User talk:64.69.127.105

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Domestic violence do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.-Andrew c [talk] 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Unity

This title is already being used as a redirect to European Union, has been for two years, and is linked to from numerous existing articles. If you want to start a new article with the text you have entered there, please sign up for a user account, which will allow you to create new articles, and choose a different title which does not clash with those of existing pages. The old version of the article you have been editing can still be accessed here, and this could be copied into any new article you wish to create. Thanks. Thomjakobsen 21:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your interest in destroying IP that supports the greater good? There is no such thing as Unity in the European Union, nor can anything be found after being redirected to European Union. My name is Stephan Tychon. Tychon@dr.com

I have not destroyed your work, it is still available at the link I provided above if you want to use the text in a new article. However, the title "European Unity" usually refers to the ideas of certain politicians after WW2 that European countries should be politically integrated. So, the page with that title was created two years ago so that articles using that term would be linked to European Union. Example: Jean Monnet has a link to this term in his introduction. When you replaced that page with your text, it disrupts articles like Jean Monnet because they now link to your text, which is not related to what the author of those articles intended. That is why I changed it back to a redirect. If you want to re-create your article, you need to do it under a different title than "European Unity", because that is already being used. Thomjakobsen 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do regard your action as being informationterror for the following reasons:

1. "Replacing an (empty) page" that has no content and is just redirected to a confusing lemma is just adding to the existent lack of overview, and therefore misleading.

2. My information, based on new factual evidence about the fundamental European energy legacy, is strongly related to what Mr. 'Coal & Steel' has done and intended to do. I claim the superior wisdom about 'Coal and Gas' and it's energy transition of 1963 with global impact related to the Peak Oil problem. Now YOU come in and decide this is nonsense? What credentials YOU have to claim 'European Unity' and for what reason you think there should be no more information, research and development about the European dimension and it's root causes of chaos?

3. If you think conventional wisdom should rule superior wisdom, you just continue the way you are acting. I wonder what interests you have to obscure intellectual property that aims for the benefit of the greater good.

4. "Usually referring to ideas of politicians" is what we are challenged by to question. I question authority at large for very good reason: my personal heritage of transatlantic energy fundamentals is based on knowledge of technology-evidence regarding the world's biggest public-private partnership Gasunie which was imposed by American aggressive pressure and intimidation in 1963 abusing the European post-war situation. I know, because my late father was the first director of Gasunie and forced to buy long-distance and high-pressure technology from Bechtel. As you know, companies like Bechtel and Halliburton are Exxon feeders and now rebuild democracy in Iraq. That's exactly the reason why the Dutch government is engaged in this war, Shell and the Dutch government being subdued to ExxonMobil, the most aggressive private force on the planet.

I urge you to make essential new information available for the Global Community and redress this conflict of interests.

Stephan Tychon, chief officer of change, WSC Tychon@dr.com

That's the problem, it wasn't just an "empty page" you replaced. The page was already there to act as a redirect, and when you replaced it with your text, it broke the links to that redirect in other pages. I reverted those changes for technical reasons, not based on the content.
As to the points you make on "convential wisdom": as an encyclopedia, the aim is to cover all significant viewpoints in a neutral fashion. Non-mainstream views can be covered, so long as they are not given undue weight, but they must have been previously covered in reliable secondary sources. Personal essays and theories without such sourcing are against policy as per no original research, so if you are trying to make your views widely available, you might be better off posting the material at one of the numerous indy media outlets on the internet. Thomjakobsen 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of EuropeanUnity

An article that you have been involved in editing, EuropeanUnity, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuropeanUnity. Thank you. Van helsing 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I removed your email address from the deletion discussion. It isn't a great idea to post your email address on Wikipedia, because spammers use bots to harvest email addresses and send unwanted email to them. We can easily communicate with you through your talk page, or if you want email enabled, you can register for a Wikipedia account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EuropeanUnity.eu

Please don't take all the great ideas away from me. get a life! You have the Right to Understand... so why not search my website for omissions? That would be of added value to society. My Email can easily be retrieved from my website, so I don't see why etc... I had an Email account on my name, but can't retrieve the log-in code. xxell was automatically change into Xxell which I dislike, so don't use. It's to complicated, so I just add my name and numbers following xxell's open source policy of 100% independence and 100% transparency. Thank you anyway for your concern, which is appreciated. Written & signed: Stephan Tychon@dr.com

