for deletion. Also, I felt that by creating a new template it would look neater, and right now many of the Communism-related articles have my template in them now, rather than the old. We'll have to talk more later about what should happen in the end. --NicAgent 05:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Esperanza!

[edit] Chavez

I strongly support your move on the Chavez article. The restoration of the main page version was bold and very helpful, as the article had been poisoned in recent months, since Saravask had left it, by tendentious edits by both pro-Chavez and anti-Chavez partisans... Here's my concern: I noticed afterwards you restored a more recent February version of the article by Saravask. While the February version is a little more up-to-date, I think you had the right idea earlier in making the basis for improvement the main page version. The fact that the version was a main page version is legitimating, meaning that it'll help calm concerns about the major revision you just made. I recommend editing the first main page version you restored, adding content from the February version to it. I'll also help with the copyediting. 172 | Talk 17:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. We must make as many improvements as possible in as little time as possible before to make sure that we can deal with anyone who stops by and tries to find an excuse to restore the mess that became of the article after Saravask had stopped editing it... I think you should focus on the notes and the inline citations. Like SandyGeorgia, the editor who has been making some good changes to the article mixed with some tendentious ones in recent weeks, I'm "old enough to remember what a typewriter is," as it says on his/her user page. It'd take me a long time to figure out how to fix the technical stuff. Instead, I can focus on the copyediting... So, how does this sound: while we're both online for the time being, how about you focus on the technical stuff, and I focus on the various editorial problems within the article? 172 | Talk 17:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Like SandyGeorgia, the editor who has been making some good changes to the article mixed with some tendentious ones in recent weeks,

I'd like to see an example of one of my "tendentious" edits. TIA, Sandy 00:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Like the insistence that the "events of April 2002" not be described as a "coup," which I discussed with you yesterday. Please don't take the comment personally; I've had disputes over content with many editors I respect greatly. 172 | Talk 00:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The "insistence" was that you should read the talk page (as I requested twice), [1] [2] and address the discussion of the term there, which included references. The "insistence" was that talk page consensus, per Wiki guidelines, be developed and honored. My "insistence" was not about the term, rather the process. But, thanks for the clarification, anyway. I didn't think any of my edits were "tendentious." Had you allowed consensus to develop, I would have honored the outcome with no problem, and my civil and open edit history shows that. End of conversation: just don't like to have my name smudged on talk pages. Sandy 00:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Further, the issue which you completely failed to understand (with respect to my "tendentious" edits), is that I was concerned about building consensus around the use of the word "coup" because OTHER editors began to change the title long after Zleitzen and I discussed the word. [3] I didn't edit the section heading again until others began to change it: this is why you should study a page history, discuss items on talk page before jumping in with drastic and intransigent actions, and allow consensus to develop. Since you short-circuited consensus-building (which I had started on the talk page), problems with the article may continue. Sandy 13:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's alright. You'd probably catch on must faster than I could. 172 | Talk 17:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. By the way, could you check to see if I messed anything up with the references in my last editing, which was to restore some text on current events from the most recent revision before your restoration of the main page version? (This edit [4]) Thanks. 172 | Talk 17:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a template: {{featured article}} 172 | Talk 18:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

Just after the {| part of the table, but align="right". The best way i've found to do that stuff is just copying and expanding upon other tables that you see. Back on my talk page, go to Help and Tables for more help. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 00:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names of Russia

In your comment to Russia:

Please refer to the Constitution of the Russian Federation: the offical title is Russian Federation [5]

Please, see Chapter 1 Article 1 of the Constitution:

The names "Russian Federation" and "Russia" shall be equivalent.

--ajvol 05:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On "belittling and discriminatory comments"

Since you saw fit to address the issue not to me personally but to another user, I will only say that I must reiterate this was an opinion of mine long before I knew who you were and owing nothing to you or your actions. I also find your description of my comments hypocritical in light of the conversation from which they came, which concerned in small part your rather exclusionary attitude towards Venezuelans and members of particular social classes. --TJive 01:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already clarified my comment on Sandy's talk page, explicitly stating that I do not wish to discourage anyone from editing Wikipedia. He even said that he apologised for any misunderstanding. So please refrain from misrepresenting me, as I find it particularly offensive. Also, I know that you've held that opinion for a while, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that it is discriminatory and alienating. If you want restrictive editing rights, Wikipedia is the wrong place to be. -- WGee 02:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. You made the right move in restoring the main page version. Exams also come before all else. Good luck on your exams. 172 | Talk 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WOT

Please use the talk page to list your reasons for adding the tag. It was originally removed in favor of the Globalize tag. Thank you --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing that right now. -- WGee 19:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Front National

Please stop this nonsense. Even René Rémond, whose work has produced the current 'consensual' taxonomy of the "extreme right" in France, does not talk about the Front National being "extreme right," because is does not seek a revolutionary revolution to the pre-1789 order. Intangible 18:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Good, you've named one person in one country who doesn't classify the FN as "extreme right" (though I'd like to see a source to verfiy this). But does he describe the FN in such a way that precludes the possibilty of it being "far right"? I was keen to use the term "far right" rather than "extreme right", as the latter is used by some scholars to denote militant neo-fascism. And please note that, outside of France at least, niether of those terms are synonomous with "reactionary".

The fact remains that plently of academic organizations and news agencies describe the FN as far right, and you have yet to show me which non-partisan organizations or scholars dispute this label. Furthermore, please keep future comments of this nature to the article's talk page, as I'm sure the other editors involved would like to see the rationale for your edits.

