User talk:WHEELER/Archive4

Re:

See my reply here: User_talk:Sam_Spade#The_importance_of_my_contributions

Sam [Spade] 17:32, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Beard

Have a look, and let me know if you like it :) Sam [Spade] 05:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like it but is it allowed? WHEELER 17:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Allowed and encouraged. Great thought, Sam. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:22, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

It was so obviously a better example of a beard, I had to give it a try :) Glad everybodies happy, Sam [Spade] 17:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am glad to be of some service.WHEELER 17:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

80.133.56.237

WHEELER, I've said before that you have an unfortunate habit of jumping to a conclusion in the absence of evidence. You imply on the Wikipedia village pump that I am 80.133.56.237. In fact, I am not, which is quite easy to prove since if you do an IP search you'll find that 80.133.56.237 is located in Europe. My IP begins with 64 not 80 AndyL 23:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You sound very similar. Is 80 a kissing cousin? because what he does is exactly what you say.WHEELER 00:04, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See what I mean. Tunnel vision. WHEELER, the fact that most people disagree with you does not mean that everyone who disagrees with you is the same person. Do your own IP trace if you don't belive me re 80.133... AndyL 02:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How silly of me to think you might accept that you're wrong about something. After all, you're a person who is convinced that Mussolini must have recalled ever copy of the Encylopedia Italiana and changed the world "left" to "right" because your belief that the book said fascism is an ideolopy of the right can't possibly be wrong. I suspect in this situation you're going to conclude that I must take Concorde every day and commute between Toronto and Amsterdam because your rush to judgement can't possibly wrong. AndyL 02:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't rush to judgement, if you notice, in the beginning I said, "I have my suspicions". It is funny that you are the one that complained about the pre-history section in the Weimar Timeline and it also the same section that got vandalized. What a coincidence.WHEELER 14:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Evidently you have rushed to judgement given your last statement above. As you well know I have no aversion to reverting your edits while logged in. If I had wanted to do that with the Weimar Timeline section (and I don't recall even being aware of the article) I would have done so while logged in.

It is funny that you are the one that complained about the pre-history section in the Weimar Timeline and it also the same section that got vandalized.

Now you're just making things up. Please show me where I have made this complaint. I wasn't even aware of this article until yesterday. Now that I am aware of it I will be looking at it. Thank's for drawing it to my attention.

As it's quite clear I am not 80... etc please drop the insinuation or I will file a complaint about you. AndyL 18:39, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

... at which point nothing was heard from our bearded friend... MilesD3

Take it easy folks, I think the both of you are acting in good faith. :-)

AndyL probably isn't in Europe, and the Concorde has been decommissioned (which leaves the world with exactly 0 SST service :-/ but that's for another day.) Editing articles is an ok thing to do both sides. If you don't like something, you know how to rv. (But be careful, some folks don't like doing that). We're all making an encyclopedia together here. So like, take a breather, then when you think you're ready, try to work together to figure out where what would look best. :-) Kim Bruning 07:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Weimar Timeline

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Please discuss on Talk:Weimar Timeline rather than mindlessly reverting. AndyL 11:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Beard image license

Hi! Please clarify the licensing status of Image:Wheeler.jpg. If it is GFDL, place {{GFDL}} on the image page. If it is public domain, indicate it with {{PD}}. Thanks! David Remahl 22:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mussonili says fascism is reactionary

"Fascism, which did not fear to call itself reactionary ...has not today any impediment against declaring itself illiberal and anti-liberal" (Gerarchia, March, 1923 quoted in George Seldes, Facts and Fascism, eigth edition, New York: In Fact, 1943, p. 277) AndyL 19:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. How does one square the fact that it is also very revolutionary?WHEELER 15:20, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How ironic that you are arguing with a direct Mussolini quotation when in the past you inisisted quotations were paramount.Since you claim to be an expert on what Mussolini thought why don't you try to reconcile his quotations yourself?AndyL 01:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the Fascism article, they pull out where in the Doctrine of Fascism say that they are "anti-marxist" and point this out profusely, and then you delete all references to their Marxist heritage that I POINT out from Zeev Sternhell. It seems that you have a double standard. WHEELER 18:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying Zeev Sternhall knows more about fascism than Mussolini? If Mussolini says fascism is reactionary and anti-Marxist who are you to argue with him? After all, don't you believe that quotations from original sources matters more than anything else?AndyL 22:15, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mussonili was biased, and an admitted propogandist. Maybe he's not the best source of info on himself and his politics ;) Sam [Spade] 22:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm just hoisting WHEELER on his own petard. Since he has insisted for months that we must hold original quotations as sarcrosanct I want to see if he'll stick to that when presented with a quotation that contradicts his pet opinion. AndyL 23:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Andy, it is that you lack understanding. You yourself has stated that your point of view is that Fascism and Nazism has nothing to do with socialism. You make it a point to revert all references of socialism within Fascism and Nazism. Even though "Socialism" is what makes up the word NAZI, you refuse to acknowledge that and seek to censor all information about the socialistic influences in Nazism/Fascism. Nazism and Fascism is a syncretic movement. This is what you don't understand. In this regard what Mussolini and Hitler will say will always be contrdictory because they are melding two things together and rejecting other parts of those "things". You want to define Fascism and Nazism according to your opinion and not to what they say. Hitler said many times that he is a socialist--but you will delete it. But words can either be used in a metaphorical sense or in a real sense. When Mussolini says in the Doctrine of Fascism that he is not reactionary that is the real sense--the essense of the word for he hated the church and the monarchy. He is reactionary in the metaphorical sense when he says it is anti-liberal. He hated democracy but was the head of a democratical (Oclocratic)movement. You really don't know what fascism and nazism is. Zeev Sternhell does. I do for I know what syncretism means and its effects and methodology and mentality. I am a Kretan, it is part of my natural thought processes. I know the beast. I have been trained as a philosopher. I have trained in rational thought. There is alot more out there than you think at the tender age of yourself.