Several people have tried to explain, and I'll try once more.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It only publishes facts that have been verified in reliable sources. It is not a place to publish our own interpretations of those facts.
  • Your article is not at all clear. It's clear to me that you are trying to communicate something that you think is very important. I think it has something to do with economics in the European Union. But I have read the article twice, and I still have no idea what you are trying to say.
  • The deletion discussion is only for discussion of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's policies for inclusion. It is not useful to use it as a place to argue the truth or falsehood of your theory. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia policy is based on spreading truthful information to better overview and improve more coherence of matter. An existing contract of global impact is no theory; it is factual evidence that can be verified. Hence, the varified, existing and evident fact and broader context (text-hooks) on which the lemma EuropeanUnity is based cannot be denied nor discussed anymore, only spread to improve knowledge for better understanding.
  • American power, influence, force and abuse of it on a global and industrial scale needs no arguing, just exposure and explanation. However, you might be against exposure, but than again, you would rather not want to take part in trying to hide essential information for better understanding. The American energy contract with Europe is never discussed and even an widely obscured document, but very hard factual evidence. If you don't know it, understand it. or comprehend it, then that's your personal little problem and no ground to exlude factual evidence from the Wikipedia. You should not make your personal problems part of the remainder of the world's.

Does this clarify things for you? Written & signed by Stephan Tychon@dr.com

No. It doesn't. I have no idea what you are talking about. And it's not because I have a personal problem. I actually have several advanced degrees in English, and can read just about anything that is written in clear, understandable English. The article isn't, and neither is the above comment. Both are written without sufficient context, making them incomprehensible to any reader who isn't already involved in the debate on... whatever it is you are talking about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The Wkipedia has no ready receipts. Sophisticated or advances degrees are a handicap for necessary overview to implement coherence, as you prove. Industrial development of the so-called industrialized states is also termed 'advanced' or 'sophisticated'. Using and abusing terms that everybody seems to understand doesn't make you a specialist. I think rather not. Subjects of many other lemmas in the Wikipedia point to the general lack of overview, democratic deficit, communication chimera and information terror. So I strongly suggest you upgrade your personal insight by first studying the WikiLinks of EuropeanUnity. Then again, you are more than welcome to edit EuropeanUnity's content by placing it in an even better-founded context. However, the ability te read, know and pile information is no guarantee for sustainable understanding and/or responsibly taking part in Wiki's oversight crew. Again, as you prove. I feel. You too have the right to know. So consequently the right to know WHY there is no such thing as Unity in the Union. I am willing to help create a personal sandbox for you if you feel the urge coming and don't know were to start. And better: it's free! I don't support the global fee-markets as you might already have grasped. Written & signed by Stephan Tychon@dr.com
  • "The Wikipedia has no ready receipts" This doesn't mean anything comprehensible in English. I have to assume that this is an idiom you're misunderstanding, because it's not communicating anything at all.
  • "Sophisticated or advances degrees are a handicap for necessary overview to implement coherence, as you prove." This is slightly more meaningful; I understand what you are trying to say. "Sophisticated" isn't a word that would usually apply to a degree, while "for necessary overview to implement coherence" isn't at all clear.
  • "Subjects of many other lemmas"-- "Lemmas" is completely the wrong word. It is English, but it is a rather technical word related to higher-level math and philosophy, and many English-speakers who aren't trained in those fields will never have heard it at all. We just call them "articles."
  • "the general lack of overview, democratic deficit, communication chimera and information terror" What in the world does this mean? I have no idea. These words do not go together to make a meaning.
  • "global fee-market". I googled this phrase and found nothing that would explain what it means. It doesn't mean anything to me.
So I give up. Good luck to you. Goodbye. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So We,huh? Like US & Them... All the best, your country is going down the drain anyway. You need help, I think. LPC@LLP3.com Stephan Tychon@dr.com

[edit] The Union is a empty place

  • FULL OF SILENCE & WITHOUT UNITY civil@zation.org

State-corporate crime

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 17:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks SineBot, I didn't know. I registered under my name Tychon before but can't retrieve log-in code I forgot. A new reg, xxell is scrambled into Xxell, which I dislike. So it's too complicated and time consuming for me. I just add name and Email: Stephan Tychon@dr.com

[edit] Aerodrome

The term is not obsolete as it's in current use in both Australia and Canada.