--WGee 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon edits and reverts

Don't know what to do about them anymore: they just keep coming. What's next? I'd like to finish bringing back refs, complete the criticism article, and start reducing the main article. Too much to do all at once, especially with continuous reverts needed. Did you ever look at Flanker's suggested rewrite of Economic policy in the sandbox? Sandy 19:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've reverted the essay two or three times. My hands are tied. Sandy 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the economic policy rewrite and I'm not willing to accept it in its current state. Flanker had a good idea in summarising Chavez's overall economic ideology and explaining its goals, but it's all unsourced. If he can source the first paragraph, perhaps it can be inserted into the article, pending a consensus, of course.

The only thing one can do to permanently stop the POV trolls is open an arbitration case (or perhaps a mediation case and hope they'll abide by the mediator's suggestion). But that's quite a lengthy and involving process that I think we'd want to avoid right now. You, Flanker, and I just have to be vigilant.

-- WGee 00:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully, others will begin to help. Sandy 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic rewrite (Hugo Chavez)

Actually I am waiting a bit for the main source to finish migrating to their new website, might start anytime this week. I will let you know.Flanker 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mission Barrio Adentro

As one of the editors presently working on the Hugo Chavez article, I wondered if you could take a look at the above page. I'm interested in the lower section - as it crosses into one of my editing areas - including Healthcare of Cuba. I wondered if you could add any comments to the Mission Barrio Adentro talk page, I'm interested in what kind of response people have to the material presented as it may need some work.--Zleitzen 03:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hi WGee. Could you seen me an email through the Wikipedia email feature, or if that doesn't work sokolov47 @yahoo.com? Thanks. 172 | Talk 07:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Doesn't omitting a space prevent spambots? I'm not sure. But I've seen other editors do it, so I've started doing it myself... I would recommend Foreign Affiars. FA is the more established journal, established in 1921 and published by the Council on Foreign Relations. Foreign Policy, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was founded in 1970 and today has somewhat more of a neoconservative bent than FA. Given the Council on Foreign Relations' extensive interlocking relationships with academic and foreign policymaker communities, FA probably continues to play a greater role in shaping elite discourse on international affairs than FP. 172 | Talk 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If I didn't get free access to periodcials from the university library, Foreign Affairs would definately be one of the subscriptions for which I'd pay, along with Economist and the New York Times... It's too bad you'll probably have to wait to get to college to get free access. (By the way, I was really surprised earlier to find out on your user page that you were still in high school. From the quality of your writing, I'd assume you were a graduate or even a grad student.) 172 | Talk 05:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding 172's comments

WGee, I'm sorry for taking so long to respond to you on this. My usual editing speed is curtailed by the afermath of the lightening strike, and from a very slow dialup on a laptop with a troubled keypad, the simplest of tasks take a long time.

User:172 has completely misconstrued the intent of my remarks. The point was to highlight the reasons I strongly doubted that you were intentionally inserting POV, demonstrating that it would be improbable for you to have been aware of those events. I probably could have found a way to make that point without mentioning your probable age at the time of those events, but my intent was to provide a strong case that I was not accusing you of intentionally inserting POV.

It is troubling to observe that 172's participation seems to cause discord among other editors. Flanker and I enjoyed a cordial, effective working relationship, and as an example, we had all agreed that your rewrite to the lead was a good one. It was stable, with the exception of one anon editor inserting the word "militarism". Yet, going against the consensus we had all developed on talk page supporting your lead, 172 decided he was empowered to take the unilateral decision to revert your rewrite to the lead. I encourage you to be aware of sources of discord, so that we can continue to enjoy the consensual environment that existed on the article. I thought we were on track towards your goal of maintaining FA possibility for the article, but that is looking unlikely at this point.

172 deletes most commentary unfavorable to him from his talk page, but as a courtesy to him, I will notify him of this comment anyway. I apologize for any unintended implications that other editors may have misread into my comment. Regards, Sandy 14:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: Now that I've located media reports of the events, I also realize that I did the math completely wrong. I thought the events had occurred much earlier. Given that it was early 2003, it's surprising that Flanker wasn't aware of the events either. Perhaps he was not in Venezuela at the time, or is not Venezuelan, or was reading the same newspapers that reported only one candidate objecting to primaries, when nine accepted. At any rate, the fact that he wasn't aware is a further indication that there was no reason for you to have known about the incidents. Sandy 15:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

While I was not particularly offended by your comment, it did seem as though it was intended to question my competence as an editor. However, since that was evidently not its purpose, let's drop the issue, apology accepted.

You claimed that 172's participation effects discord amongst the editors, but that's not what I've gathered from my observations. It appears that you are the only editor who finds 172 and/or his contributions disagreeable; there is not a general atmosphere of discontent. Also, 172 did not rewrite the lead; rather, he simply merged a few paragraphs to improve structure and readability, and slightly altered the wording to improve fluidity.

Thus, you shouldn't label someone a source of discord merely because they make some edits with which you don't agree (otherwise, Flanker and I would be a "sources of discord", as well). And he is certainly not creating an obstacle to FA status, as you suggested. In fact, I see no reason why you would say such a thing, since his contributions to both the talk page and the article are overwhelmingly constructive. I think you are overreacting to 172's contributions and unjustly treating him as though he doesn't belong in the discussion. I suggest you abandon your apparant dislike of him and begin to work with him cordially like you would any other editor.