In refusing to see fascism/nazism as a syncretic movement you fail to see--and you fail to understand. You really don't know what Fascism or nazism is. J. Salwyn Schapiro rightly sees this coming out of the French Revolution. The whole process in France of revolution is one of Hegel's dialectic playing itself out. If you don't, can't or refuse to understand this, you are hopelessly lost. WHEELER 16:57, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Second point Andy. Evil is always contradictory because its basis is not truth but lies. You don't believe in Truth, or absolute truth. The only basis is Truth. Truth never contradicts itself. Hitler and Mussolini had no love of the Truth and didn't know the truth. You don't know what evil is and how it affects rational thought. Socrates says, "In order to speak the truth, one must be able to live the truth." Living and speaking go hand in hand. One can not speak the truth if one doesn't live it. If you can't live it, you don't know it.WHEELER 17:03, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The point remains that not only is there a wide consensus that Mussolini was an anti-liberal reactionary but he said it himself. As you know the Doctrine of Fascism was not actually written by Mussolini so if there is a contradiction between it and his speeches I would see his speeches as a better indication of what he actually thought. But yes, Sam is actually right, one can't necessarily take what an expert propagandists like Mussolini (or Hitler) say about their own politics which is why a term like "National Socialist" is a propaganda term meant to appeal to a certain population rather than an actual reflection of what the Nazis believed led alone what they did. AndyL 18:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Andy, National Socialism was a term coined by the CZECHS and not Adolf Hitler. That was his appeal. Eric von Kuenhelt is a reactionary and also says he is "arch-liberal". Christianity is reactionary and Protesant Christianity was very politically liberal. Mussolini wanted revolution. His march on Rome was Ochlocratic. Mussolini wanted a trasformation of society not a return. He was not reactionary in essence.

Andy did you study philosophy? Do you know the difference between "essences" and "attributes"? Both apply to the subject but one can change attributes without changing essences? This is the heart of definition--even in biology.WHEELER 18:40, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who coined the term is absolutely irrelevent. The point is that Hitler used the term National Socialist for propaganda reasons, not because he was a socialist. AndyL 19:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He was not a pure socialist. He was a "National Socialist". Zeev Sternhell writes that Italian Fascism is a "revision of Marxism". You still don't believe do you? Mussolini and Hitler were both nihilists. No law, whatever they wanted to do they did it. Do you see the connection between Proudhon and Mussolini and Hitler? None of them were reactionary. They denied the Catholic Church and its teachings. That is nihilism. Not reactionary.WHEELER 19:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't a socialist at all, he just appropriated the term for propaganda reasons - you have never given any examples of Hitler being a socialist. I'm sorry but the Catholic church is not the only base of reference in deciding these things (and if it was Mussolini's Concordat with the Vatican rather contradicts your thesis as does the Vatican's Concordat with Hitler (see the book Hitler's Pope). No, Mussolini wasn't a Catholic, he was trying to restore the Roman Empire which preceded Catholicism - so why do you think Mussolini called himself a reactionary? Try to actually *think* about it instead of quoting someone else. AndyL 22:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AndyL, What Mussolini said in both instances are true statements. Why else say them? Words have meaning. I have studied philosophy. I know the difference between essences and characteristics/attributes.

Mussolini said he was reactionary because he was illiberal. Of course this is true. The Soviet Union was illibral but it wasn't reactionary. Fidel Castro's regime was illiberal too but it wasn't reactionary. "Being illiberal" can be either reactionary or revolutionary. Being "illiberal" can be said to be an attribure of reactionaryism. But it is not its essence.

The Founding Fathers were reactionary without being illiberal. Erik von Kuenhelt is an reactionary but liberal. Being illiberal is not the sign of being a reactionary.

Being a Reactionary in essence is about being for Church and Aristocracy/monarchy. The Founding Fathers were just that. Mussolini, as said in the Doctrine of Facism is not reactionary and refutes the ideas of de Maistre but takes up being illiberal.

There is a significant difference between essence and reactionary. One can't be reactionary if one refutes the Church and hates the aristocracy. If you were philosophically trained you would see the difference.WHEELER 01:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Collectivism

Please have a look at this article, it is biased I fear, and I think you might help it to regain balance. Sam [Spade] 12:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This constant battling is wearing me out fighting with people who wish to rewrite history. I am with you Sam Spade. This Milneau Trudenau is thorn in my side to. Collectivism is all about Socialism.WHEELER 18:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that, maybe you should edit some obscure topics for awhile, ancient greek philosophers or whatnot? let me know if theres anything I can do to help. Thanks for your wisdom, Sam [Spade] 22:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia the GNUL and idiots.

I thank you for your comments, but the damage has been done, as far as I can determine, wikipedia is supported only by the good will of its broad church of users. Whilst their may be good people interested in its potential, the same are being used by wikipedia, and other agencies that exploit wikipedia. Most infuriating, like you say are those lost souls with nothing better to do that quibble over trivia and make pointless comments based on their own self important worldview.

