User talk:Maximus Meridius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Maximus Meridius, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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! 

Maximus, I understand why you would want to remove the "conspiracy theory" aspect of the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. Personally, all the theories enunciated in it are pretty nutty. Nonetheless, it is not usual Wikipedia practice to remove sections like that without explanation. I've restored it, but please feel free to modify it, or mention on the talk page what you think should happen to the section. Cheers, Slac speak up! 10:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that you have. Pardon me :) Slac speak up! 10:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Black War

You wrote:

Just a query of the current title of the article and of the term genocide. I understand this has been discussed in the past, but those discussions have yet to produce and discernable outcomes. Firstly, the term "Black Wars" is not a recognised term for the frontier conflict that took place during the colonisation of Tasmania. I have studied this subject at tertiary level and the general consensus is that the term "Black Wars" have yet to achieve mainstream acceptance, the key term being "War", and the failure of the frontier conflict to satisfy the criteria for being classified as a war, hence the term "conflict" is used. Secondly, the term "Genocide" is far from being classified as an accepted title for the colonisation of Australia in general. It appears that this term is restricted to left-wing individuals or organisations. I will endeavour to include references to this in the future. I have not modified the "Black Wars" page as I feel unilateral action will be counter productive. I do however ask your assistance in altering the article to represent a neutral point of view, as both of the terms aforementioned represent a certain political and or historical judgement, and as yet are unaccepted by mainstream historians. A reply to my talk page would be appreciated. Regards, Maximus Meridius 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your query seems to have two portions. Regarding maintstream acceptance of the term "Black Wars", I don't know what to say -- Google shows the term is used to describe the conflict in Tasmania [1], including, for example, an exhibit at the State Library of Tasmania and the Encylopaedia Britannica. If you can provide verifiable citations from reliable sources that demonstrate some other term is more commonly used, please share them. I don't pretend to be any sort of authority on the matter, I created the article while researching Frederick Edward Maning and came across references to the Black Line and the Black War and saw that Wikipedia had nothing about them at the time.

As for claims of genocide--that, in large part, depends on what definition of genocide is used. For example, many people describe European and American expansion into Native American lands as genocide, even though by a narrow definition of the term it does not seem appropriate. While may I see it as a watering down of the term, it is nonetheless verifiably used by a significant number of reputable sources to describe those events. On Talk:Black War, I've provided a short list out of many sources (which can be easily found with Google) that use the term genocide in connection with the events in Tasmania. If you want to include some qualification of the term genocide, I've no problem with that. older ≠ wiser 12:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] League of Rights

Max, you wrote on my talk page:

"I notice you have reverted my edit. My objection is that your claims are not sourced or referenced. If you are able to find sources please include them and let us improve the article. A simple revert-revert war will prove counterproductive. Unsourced or unreferenced claims are often symptomatic of manifest bias within an article. You should therefore understand my hesitance at allowing their inclusion, especially when claims of Holocaust-denial and anti-Semitism are being made. Refer to the talk page for more. Thank you for your concern"

I have added sources for the claims... I understand that are concerned about people being incorrectly labelled as Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites, but the League is actually quite open regarding their thoughts on this issue. Drett 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Dem Back

Max, my only issue with your gutting of the FDB article (which was written by a non-member) is that you have turned an article which was accurate, thorough, and provided good analysis into an article which is about half correct, is not thorough and provides no analysis. It is wikipedia policy that a group's website can be used as a primary source for information about itself - that's source based research. In the interests of making a better encyclopedia, wouldn't it be better to, as opposed to removing large chunks of information on the basis that it is uncited, see if it is possible to improve on what is there? Drett 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now look, im not trying to start any arguments or make any enemies. I haven't vandalised any articles, I am genuinely attempting to improve the quality of the FDB article. As it stands (as reverted by you) it is non-partisan. Judging by your user page, you have a vested interest. All I request is that you dont rely solely on the FDB website, and specifically use other REPUTABLE sources for more important information. Wikipedia policy justifies my obstinance. Ergo, I will continue to revert until you somehow contribute at least to the discourse on the subject, instead of reverting, with miniscule and provocative comments. Regards, Maximus Meridius 10:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your attempt at editing the article under the guise of Wikipedia conformance is as nefarious as your pseudo-pacificist opening line.

If you want to improve the article, why don't you start in nibbles? Wholesale deletion of 90% of the article is not going to be well received, no matter what flag you wrap it in.

One more revert and you go to 3RR land. Schmoul Aschkenazi 10:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Granted, deletion is quite aggresive, but judging by the content of the original article I feel it was more than necessary. Wikipedia IS NOT a vanity, it is not a medium for shameless political promotion, it is not a biography of insignificant individuals. How can you possibly justify the content of the original article. It was written in an un-professional manner, and would only diminish Wikipedia as a source of neutral, impartial and fair information. What justification is there for using information from the FDB website. If the website administrator publishes information proclaiming the "Maximus_meridius smells" would it be fair to publish this in Wikipedia? Though my logic might be juvenile, it is nonetheless correct. Perhaps we could rebuild the article. I am more than happy for this to occur, so long as it relies on valid, and reputable sources.Maximus Meridius 10:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Adios, mon frere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR Schmoul Aschkenazi 12:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[2] made on July 13, 2006 (UTC) to FightDemBack

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 18:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)