-- WGee 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

While I don't agree with all of your statements, I'm glad the situation between you and me is clarified, and I apologize for any appearance of questioning your competence. I do hope someone will repair the refs, as it doesn't look like the technology in my household is going to be restored any time soon, and going through the diffs to find refs is cumbersome. Regards, Sandy 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard for me to pull up the diffs, but current references numbered 50 and 52 are missing. I'm sure one of them is to the FA article, as it is to the word "credible". I think it should be possible to reconstuct the refs by locating 172's change to the lead, since I think the first occurrence of the FA ref was to the old reference to "militarism" in the lead. HTH, Sandy 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, WGee, if you're able to fix it, the "credible" comment is from p.48. Sandy 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Intangible. See [here]. Please post any comments you desire to add.--Cberlet 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Show good faith

Assume good faith: show good faith. You know the Criticism was exorcised, and now completely deleted. Please restore the POV tag. With the unjust obliteration of all criticism of Chavez, you cannot claim in good faith that the article is neutral, just because there is "plenty of criticism". Sandy 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've told you why I don't believe the removal of certain critics' claims makes the article pro-Chavez. I'd like you to explain how it would make the article pro-Chavez. This has nothing to do with assuming faith. -- WGee 02:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tags

Where an NPOV dispute exists, unilateral removing of an NPOV tag is not accepted as correct behaviour on WP. Please follow Wikipedia rules. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the existence of the rule to which you're referring. Regardless, I acknowledge that there is a dispute; I just think the wrong tag was inserted. -- WGee 02:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the extreme measures that have been employed to prevent any criticism of Chavez, I can't think of a more appropriate tag. I have been gracious in not objecting to the unbalanced tag earlier, since it has been POV ever since I removed the Criticism, and then the rest of you refused to shorten the rest of the article. Sandy 02:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how any removal of uncountered criticism could effect a pro-Chavez bias, especially when there is still an appropriately-sized criticism section in the article. Also, I'm not employing extreme measures to prevent any criticism of Chavez; I'm simply trying to prevent the flooding of the article with critics' and supporters' claims. The main article should deal primarily with undisputable facts; the daughter article should contain all of the positive and negative allegations. -- WGee 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you aren't employing extreme measures, but your actions (things like insisting on seeing online content, rejecting content from Foreign Affairs), seem to have helped empower Flanker to believe his extreme measures have support. Your argument seems to be, well, there's enough criticism, so it's OK to delete a whole lot of legitimate, referenced criticism. That doesn't make sense. Sandy 02:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

PS, if the daughter article should have them, there's the problem. Flanker blanked them. The main article relies on Summary Style, or was supposed to. It no longer does, and the Summary Criticism is no longer there. So the main article is now even more POV than it was before, and it was always POV. Sandy 02:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In no way am I approving the sweeping deletions in the Criticism of Hugo Chavez article. I'm just saying that the removal of uncountered criticism in the main article, no matter how much, could not possibly make the article pro-Chavez. -- WGee 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, according to you, if we get rid of all criticism and praise from the article, the article becomes pro-Chavez. I don't understand the logic in that. -- WGee 02:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Here's my position. Up to some point, we had a consensual process going on, and work was productive. At some point, a double standard and whole new non-Wiki set of rules came into play, and work stopped. We need a balanced article. Instead, we spend our time countering extreme moves, whose goal appears to have been to remove criticism, then blank it. That's where we are. The main article wasn't balanced, it depended on a daughter article, and the daughter article is now gone. We're nowhere. Sandy 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right: the main article wasn't balanced; it was hopelessly anti-Chavez. There were tonnes of sources lambasting Chavez, yet virtually none praising him. -- WGee 02:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure :-) We'll see what tomorrow brings. Enough extremism for me for today. Sandy 02:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine, but I'd like to say one more thing. . . What you're arguing for, in practice, is an increase in criticism as a percentage of the article. But I believe that the criticism section is already a proportionate size. You can't just say "I want no double standards, so I'm going to plop a whole article's worth of criticism in the main article." You have to be realistic. What do you think is a proportionate size for the criticism section? Would you like to go so far as to calculate the median number of words in each section, and then use that as a size limit? -- WGee 03:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've said before what I want to do. Employ an effective Summary style for the entire article. We're still hanging on to ancient history in that article, and no one in their right mind would even read the darn thing. The mistake I made -- and for which I feel I was abused of, because I did it specifically to generate good will -- was to start the summary from the bottom up, removing criticism first, so that we ended up with an unbalanced article with a bunch of verbosity which amounts to praise of Chavez on top, and a blurb about criticism relegated to a small section on bottom. It's just not a good article, notwithstanding the criticism issue, and regardless of whether one is pro- or anti-Chavez. It grew too large out of the need to please everyone. And, Saravask had cut it to almost half of what it was reverted to. We should start from the top down, and thoroughly evaluate how much of that absurd verbosity is really needed, trim the article down, get everything proportionate, and then Criticism (in its place, in the criticism article) should also be proportionate. Right now we've got an article so long that it's doing "nothing for no one". And, when we try to work on it, Flanker takes extreme measures. After the last three or four go-rounds (things he's done in the other articles), it's becoming apparent that he doesn't have a capacity for viewing things through a neutral prism when it comes to Chavez, or seeing VenAnalysis for what it is. (And, a change for me is, I've become really tired of cleaning up his refs and prose since the lightening strike set me back so far.) If you don't want long Criticism, you can't have long everything else. Shorten it all, make everything proportionate, concise, and encyclopedic, no double standards. That's my idea. Sandy 03:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On a related note

I am drawing your attention to this because it has now happened more than once. Here is your edit summary, when you removed the POV tag. You said, " I understand why you are outraged, Sandy." This is after the incident in which you asked me to "calm down", right after I explained to Flanker that the same wording was condescending and patronizing. These kinds of statements appear to be intended to paint me in a certain light. Please refrain in the future, since you are not in a position to know my emotional state, and I'm sure you don't intend your edit summaries to be verging on personal attacks. Thanks, Sandy 15:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Holy smokes. Now I can't comment on people's apparent feelings without being accused of (unintentionally) making veiled personal attacks? I'm not trying to paint anyone in a certain light; I'm not being patronizing. I was merely trying to be understanding of your feelings about the issue. You have a bad habit of dwelling too deeply into simple, innocent comments—from my "anti-Venezuelan" comment, to my "calm down" comment, and now to this comment. -- WGee 17:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As you said, "apparent": you are not in a position to know my emotional state. I fully understand you may not have intended anything: if you do it again, it will appear to be with intent. Regards, Sandy 17:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm free to state people's apparent emotions. If I am wrong about your emotions, correct me, but don't assume bad faith and claim that I am intentionally offending you, when I have specifically stated that that is not my intention. And don't stretch something as insignificant as this into a personal attack (please review WP:ATTACK). -- WGee 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