I just dont have the time to care. I am certain my own material, however you phraze it remains my own copyright, I dont care for the gnu, and am developing a kind of contempt for wikipedia, based on its view of itself as a community. I have given wikipedia a lot to do, its upto other users how they preserve my contribution, burt it will appear elsewhere, dont doubt it. All the best: Faedra

reply

I made a reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#My_troubles. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 18:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ochlocracy

Perhaps it would be wise to speak with User:Mihnea_Tudoreanu and seek NPOV together, in cooperation. It would not be wise to seek an antagonistic course I think :-) Kim Bruning 22:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hyacinth. Hyacinth 01:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe the version of the Doctrine of Fascism published in the Italian Encyclopedia was ever "recalled" or rewritten. I'm not at a university at present. I think the best think you can do is connect with the catalogue of a good university library on the web and conduct a search for doctrine of fascism to see if there are any records of later versions. I'm working now so no time.AndyL 21:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Res publica

Heh, WHEELER, it seems you have found a good source after all. Congratulations. :-) I imagine you gave a shout of happiness at coming across that (I'd have shouted, anyhow) -- I should ask, though, if you've looked at Cicero directly? On my talk page you only mentioned the fellow quoting Cicero, and while I imagine he's right, we did have a problem before with a misquotation. Anyway, that's an excellent piece of information -- I'm still curious, though, if Sparta was always referred to as a republic by the classical Romans, or if other words were used? Cicero, though, is a good source and I'll give some thought to this topic this week. Thanks for your note -- a happy Advent to you. Jwrosenzweig 23:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I have read two of Cicero's works compiled by Michael Grant. Neither one was the "Republic" as a whole work. I will have to buy the Loeb's edition and look it up. WHEELER 23:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I'd already conceded this point to you over a year ago :-). The problem is that the 19th century scholars, be they incompetent or perhaps not-so-incompetent, apparently changed the way the word was used. Many constitutions have been written based on this changed meaning. Many many countries have been founded as or been changed to republics during the 19th and later the 20th century (the (ex-) Soviet Socialist Republics being a prime example). Many of these of these don't resemble republics like they existed in the ancient world. To fully understand ancient history, modern history, and modern affairs, we need to have a firm grasp on both definitions.

Happy new year to you! Kim Bruning 22:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WHEELER, I agree with Kim -- the ancient definition has been well enough established to have a place in the article on Republic. I would emphasize, though, that because the word's meaning has been altered, the article on Republics will have to encompass both definitions. The article cannot call the modern definition "wrong" -- it can merely point out that the word is no longer used as the people who originally used it intended. I trust that you already understood this, and are willing to work under this assumption (even if you and I both agree that the old definition is a better one, it's only a POV, after all). So, assuming all of these caveats, yes, I think it's a great idea to move some of the material into the Republic article (although I think I'd like it if we kept the classical article around, since I think it can go into more detail about the classical idea than we have room for in an article on republics in general....maybe later someone can come along and write a more detailed article on modern republics and what the word has come to mean). Jwrosenzweig 22:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Kim and Jwronsenzweig, The original article has no references no quotes. What research and what scholar defined republic as "without a monarch". A republic is the creation and invention of the Doric Greeks that had kings. How can the invention be so redefined as to leave out the originators of their own creation? That article on the republic has no scholarship behind it. Where in God's name is "Akkad" mentioned anywhere as a Republic? I can't find it. I did my research yet the orginators of that republic article has no references and no quotes. WHEELER 18:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

re Classical definition of republic

to keep a thread, I have replied to your Classical definition of republic enquiry on my page - User_talk:Mervyn --mervyn 11:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have seen the vote but not taken place in it since I didn't have time to read the article and discussion. Most voters seemed to agree it was orginal researach. Please show me they were incorrect and I'll see if I can help you with undeletion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VfD clarification

Hello sir,

I apologize in advance for this intrusion into your personal space, but I had some time to think over and reread my comments, and I thought that I owe you an explanation about my vote and perhaps a clarification as to my position therein. My vote for a strong delete was cast as such in response and counterbalance to a previous vote in favour of weak keep, and for no other reason. I just wish to make that perfectly clear. Placing all my criticisms of your piece aside, I hope to be able to better illustrate my principal concern using the following example:

Let say that someone(s) had written a work or a body of works which highlight all the thinkers mentioned and the many other potential notable thinkers (and their critics) who wrote specifically in favour of the dominant role played by the superstructure over the sub/structural in shaping the realm of politics... Then, at that point, we can write an article about it.

Whether I agree or disagree with everything that you say in that article, this problem remains. Perhaps portions of the work could be integrated into articles dealing with the specific thinkers cited in these (Fr. Martin, MacAlveny, Griggs, etc.), but bringing all of them together in a single article, under a unified topic that we, as editors, coin and synthesize is unencyclopedic.

Perhaps there is, in fact, such an article where it could, after all, be brought together more-or-less (I argue much less, but that's irrelavent) on the lines proposed by your article. It is certainly within the realm of possibility. And to be honest, if I did not have such strong objections to its premise/content/conclusions, I might have ended up devoting the energy to see if such an article (or a preexisting concept for a new one) exists. The energy I'm willing to expend, though, is certainly not NPOV (in contrast to the articles I write, I argue).