WGee, I am not assuming bad faith, I am not saying you are doing it intentionally, I am pointing out to you that you're doing it, so it can stop. I am not saying it has been a personal attack. I am asking you to be aware that you do it, and not to do it again. Peace, Sandy 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But you said that if I comment on your emotions again, you will consider it an intentional effort to offend you, even if I explictly tell you that it is not intended to be offensive. That is a prime example of assuming bad faith. Nonetheless, I don't want to be a polemicist, so I'll do my best to avoid commenting on your emotions in the future. -- WGee 18:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point; please don't overinterpret. There's a difference between saying someting on a talk page, where it can be explained, and putting it into the edit history summary of the article. The edit history of Chavez now says I'm "outraged". See what I mean? Sandy 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the backup re: personal attacks

After reading the banning threat I have come to the conclusion that perhaps I am not wanted editing the article/s.Flanker 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that way, doesn't it? Nonetheless, I encourage you to remain involved in the article; your contributions are highly valued and appreciated (by me, at least) : ) -- WGee 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WGee

Shannon, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thus, do not use discussion pages or articles as a means to propagate and advocate your personal political beliefs. Comment constructively on the content of articles or do not comment at all; do not incite political debate. I have thus far observed your political advocacy in the discussion pages of the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles, in particular. If this type of behaviour persists, you may be banned or blocked for disrupting the collaborative editing process. This notice should be considered a first warning. I would appreciate your cooperation. -- WGee 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC) (Comment orignally posted on the talk page of Lingeron, but removed by her, being denounced as "assinine", "total crap", and "harrassing".)

I would also appreciate it if you didn't leave harassaing comments on my talk page. We were all having a perfectly congenial conversation at talk:anarchism, which, btw, actually fit into our previous discussions concerning this article. I wasn't having it by myself. There were several of us. So I'll assume you left the same comment on the others' pages. Also, as having a discussion is disrupting Wikipedia, according to you, I would imagine that you would need to leave this same comment on hundreds of pages. And finally, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Harassment policy. I believe that your unfounded and prejudicial threat of closing my account could be construed as harassment. Have a wonderful evening. Shannon^{duck talk} 02:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I just noticed that you're not even an admin. You really have some nerve don't you, WGee? That was really out of line, and I believe I could write you up for that. Shannon^{duck talk} 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The "congenial conversation at talk:anarchism" is a violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Discussion pages exist solely to discuss the content of articles; they do not exist to advocate, debate, or otherwise discuss one's personal political beliefs. Likewise, I do not oppose a group of editors holding discussion, per se; what I oppose is a group of editors holding an unconstructive debate about politics that is irrelevant to the improvement of an article. I targeted you in particular because my observations indicate that you are the lead inciter of those disruptive, unrpoductive political debates. Civilly asking you to desist inciting political debate is not harrasement; I would encourage you to thoroughly review Wikipedia:Harassment before making such accusations. -- WGee 03:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC) (Comment orignally posted on the talk page of Lingeron, but removed by her, being denounced as "assinine", "total crap", and "harrassing".)

And I would encourage you to become an admin before making threatening comments on users pages. Especially telling them that their account may be blocked. Additionally, I really don't much give a @#!& what you think and I can't for the life of me see how any of this is any of your business. You are not welcome on my page. Please don't make comments there again. Shannon^{duck talk} 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And ps your comments were not even close to civil. Shannon^{duck talk} 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merci

Salut - parles-tu francais? Je l'ai vu sur ta page d'utilisateur. Thanks for stopping by the anarchism-related pages and providing your perspective. All of them certainly need some outside perspective, especially since they're fringe topics, meaning that interested partisans tend to be the only ones who edit them. It can get very frustrating for that reason, but try not to get burnt out. In the meantime, good luck, and happy editing! --AaronS 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

PS -- thanks for helping out re: Lingeron, as well. --AaronS 01:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oui, il y a eu quelques contributions très tendancieux récemment. Je ne sais pas pourquoi il est un article de qualité toujours. De plus, seulement six rédacteurs ont appuyé sa désignation. I agree that the article is being harmed by paritsan interests, and I had hoped to begin to rectify the issue by removing Shannon and her trollish flames from the equation. Now that the problem of Shannon has been dealt with, we can now begin to address the real concerns people have. We must first, though, remove the article's FA status, which is certainly no longer warranted. Perhaps it will be in the future, but not now, with all these disputes and such. -- WGee 01:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Je suis absoluement d'accord. =) --AaronS 19:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ouais, je reviendrai bientôt... j'ai besoin de vacances. ;-) Merci bien de tes mots d'encouragement. --AaronS 02:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That sucks!

Hope you get a new one. I haven't actually done any Critical Mass rides, but I know the people who organize them in my area (and I have a friend who was arrested at one). I get around by bus (and occasionally a fold-up scooter that I can cary on the bus) because the city I live in was definitely not designed to be bike friendly. Plus my bike is covered with black widow webs (and possibly black widows) in my shed, and I'm afraid of those things. Ugh! The Ungovernable Force 05:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: To-Do List The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential! What's New? In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs. To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed! The In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created. Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter. Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program. There is a page for discussing the front page redesign. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

[edit] FAR of anarcho-capitalism

They are closing the vote, so you might want to get in your last words, as well as a vote. Best, --AaronS 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations

In the future, instead of citing the proposed policy of vote stacking, cite WP:SPAM#Canvassing. It's basically same thing, but it's an actual policy. I dont particularly like being accused of rigging the vote, and I dont agree with either the proposed policy you cited or the one I just pointed out. They're incredibly vague and defy sensibility, but wtv. In all of my messages, all I did was say what side I supported, and pointed out the vote. It's hardly vote manipulation. Just to be fair, I went ahead and contacted all users who identify themselves as Venezuelan Wikipedians. If you still have problems with my contacting other users, please explain where the line is drawn. Respectfully, Republitarian 15:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

After I saw what you posted on the talkpage, I'm assuming you made a mistake. Please see my response on Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations. If you make an accusation like that in the future, I will see outside intervention. Republitarian 18:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations:

You said: Also, please stop bringing up that incident in bad faith

Regarding the incident in question, I agree that it should not have been raised on the Israel-Venezuela page, and regret that it was. It was unnecessary and inappropriate for Mateo to bring entire quotes from another talk page (Talk:Hugo Chávez) to the I-V article talk page, and inappropriate to pursue it on Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations, which is why I ignored it the first time Mateo raised it on that page. I only answered when he persisted. I have left a message for Mateo reminding him of talk page guidelines: my sense is that he hasn't been involved in complex topics before, and might not be aware. I apologize that your name was drug through that unnecessarily on a separate talk page, and hope that Mateo will understand he is inappropriately using talk pages (his comments like, "Oh good let's form sides and have a soccer game. j/k." are also inappropriate to a serious discussion, IMO).

Regarding your unnecessarily aggressive edit summary; [6] first, you failed to assume good faith — in my view, putting "biased" in quotes was completely natural, since those sources are not biased by any Wiki definition. Second, I'm sure you're aware of Wiki guidelines about edit summaries, and I believe we've discussed this before. Again, I would appreciate it if you would be less aggressive in your edit summaries, and remember to assume good faith. Thanks, Sandy 15:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To repeatedly bring up that point in history is not productive, and only serves to inflame tensions. Thus, I don't think that the incident should have been raised at all, on any talk page. Nevertheless, I appreciate your explanation.

I should have worded my edit summary more carefully to avoid offending you, but I do think that you should not categorize other people's comments using scare-quotes, or in any other fashion that would detract from the importance of a person's comments. I don't notice anything "aggressive" about my edit summaries in general, though. Your edit summaries, on the other hand, are quite inflammatory by my standards.

-- WGee 21:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a heads up I don't think Sandy is a she ;)

Perhaps we should have asked before to be sure. As for the statement yeah it is odd. Flanker 23:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communism template

Hi, the very fact the hammer & sickle are the most known image associated to communism does not imply that it is correct to use it here. Marx's Kapital is the only common element (and not a symbol indeed) to all mentioned movements. Hammer & sickle are proper to russian revolution (1917 and onwards) and to maoism, and most communists today are quite hostile to this tradition... well, I will not go on with modifying the template, but I still think that, from historical point of view, it is a wrong icon. Ziel 07:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

About its being ugly: a few days ago, Polish copy of English version of this template was proposed to deletion because of its being precisely ugly:) It is going all right now also because I have changed its redness into a calm white. Mais bon, il y a toujours ce dicton pacifique: des goûts et des couleurs, on ne discute pas. bye! Ziel 08:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the English one as it stands looks pretty bad, but Ziel's was too boring. As for the image, between the two I'd say Hammer and Sickle. I would like to point out to you WGee, that I find it ironic that you said "anarchist communists and those of the New Left do not wholly subscribe to Marx's occasionally outdated and irrelevant critique of capitalism" as an argument against using Das Kapital on Ziel's talk page. Do you think us anarchists like the Hammer and Sickle? If anything, we'd be more likely to read Das Kapital than use the symbol of a totalitarian nation. Just thought I would point that out. It gave me a laugh ;) Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 08:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And that's why I still think we should use the hammer and sickle. Just felt like pointing out the irony. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors! What's New? September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves! Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there! The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived. Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage. The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself! The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it! TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly! Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

[edit] remark

Your smirky remark "And keep in mind the terms of your probation" is uncalled for. Intangible 08:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US English

Hi WGee, the Chavez article is in US English from the start so we need to keep at that way - even though it pains me to do so!--Zleitzen 00:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR question

I don't support the idea, but do feel obliged to explain the process, so here is what I've found, from remembering an FA that has come through multiple times. Go to Talk:New York City. It has had three WP:FAs. Click on the links. It looks like the editor had to first archive the old ones under a new name (he added a 1 and 2 at the end of the old ones), then start the current one. Then, in the current FAC, he linked to the older (archived) ones, so that there's a record of all three of them. I still don't think it will be well received, though. The consensus will likely be to remove it, on precedent, so I encourage you to try dispute resolution first. At best, it may work: at worst, it will give your FAR a better chance of success. Sandy 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Silly me. It's explained right on the front page of WP:FAR. "NB If an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1". I guess we both should have read that page first: it also explains the 3-month period. Sandy 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revelation! If possible, I want to avoid working with the intransigent anarcho-capitalists who've established control of the article—it's too time-consuming and, from experience, it won't produce anything. I don't have time for arbitration, either. I'm hoping that an FAR will bring some neutral voices into the fray, because we clearly need a more broad array of people in order to formulate a legitimate consensus on what this article should look like. If my review is deleted, however, I'll be willing to wait the three months. -- WGee 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Couple of notes: half of the three months is already gone almost, and the last FAR did not bring more voices - it doesn't seem to work that way. FAR really won't accomplish what you want it to accomplish: better for Wiki is a mediation to address the problems. Just my opinion. Sandy 20:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Anarcho-capitalism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Intangible 18:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DTC