This does not, however mean that I don't wish you luck and for you to succeed in finding a solution you consider satisfactory; on the contrary, I do. And I hope that it would result in an engaging collaboration whereby you could afford other involved editors of your knowledge and they could theirs to you. Also, I wish to stress that I hardly ever frequent VfD – this is my third time voting/appearing in one – it was by mere accident (of me stalking user:172's contributions for that day – the title couaght my eye), so this is why I'm unfamilliar with the trivialities (and worse) you cite whose VfD votes often (it would not surprise me) are kept.

Anyway, I have written more than I intended, but I just wish to note that I do not seek, as your userpage warns against, to have a battle of wits with you (or anyone). And I most certainly do not wish to be considered, with respect to your stated contempt for academia, as someone who contributes to ivory tower elitism, and so on, because I also have a (truly) great contempt for academia myself (even though I do rely on it heavily for my works here & elsewhere).

P.S. Goodcall in identifying the error and unverifiability of Akkad as a proto-/Republic. Even though this is something I far from posess a great deal of knowledge on, from the little I do know, I find that claim to be highly doubious.

Respectfully,

El_C 13:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, why didn't you tell me about this being on VfD? If I didn't have your talk page book marked, and a sharp eye for everything involving El_C, and 172, I might have missed this. You might want to have a look at Kultur btw, revisionists are disputing your neutrallity and article title there as well. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 13:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, WHEELER,

This will be my second and last comment on your talk page, afterwhich I will be removing it from my watchlist. I just want to note that while SS may share some important aspects pertaining to your worldview, I think he is misrepresenting and being a dis-service to you. Also, his claims for having a sharp eye for everything myself or 172 do on Wikipedia is unfounded, I argue.

I think you should pay close attention to the objections and votes for deletion that were being posed by editors who share drastically different views than myself (and my views are very much different than 172's, incidentally), views that I maintain come closer to your own and SS' than those adhered to by myself (from those I have heard of before and I know to be serious editors, see votes by: Mikkalai, RickK, Neutrality, and David Gerard).

Essentially, if you follow SS' uncritical advise, you will face similar problems in the future, thereby wasting energy which you could otherwise expend usefuly towards reserach and writing. I have a very low opinion of SS, this is true, but I do have respect for his intelect, and I think he (by virtue of his ample experience here) could prove very useful to you in helping to articulate why such a wide variety of editors take issue with your article and how to prevent this from reoccuring. So I am hopeful this takes place, but I want to stress that (granted, based on this case alone) he is not doing so at the moment.

I am being genuine when I wish you luck with your work here and elsewhere. I doubt we will encounter each other anytime soon – notable exceptions aside, we tend to involve oursleves in different sets of articles. I just don't want you to get the impression that my thoughts at the VfD had the intention of discrediting you personally or questioning your capacity to do good research & arrive at critical conclusions (again, all differences as to the ideological meaning of which aside). El_C

Re:

See my reply @ [1]. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 19:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Thanks_for_the_message. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 07:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Title change

Certainly an improvement. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:14, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've used subst & altered the VfD notice so that it now explicitly links to the VfD page for the article. That should answer 172's objection to the move, if you want to repeat it. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:38, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Wheeler, thanks for the title change. I've removed my objection at VFD. Maurreen 06:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion on "imprint" vs. "imprinting." My objection was only to the statement or sentence form. But I think it would be wise to leave the article at one place for a while, at least until the VFD is finished one way or another. Good luck. Maurreen 15:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to see you making steps at compromise, unlike some amongst your opposition. Please be careful not to let that anger you too much, I have been seeing you get fairly unhappy about this, and I wouldn't want it to lessen the amount of your edits on other articles, or annoy you with the project. You are very valuable here, and this article, while of value, is only a drop in the bucket compared to the entirety of your contributions here, for which I thank you. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 21:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re:

See my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Deletion. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If an article is deleted it should not be linked to off site. - SimonP 18:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

VfD seems to have decided that either the topic does not belong in the encyclopedia, or that that particular version of the article does not belong. Either way an external link to the same content does not seem advisable. - SimonP 18:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The VfD consensus seems to have been to delete the page, not to transwiki and link to it. If you feel our readers should have access to the content please list the article for undeletion. Wikipedia also has a specific policy that strongly discourages adding links to a pages that you have created. - SimonP 20:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Longstanding practices matter just as much as rules, but in this case we have both as Wikipedia:External links specifically states that "adding links to one's own page is discouraged." The as yet unofficial Wikipedia:External links/temp has even stricter rules. Moreover it seems logical that if the content was poor enough to be deleted from Wikipedia itself it is also not worth linking to externally. - SimonP 21:05, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

See my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Is_there_a_reason. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WHEELER, in response to your accusation that I "don't know what I'm doing" I'm following VfD protocol. It is not my fault that after five days there is a clear consensus to delete the article. I'm simply carrying out the collective will of wikieditors. Note I did not even vote one way or another. AndyL 22:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE VOTE

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 19:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spam

Adding links to your own site to a large number of articles is considered spam. - SimonP 04:13, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Republic articles

What is this "mixed government" article all about? I am confused.

I don't know, I didn't write it. I just noticed that some of the links to the deleted Classical definition article were titled "mixed government" or "Mixed system" so I redirected them there. AndyL 15:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do I start putting all my stuff there or will it be deleted?

No you don't do that because that would be seen as a circumvention of the VfD. Taking material deleted as "original research" and moving it to another article doesn't change that material from being "original research". If you start playing that game you're likely to end up getting yourself banned from wikipedia IMHO.AndyL 15:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this a game? How come the External Links on the Republic page keep on getting deleted and now they delete and then lock it.

SimonP's argument is that as the material being linked to is material deleted from wikipedia then it's not worthy of being linked to. Also, you seem to be being accused of spamming wikipedia with "ego" links to your own article. I suggest that if you start playing games you're going to end up being removed from wikipedia fairly soon so just accept that your article was deleted and stop trying to get around that deletion by inserting your deleted material elsewhere or putting in links to it. AndyL 15:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Or am I to take the hint that I am supposed to make another article and if it is, can it be "Classical Republic"? WHEELER 00:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no such hint. Creating another article under a different name for deleted material would be an attempt to cirumvent the VfD and would result in the new article being deleted and possibly in you being banned. Also, I'm certain that editors would start examining your other articles and start putting them up for deletion. AndyL 15:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Classical definition of republic I see eight votes for deletion, one vote to keep, one to redirect, and not a single vote to transwiki to Wikinfo and link to it externally. No one has advocated this idea on Votes for Undeletion either. The consensus is clearly that the article is of no use to our readers. - SimonP 17:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Arete

I'm afraid that I didn't understand all of your message, though you're clearly angry. You also seem to think that because you started an article (something that I didn't know, incidentally) it somehow belongs to you; you must surely be aware that that's thoroughly against Wikipedia policy. As for my edits: the primary meaning of 'arete' is certainly not 'paideia'; as the article itself makes clear, that's only one of the contexts in which it was used, and it's by means clear that it's the most important one. (In my researches, I hardly found it mentioned.) Calling the article Arete (virtue) makes much more sense as a disambiguator, given that the rôle of 'arete' in theories of virtues is its main one. The reference to Aristotle that I deleted didn't make much sense in its context, nor did it add anything to the article. I did, however, add a proper reference to Plato's and Aristotle's use of the concept, as well as a quotation from Aristotle in the 'uses' section. If you want to discuss the changes, we can do that on the Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wheeler, (and BTW, hi Mel), I don't know whether I can be of any help here, anyway I received Wheeler's message on my talk page. My interest in "republic" and related stuff is only sideways, e.g gymnopaedia, Socrate, Gutenberg linking as I did for Plutarch's Lives, etc... Anyway Plato's Republic should maybe be renamed Republic (Plato) (If I'm not mistaken that would be better in line with wikipedia's style conventions). Further I advise Wheeler to read both wikipedia:NPOV and wikipedia:NPOV tutorial thoroughly, I mean, at least a few times: that's the undivisible truth about how the Wikipedia republic/monarchy/... is organised (see e.g. also m:Power structure). I would say, keep up the good work: I really like when you try to open up the definition of republic to the meaning(s) that word had throughout history, which provides some contrast to the perception(s) of that word today. Note however that wikipedia does not so much indulge in "single truths" (but that will have become clear by the time you read the NPOV stuff) - "single truths" are a luxury (or: impediment) wikipedia can not afford for itself. --Francis Schonken 09:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Your suggestion about Plato's Republic is a good one; are you going to suggest a change of name? I haven't really looked at the article; would the editors involved object, do you think? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Category talk:Dialogues of Plato for full scheme of proposed renamings. Since I'm no sysop, and this renaming should best be done by a sysop (not only to reduce amount of work: better policy to keep "history" intact), does anyone know a candidate who could proceed with this? Thanks! --Francis Schonken 13:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that an admin is needed; as long as the various editors involved don't have any objections, the various pages can be moved (using the Move tab, of course, so as to keep the history intact) by anyone. It's going to be a biggish job, though, especially as internal links from other artciles will also need altering. I'm willing to help. We could take responsibility for batches of changes. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WHEELER: yes, that's fine with me. I'll make the change (unless someone else has done it already). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It looks as though all the links are now changed (you worked quickly!). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vanavsos

Hi, WHEELER. Sorry, I'm afraid I am pretty neutral about whether the article should be kept, and might even lean towards it being deleted. My debate was sparked by scholarly interest, that highly dangerous thing. I do apologise, but I really don't think the article is of encyclopedic worth, even if it is an interesting concept. However, my opinion is not strong enough to deserve a vote. Smoddy (t) (e) 18:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mind changed. The article does need moving though, IMO. Smoddy (t) (e) 21:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I only saw your message now. I'm afraidf i cant be helpful because philosophy is not really my thing. My interest in ancient history is mostly military. I hope this problem is resolved by now. Cheers, muriel@pt 17:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wheeler, I proposed to delete the article Vanavsos because, as it stood, it seemed to be original research on a concept in political philosophy. With your clarifications and edits to the article, and with the benefit of general discussion, I think I see the core concept you were getting at, namely the political role of the artisan class in Ancient Greece. So I have changed my mind about deletion, though I still think the article needs a lot of work. But I must say that I had to swallow hard and draw on my reserves of ahimsa to ignore your ad hominem remarks about my competence. --Macrakis 23:00, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've read over vanavsos and the associated vfd debate, and although I think the page may contain some original research which needs to be cleaned up and perhaps a new title, I've voted to keep for now. Paul August ☎ 21:45, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Relisting

SimonP is wrong. It is inappropriate to continue listing an article until you get your way. Snowspinner 21:49, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