I think that the stylistic and telological evidence is strong, but that's about it. I haven't done anything about it, because I really just don't have any time, and don't like spending time gathering evidence for something like that. --AaronS 00:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bit of advice

Try not to get addicted to wikipedia - your life is more important. If you're making no headway on an article, just slap a POV tag on it to warn readers of the crap on it, and list your reasons on the talk page. There are more effective ways of fighting the good fight instead of arguing with POV-pushers on some internet site. :) -- infinity0 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and btw, I'm back. Good to see the work you've been doing. :) -- infinity0 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long overdue thanks

I just noticed that I never thanked you for defending me here. I know it's been ages ago, but I think it's never too late to thank someone. So thank you. :-) Best regards.--Húsönd 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to know that you keep a strict stance against unfair treatment. That is most commendable. :-) As for the languages, I seem to have a natural ability to learn them quite easily. My father has it too, so it must be genetic heh. But, erm, I don't do so well at maths. :-/ Regards. --Húsönd 02:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, no. I'm bad at maths but fortunately that nightmare is over now. I'm a university student and a few years ago I made sure that I would choose a course where I wouldn't see many numbers. :-) --Húsönd 02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communist state

If you have time, take a look at the article. Efforts to turn the article into something usable are getting their usual resistance. 172 | Talk 20:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that user:Fastifex is striking with his garbage also here. I've called an advocacy to let him reason in his additions (mostly out-of-date stuff from Catholic Encyclopedia put here without a minimal copyediting), but he seems to not hear anything. With other users we were mumbling about a possible ban against him (but I frankly don't know the exact procedure to ask such a move). If you're interested, further info in his talk page. Bye and good work. --Attilios 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revert wars

I'm not sure how you would qualify my actions there as "revert war". If anything I was the only one there who wanted to discusses my changes. I've provided a rational on the talk page with the second revert [7][8], and even pointed this out on that user's talk page (User_talk:83.182.216.235). However, this was not even enough to stop that (anonymous) user from reverting, without any discussion, which simply borders on vandalism on that user's part. Intangible 15:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progress Party (Norway)

Please use the talk page when you do controversial edits. You know that the use of terms like far right is being discussed there. Ahy1 13:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Ahy1. Ahy1 00:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter

For your reading pleasure, the newest Esperanza newsletter (November '06 edition) can be found at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter. —Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello, 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I replied to your post on Talk:Georgia (country) and if you are interested in Georgia, please contact User:Ldingley, he is also Canadian and is a brilliant scholar. I think POV discussion must end, because, for example I am free to think that Cuba is an authoritarian dictatorship, but that does not give me a right to start a POV battle and change socialist republic to tyranny, which is a classic Aristotle’s definition of the kind of regime that governs Cuba right now. Cheers!Sosomk 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Man, I already made my point and I don't understan what u r saying SosoMK 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you did violate 3R rule and in addition, you vandalized the page. SosoMK 02:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, take it easy and don't worry about it, it is a waste of time. You can watch TV, the election stats are very interestingSosoMK 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs)

A conduct dispute Request for Comment has been raised against Anarcho-capitalism and your attempts to sort out the issue is cited. Donnacha 09:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to start it up. I'll comment shortly after I'm unblocked. -- WGee 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Time's ticking, if another editor doesn't add support, then it disappears! Donnacha 00:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Communism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] Venezuelan presidential election, 2006

After seeing your recent comment I noticed you never participated in that article that will soon be a current event. I would appreciate your input on where it stands right now, Regards. Flanker 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Communism. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Photographs on the Homelessness article

Hi WGee. I noticed you re-arranged and also added/increased the image size of photographs on the Homelessness article. We had a very international delicate balance. Trying to keep NPOV and also not showing homeless people's faces, except the well-known man in New Zealand. I'd like to put it back more like it was. Any ideas ? Best Wishes and Thanks in advance. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)

Hi WGee. Thanks for your comments. We'll let it all stand as it is, pending further insightful comments. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC) (talk)

[edit] Revert on Labour Party (UK)

Why did you revert this article back 17 days to November 16, 2006 02:33 on December 2, 2006 at 20:40, removing over 40 edits? You can see the changes here. It removed updates, a {{fact}} and a revert of the table of Labour Party leaders since 1906. I personally find the table nicer looking compared to what it was before. I see no discussion on the talk page to the revert and the editors have not been contacted. Could I have an explantion to why this revert occured? --TheTallOne 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please refrain from personal attacks

Please refrain from personal attacks i do not insult you and you should not insult me and just because something is in print dosent make it a reliable source. My views are also just as valid as the next. It is just because I do things you dislike that I get on your nerves.--Lucy-marie 22:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't on about that i was on about you trying to stop my saying what i wanted on a discussion page.--Lucy-marie 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

please do not use the words irellevent when referong tp my points of view they are relevant to the discussion. It is also insulting to use the word when refering to a minority opinion.--Lucy-marie 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If I was to really let you know how I felt about you I would be banned from wikipedia but I dont want that you are the kind of thorn in the side of poele who is just like health and saftey inconveniant at the best of times and down right rediculous at the worst. So now I will leave before I say samething on here I will be chastised for by some know it all by the book admin. You can call me petty but in the long run you are the pettier as you are driving away commited wikipedian by being down right spiteful. --Lucy-marie 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't tolerate users who refuse to abide by WP:V, WP:OR and WP:WWIN. Simple as that. -- WGee 22:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] one policy you dont mention

I would like to point out the ignore all rules policy which states:
If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.
In my opinion i was improving wikipedia so i was in my opinion at least following wikipedia offical polciy.--Lucy-marie 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