You've been coming up with "new evidence" for weeks now. It hasn't made a difference. The article failed a valid VfD and then a VfU. It's not going to get undeleted. This is clear. Relisting serves no purpose. Snowspinner 18:55, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Within the next half an hour, an arbitration request will be going up about you. Snowspinner 03:23, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the request for arbitration against you. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:19, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Military Wikipedians

Hi, Wheeler, I've clarified the category. I notice you have experience, but as far as I'm concerned, it can include anybody who wants to be in. Maurreen 03:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't answer your latest question. I'm not that technically advanced. Maurreen 17:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

still slow, but sure :-)

Wikipedia is still slow, so I'm not sure I can help pro-actively, though I'll certainly keep an eye on things, and maybe put in a good word for you if it turns out to be nescesary. :-)

Kim Bruning 15:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you'll have to be very careful with terms like "pleasently surprised" around me :-)

I wanted to comment on this a while ago, but never gotten round to it. Maybe it's relevant now.

You see, you're already becoming a bit of a scholar and an academic over the time you've spent on wikipedia.

But you still need to grow and improve your skills in this area to become truely good at it. In some countries these days, kids learn specific information handling skills in high school already. In other nations, it's the old people who are close to retirement who are the ones to take their time to grow wise in these ways :-)

One thing I'd like to ask you to do is that you should try to write texts that you reference in your own words and from your own mind, rather than (merely) quoting others literally.

Perhaps you're horrified to hear me say that! But see it as a mental excersize, maybe only do it offline in a notebook at first.

Only when you begin to see where the very people you've been quoting *also* often did the very same thing in their writing, you might also start to understand the why.

Kim Bruning 15:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm well lookit! The wikinfo article is indeed something of a pleasent surprise. It could be a lot clearer still, but it's actually not too bad. :-) Kim Bruning 16:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE:Arbitration Committee case opening

What help do you want? I will help you if I can! REX 15:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Δυστυχώς δεν μπορώ να κάνω ακριβώς αυτό που ζητάτε. Ενώ βλέπω και κατανοώ τη σημασία των Κλασικών Σπουδών δεν συμφωνώ μαζί σας όταν ισχυρίζετε ότι πρέπει να υπάρχουν άρθρα για και τις παλιές και τις νεότερες ορολογίες. Το en.Wikipedia είναι σητν Αγγλική γλώσσα για Αγγλόφωνους αναγνώστες. Δεν έχει νόημα να γράφετε άρθρα για λέξεις που δεν υπάρχουν στα Άγγλικα και που οι Αγγλόφωνοι δεν μπορούν να κατανοήσουν αφού οι λέξεις αυτές δεν υπάρχουν στα αγγλικά λεξικά.
Έχω κοιτάξει τι λέει ο Snowspinner για εσάς και ελέγχοντας τα στοιχεία που παρουσίασε έφτασα στο συμπέρασμα ότι έχει κάποιο δίκιο. Πιστεύω ότι όλοι μας πρέπει να ακολουθούμε τα Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines επειδή μόνο έτσι μπορεί να πετύχει η συνεργασία στο Wikipedia. Πιο συγκεκριμένα θα σας συμβούλευα να κάνετε υποχωρήσεις. Το Wikipedia είναι μια μορφή ψηφιακής εγκυκλοπαίδειας και για αυτό πρέπει να είναι ουδέτερη. Εγώ συμφωνώ με τις απόψεις σας για τον κόσμο σήμερα, αλλά το να δημοσηεύουμε παραπλανητικά πράγματα είναι λάθος. Εγώ όταν έχω μια απορία για κάτι, ένα από τα πρώτα πράγματα που θα κάνω είναι να κοιτάξω στο Wikipedia και αυτό που γράφει θα το πιστέψω. Είμαι βέβαιος ότι και πολλοί άλλοι έτσι θα κάνουν. Δεν θα ήθελα αυτά που πιστεύω να μαθω ότι είναι φαντασιώσεις ενός φανατισμένου (Δε σας χαρακτηρίζω εγώ έτσι αλλά ο Snowspinner). Σας προτείνω όταν θα κάνετε edit κάποιο άρθρο να έχετε αντλήσει τις πληροφορίες από κάποια αξιόπιστη πηγή για να μπορείτε να το δείχνετε σε αυτούς που δε συμφωνούν με το edit σας (Wikipedia:No original research).
Κάντε ότι σας ζητήσει το Arbitration Commitee επειδή αυτό που θα ζητήσει είναι και για το καλό σας αλλά και για το καλό του Wikipedia (τα edit wars είναι βλαβερά).
Είμαι βέβαιος ότι όταν όταν βγάλει απόφαση το Arbitration Committee θα μπορούμε μαζί να συμβάλλουμε θετικά στο Wikipedia (όχι όμως σε άρθρα για Κλασικές Σπουδές, επειδή δεν ξέρω τίποτα για αυτά). REX 17:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I’m so sorry the post was in Greek. I thought that being Greek you would understand it better than if it were in English. Roughly I said that: I’m afraid I can’t do what you asked me to as I know very little about Classics and believe that there is no point in using words that would not be found in an English Dictionary in en.Wikipedia which is an English language encyclopaedia. Having read what Snowspinner said about you I must say that he does have a point. I believe that the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines must be observed for the good of Wikipedia itself (as edit wars are harmful). While I personally agree with your views, they don’t qualify to be placed on articles (according to Wikipedia:No original research). That’s why I strongly advise you to make the necessary concessions and do as the Arbitrary Committee instructs. I’m sure that once the Arbitrary Committee has made its recommendations we can look forward to making a positive contribution to Wikipedia! REX 20:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what help I can provide in this matter. However, I will follow the issue, and do whatever seems appropriate to me. Paul August ☎ 21:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Split of "Wikipedians by field of interest"