I would like to say the following and put the past few hours behind us and move on.
Things got a bit heated between us in our last discussions, and I'm sorry it worked out that way. I hope we can work together better in the future.
This is neither a statement adminting or infering blame--Lucy-marie 01:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I believe

that the bnp page can be sorted out with the support of those on the talk page. I dislike the word use of racist..but i support the use of a less extreme word. Id like to apoligise for my rather erratic behaviour as of late. I hope we can work together to make the page more encyclopedic, and i look forward to hearing your ideas (so to speak) Fethroesforia 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Skypad

Don't lose your time with User:Skypad, he's a verified sockpuppet and has already been blocked JRSP 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Goodbye

[edit] Possible Goodbye

Hey WGee! I just wanted to drop in and give my possible farewell. I've been thinking about quitting Wikipedia for a while, the edit-stalking from "anarcho"-capitalist members and sockpuppets, the heated battles, the senseless revisions, and the stubborness and close-mindedness of some members is too frustrating to deal with. I've enjoyed your contributions I congratulate you for holding your own with User:Anarcho-capitalism and other "an"-cap sockpuppets. Some other anarchist members have already been banned or chased off the site by members and admins, so I'm seriously thinking about leaving within the next couple of days before I get banned as well for upsetting other (anarcho-capitalist) members. Especially after the messed up way Donnacha was chased off this website. Apparently, if social anarchists help portray Individualist and Mutualist Anarchists in a historical light instead of an-cap historical revisionism, it's a diabolical communist plot. *rolleyes*

Anyway, I was glad to know you and I wish you the best. ;) In solidarity, Full Shunyata 06:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT on socialism

Happy New Year, WGee! I've noticed there has been a user ignoring your explantions that elementary facts do not require citations on socialism. I noticed that the user has been warned about disruption in recent weeks. [9] So I left a note on the talkp page of the admin who had made the warning. [10] If Guinnog does not find the time to reply, I suggest taking the matter to WP:ANI, rather than offering further explanations as to why his/her insertion of scores of 'citation needed' tags is inappropriate likely to be ignored. 172 | Talk 02:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, my explanation to Guinnog was probably clear and precise only because I wasn't frustrated from responding initially to those awful "citation needed" tags myself. You spared me that frustration! But my night later went downhill after discovering the latest manifestations of recurring problems on "capitalism" and "communist state." Oh well... By the way, good work on your latest edit on "socialism" here. I'm sure Nikodemos' changes were made in good faith. But I now see how they open up a number of potentially contentious discussions the intro can avoid to remain stable. 172 | Talk 07:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your POV revert of criticism of Hugo Chavez

I'll begin with reminding you of Wikipedia's help page about reverting:

Do's

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Your summary indicated a clear bias against the content and rather than take it to the talk page, you reverted. I am going to revert it back, and ask you to take this to the talk page so we can discuss it through arbitration rather than engaging in an edit war, which would not improve this article.

The content which was added to the section on criticism of Hugo Chavez is objectively sourced to a reputable primary source -- one of the leading publications in South America, from the free press of a country viewed as friendly to Venezuela. I would hope we can discuss your objection to this content in the appropriate manner on the talk page. It would be a shame to have to summon a Wikipedia administrator. I believe we can resolve it in the spirit of ahimsa, whose rules are outlined in Wikipedia as:

When in doubt, don't delete That is, edit towards a goal, not away from what you think is bad. If someone contributes something which you find unclear or misleading, polish their work to make it shine. This polishing may involve deletion, but that shouldn't be considered the intent of the edit.

When in doubt, don't ascribe bad motives to people Don't say that stuff you don't like is "vandalism" or "diatribe" or "screed". Rather, treat everyone as if you believe everyone is trying to make a contribution, and is in fact contributing, even if the contribution isn't clear.

Thank you. NYDCSP 06:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the insprirational lecture. With all of your time here, I'm sure you know much more about Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and norms than I do. -- WGee 07:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was not a lecture. I merely cut and paste text verbatim from Wikipedia's help page on reverting, and from "WikipedAhimsa" where a proposal was made that Wikipedia policy follow the above-mentioned rules. I am just trying to stick to the rules of the road here and also be civil, I hope you can be too -- and please offer your views on the talk page of the article in question so we can resolve the dispute over your deletion appropriately. Thanks. NYDCSP 07:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversion policies

I am perplexed by the fact that it seems to be your policy to do full-scale reverts for trivial (or at best vague) reasons, such as your dislike of a certain style of prose. Furthermore, I took notice of the fact that you seemed intent on fully reverting my recent edits on two articles (first communist state, then socialism), though I have done nothing to offend you or otherwise given you reason to doubt my good intentions in any way. I consider you to be a very valuable wikipedian and I simply do not understand why you are not more open to co-operation. I assume you lack the time to properly read through most edits and choose to revert if they seem inappropriate to you. This may sometimes be reasonable, but I believe that, in general, you should assume good faith when dealing with a long-time user who has given you no reason to doubt his intention to make positive contributions to wikipedia.

As a matter of personal preference, I only revert if I believe that recent edits have added information that is either (a) inaccurate, or (b) biased. It appears you also revert when you believe someone has added new information that is either unnecessary or not written in adequate prose. I believe that is highly unreasonable, though I would welcome any efforts to summarize or improve the prose if you deem it necessary. -- Nikodemos 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I am really trying my best to be friendly, but I'm obviously not coming across properly. I did not mean to accuse you of anything, WGee. If I did not mention it before, I will mention now that I know you are editing in good faith. I just thought you were assuming bad faith on my part, and decided to try to clear up the issue. It seems I only made things worse. Never mind...