Was there some discussion on how to split this article that I missed? I agree that it is oversized, but I don't see that this was the best way to split it. I think it's now hard for new users to see where they might fit in. --A D Monroe III 21:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Classics link

Thanks for inviting me to add my name to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest C-D#Classics. However, although I'm very interested in the classics (I've read Plato and Aristotle and lots more), I was trained as a mathematician, and I hardly qualify as a classicist. Paul August ☎ 22:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:JamesMLane oh, and Machiavelli

Did it occur to you that JamesMLane might be (partially) wrong? Not everything everone says is true you know. And I strongly disagree that wikipedia is marxist, so I disagree with you too! .

Wikipedia is built on the same principles as the internet, and I don't think anyone is going to call the pentagon either unprofessional or marxist anytime in the next century or so. (long story short: their darpa office commissioned the internet)

And yes, Machiavelli rocks. You probably like him because he read his greeks? ;-)

Kim Bruning 15:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I misread. Too bad, Machiavelli was one of the most practical people to have ever written about politics. (And he did read his greeks ;-)) Kim Bruning 16:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Persecution?

WHEELER, what do you mean my "crew". I haven't even voted on these other VfDs nor do I care. I know it fits your psyche to believe there's a cabal persecuting you but there isn't and I'm not invovled in this issue so leave me out of your conspiracy theory. AndyL 16:54, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check his recent contributions... it's all user talk pages. He's pasted it to mine too, among many others. Ground 01:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Republic

I'm afraid I'm not completely sure that I can help you. I'm not from the UK, BTW. I'm just a very interested and keen observer of the nation.

Sorry! - Hoshie/Crat 08:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

As a heads up, you're not allowed to put evidence in somebody else's section of an evidence page. You have to start your own section. The directions are at the beginning of the page - read them over. Snowspinner 14:35, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

WHEELER, I was making a prediction based on my observations of editing patterns on wikipedia and my knowledge of what sort of behaviour causes editors to take a closer look at someone. I was not threatening you nor was I saying that I would do anything to make sure my predictions came to pass. You read your paranoid, self-indulgent conspiracy theories into my comments.

As for "what gives", frankly I don't know and I don't care. Any sympathy I had for you or any sense that I might want to help you has long evaporated due to your baseless accusations and paranoia. You made your bed, you sleep in it. AndyL 15:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I read it as a threat. And the actions speak louder than words. And those actions speak of the reality of that threat. The threat appeared and the actions followed. And the failures of these actions and now the appearance of classical republic does speak volumes on the nature of the deletion process.WHEELER 15:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I read it as a threat." That's because you're completely paranoid and can't distinguish between actual words and your own fantastic illusions. No threat appeared, a prediction appeared and the prediction came true. That's all. Can you not tell the difference? That's one reason you have so much trouble as an editor, you do "research" and claim its factual but when other people check your work it turns out that what is actually said in a sentence in a book is not what you imagine it said. You have to learn how to distinguish between reality and your own fantasies. AndyL 16:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then what do you call the page Classical republic created by SimonP. And why all the trouble starting afterwards on Arete (excellence), and the deletion notices on vanavsos, and Family as a model for the state. Then I point to:

And what do I have to do with any of that? Nothing. Again, I made no threat and there is no "cabal" and I have not been involved in any of the deletion rows, I simply made a prediction that your behaviour was bound to trigger some editors the way the red flag triggers a bull. No collusion, just predictable human response. AndyL 16:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have got to grant to You that you have been pretty fair with me. I have noticed that you are Canadian, and the others are either British and Canadian "modern republicans". The common connection of Pcpcpc, yourself, SimonP, Mackrakis, Rossb others is that they are all Canadian, British or Australian "modern republicans". Nor can one ignore that after that one line of yours, all sorts of actions were taken. I am a professional, I seek to be a professional, and I seek to contribute to Wikipedia and recently it has been awfully difficult. And I am not too happy that the classical definition of republic got deleted and some other people have expressed that as well. All the footnoting and all the resources did not make a dent in the deletion vote. It seemed to me that decisions were made already and anything I did was not going to make a difference. Rossb said, (in a round about way) it is going to be deleted and it seems that Wheeler has found another home so we won't feel to bad when we delete it. I don't understand these actions.WHEELER 16:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Professionals speak on Wheeler's behalf

I would like to point out some other help in my case Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/WHEELER. Comments are adde below:

While his articles on classical subjects have their fair share of flaws, they are almost entirely accurate, well-researched, and extremely well-cited; I speak from about seven years' worth of education in Latin and Greek. I don't see why the deletionist push against his articles has been so strong. Any problems with his articles are problems that can be fixed and edited. For the most part I would not call his articles on classical antiquity original research; what he says is generally stuff that is widely accepted in the field. While I've seen that things have gotten messy when he starts "turf wars" and tries to shoehorn classical definitions into modern articles without proper context, when he writes on classical subjects his work has been very good. I'd much rather see an edit war (although I'd hope for that not to happen) than an article with a lot of good information deleted. I'd rather see articles on encyclopedic topics fixed rather than deleted.Kevin M Marshall 19:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've not looked at Classical definition of republic before, but, from my scant knowledge of classics, the most recent version before deletion [2] looks pretty good (well, it seriously needs pruning and thinning down, but there is the core of a decent article on what the Ancient Greeks and Romans meant by the word "republic" - surely a proper topic for an encyclopaedia, I should have thought.)

The problem, it seems to me from the bits I have seen on the Village Pump, is WHEELER's rather forceful reaction to others trying to add their own input. But I don't know enough to comment properly. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both of you sum things up well. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have brought over comments from true professionals on my work.WHEELER 17:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These "true professionals" may very well be correct in their judgments, but I'm still inclined to believe that you equate "sycophantic agreement" with "true professional". I can smell ego a mile away. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 17:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians by fields of interest

Hi Wheeler: Your clarifying text at the head of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest A-B is a helpful addition. Good job. --Theo (Talk) 17:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE: Advice

I really specialize in solving confilcts before they go to ArbCom. I would like to move out of my niche but given how prominent and contorversial member of the community you are, I think you would be better served by an advocate more versed in the workings of the ArbCom like Alex756 or Ed Poor. Good luck! -JCarriker 23:59, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Operation Eagle Claw

I just read your bio and it seems that you were involved in this rescue attempt. Can you tell me your story of things? --One Salient Oversight 13:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Something that might interest you

crossposted, with apologies

A self-appointed clique calling itself the Wikipedia:Office of Investigations has empowered itself to decide who is a "problem user" who needs to be "dealt with", primarily through arbitration. Do you support this move, or are you worried about vendettas and bullying? Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Office of Investigations. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some advice

At the risk of my comments being accepted very differently from the manner in which I intended them, I would like to humbly and friendly extend some short recommendations toward you.

I sympathise with your frustration at Wikipedia's apparent rejection of your contributions, and your qualifications. However, reading the comment that you left on VfD/Distric Attorney's Office, I wondered if perhaps the problem was not the message you are trying to convey but how you convey it. Your message showed a good deal of anger and hostility — understandably so. But many people you will encounter, when met by that kind of attitude, will summarily reject all your opinions on the basis of being offended by your attitude. Humanity works in strange ways, and their reaction is no less understandable than yours. When you edit, just try to stay cool. You might find it works remarkably well.

I haven't looked over the history of your disputes. I don't intend to. I just thought I might try to say this, because qualified editors are very important, and it would be a shame to see your talents squandered because people got a bad impression of you. Good luck! →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:19, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Republic

Knowing your interest, I'd like to point you at the new Classical republic article (and the old one, Res publica you didn't lay your hands on). Mikkalai 05:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care anymore what goes on at Wikipedia. I work hard and my hard work goes up for deletion. It doesn't matter what I do. It will all be erased anyway. SimonP or Trudenau, people who have not read a lick of classical books or have any inkling of the cultural context, will delete my stuff. No Thanks.WHEELER 01:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case closed

The arbitration committee has reached a decision in the matter of Wheeler →Raul654 01:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Long time no talk, I have been quite consumed with destroying the “noble” and “romantic” image of undercover Stalinist Pablo Neruda. But onto more important things.

I have found a couple of sources that you might be interested in.

The first is a website run by a German, that uncovers and translates all kinds of little gems from Marx and Engles that most academics are too timid to translate. I think you might find it both interesting and a valuable tool. http://marxwords.blogspot.com/

The second is a new Book by Goetz Aly: "Hitlers Volksstaat. Raub, Rassekrieg und nationaler Sozialismus” ("Hitler's 'Volksstaat'. Robbery, racial war and national socialism")

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3100004205/qid%3D1114767629/028-6711382-4290955

Of special interest may be this gem by Adolph Eichmann: “My political sympathies were on the Left, with the ‘socialist’ being at least as important as the ‘nationalist’.”

TDC 16:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Post-Arb Follow-Up

WHEELER, I was in IRC today and some folks were there quite in a tizzy about you. I have found your contributions to be on the whole quite valuable and would hate to lose you as an editor. Pursuant to what the Arbcom directed in its remedies I was wondering if you might be interested in some service for mediation (the new Mediation Cabal might prove very useful) or even the services of an advocate might prove useful. Take a look at those and/or drop me a note on my talk page or send me an email if you would like to discuss further. Best regards! --Wgfinley 00:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back!

I've been wondering what you thought about the results of your arbcom case, and if your were satisfied with my performance as advocate and etc.. Please let me know your thoughts, I'm eager to hear from you. Sam Spade 22:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johhny

The problem with "and then gang up and then vote to delete my work as original research. hypocrites." is of course that your "work" DOES classify as original research. And screaming "Marxism" doesn't really add to your credibility, either. MilesD3 29 June 2005 14:09 (UTC)

Poll

There is a poll in the talk page of the article 'Macedonian Slavs' here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs#The_poll

Some people are lobbying for changing the article's name to 'Macedonian' without any qualifier. As it seems, a number of these people come from the Macedonian/Macedonian Slav wikipedia project. It seemed only fair to attract the attention of people possibly from the other side of the story too . Your contribution to the discussion and the poll is welcomed. I hope that this message is of interest to you, if not please accept my apologies.

Come to my userpage!--Yo Mama 5000 6 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)