What you said about your edits on my talk page was very informative. Why did you not take the time to write the same clarifications on the article Talk page? I will reply to you there. If you agree with 172's summary, I'd like to point out that (a) most of the socialist schools that I mentioned were already there in the old intro, and (b) the only one which never ruled a country is libertarian socialism. -- Nikodemos 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Money

Even I can't see why I deleted this - mental aberration. restored now. sorry, jimfbleak 08:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socialism and William Thompson

Hi there. I see you removed the information I added on William Thompson, the cooperative movement and his and its role in the origin of the word "socialism" and its meaning from the article on the grounds that "Most general sourcebooks and encyclopedia articles on socialism do not pin its origins to William Thompson". True. But the writers of most general sourcebooks and enyclopedia articles do not do original research, they just copy the previous general sourcebook or encyclopedia article. In contrast I'm approaching the question with the aid of the British library. Let's break it down. The OED quotes a letter from the 1829 series of the Cooperative Magazine (in B.L. - as stated in the wkpdja art. on W.T.) as the first incidence of the use of "socialist or communionist" to describe the wing of the cooperative movement that refused the label of "Owenist". I appreaciate you are in Canada and can't come to the British Library for me to show you their copy - but it exists and it is fact, that's not just me that's the OED as well. On the division between Thompson and Owen in the cooperative movement I have to refer you to Richard Pankhurst's book on Thompson. On Thompson being the originator of the term "social science" - it is in his 1824 work and is grudgingly admitted as the first appearance of that term in th english language by at least one academic author. The Leroux point is generally accepted amongst French historians of socialism, so I didn't see why you blotted that either. I'm sorry, but I think you are googleing and given that I have been researching this for a few years now and am referring to the original source material, I re-instate the researched and citated information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helvetius (talk • contribs) 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] EnglishEfternamn

Thanks!!! I wasn't looking forward to doing the ANI post myself. I owe you one. 172 | Talk 10:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck on getting the exams back, though I bet they went very well... The deliberately recalcitrant replies on the "All Male Action" thread are a case in point of why I hate posting stuff on ANI so much. They must've gotten a good laugh out of forcing me to elaborate the obvious. 172 | Talk 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BNP

Would you mind giving some input into the current discussion please? Emeraude and I seem to have reached some kind of consensus, but more opinions would be welcome. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 05:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Socialism Edits

The edits in question are not the least bit disruptive, they never were (which is why I feel my treatment has been unspeakably unfair), as disruptive edits are defined as that which makes it difficult for other users to contribute. They are un-disruptive ESPECIALLY NOW, as they are being discussed in more detail in the talk page. I will later refute your responses, but I don't have time as of this moment. See the page Monday afternoon. Have a good weekend.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 02:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BNP Intro

It seems that you have restored the introducton to a previous revsion citing that this is the only agreed concensous version. This i am afraid is not the case. The version you reverted was discussed on the talk page previously and you reverted then when the edits were being made citing "White-Washing". Please could you contribute to a discussion on this before reverting to prevous versions as the concensous may have been updated since you last partook in a discussion.--Lucy-marie 09:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the discussion but i object to the way you label people as disruptive editor (iam anot the first your have labelled) threaten blocks and claim that otehr user have noted my "proof by assertation" i think that expressing my opinon and explaing my opinion is not "proof by asertation" i merly explain myself. I also do not have habitual evasion of criticism. Could please provide evidence of the last statement. I will ignore unconstructive and pointless remarks like hackneys Quote regardiong the word Refute. That is because it serves just to antagonise.--Lucy-marie 14:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] supply and demand

concerning the boorish editor - obviously I sympathize with you but frankly I do not think anyone has ever been blocked solely for voicing their personal views on the talk page. My opinion at this point is the best thing to do is to ignore him. If everyone ignores him, he will eventually go away (or start being a productive collaborator). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The revert on Socialism

Hi. How come you reverted my copyedit on Socialism. The previous version had as verbs "directly-exercised", for example. Xiner (talk, email) 00:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I reviewed my edits and have removed the possibly controversial aspects. Please do not click revert next time, or at least use an edit summary. Good faith edits should not be reverted like that. Xiner (talk, email) 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Georgia as a liberal democracy

You know what, I think what you do also damages wikipedia, so please see WP:Vandalism. As I told you before, emerging liberal democracy is not a nationalist claim and I am not an ultra-nationalist, I'm just a humble man, son of a cobbler and a poor washer woman. You can call me Koba. SosoMK 04:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the bug, take care SosoMK 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

Thanks for removing that redundant redundancy! Warofdreams talk 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem!

[edit] Manifest Destiny

I just came across you comment. Thank you for it. I had a hard time believing that folks from the western provinces want to join the US because they think that would fulfill some divine (and chauvinistic) plan. Kablammo 16:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Good job keeping that article free of original research. -- WGee 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demigod Ron's Redefinition of Socialism

I tagged the article as Totally Disputed after he redefined socialism. It seems we crossed edits: you finalized your edit while I was explaining mine on the talk page (mostly under POV but also covering other topics). If you can hold the line with the old definition, or one basically similar, feel free to remove the Totally Disputed tag. Jacob Haller 02:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "pro-capitalism elites"

You said in your description of your change "Both the source and several important scholars of Fascism say the the movement was characterized, in part, by collaboration with traditional, pro-capitalism elites." Where in the source does it say that? That is totally false. Collaboration between owners of businesses (capitalists) and the state is corporatism, not capitalism. Pro-capitalism and pro-corporatism is not the same thing. Billy Ego 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism

I am sorry to bother you, but I really need some help. There is an ongoing campaign by a few editors to portray Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism. As part of this effort (a debate that stretches back to 2004), there are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism#Survey:_redirecting_National_Socialism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.--Cberlet 19:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance

Well, it seems that you discovered the problem yourself while I was away on a brief wikibreak. I was going to ask for your assistance in disputes with User:Billy Ego, but I see you've had the dubious pleasure of meeting him already... I strongly suspect that he is a sockpuppet of User:RJII because, despite his claims to be a fascist, he almost invariably quotes libertarian sources. In any case, he is currently edit warring in the fascism and nazism articles. -- Nikodemos 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)