User talk:WHEELER: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:03, 19 June 2007

This user is a Greek Wikipedian or is a Wikipedian living in Greece.

There are things particularly relevant to Greek-based Wikipedians at the Greek Wikipedians' notice board.

Please feel free to help us improve Greek related articles in Wikipedia!

Wikipedians in Greece

Hi, I understand that you are either Greek Wikipedian or a Wikipedian living in/with an interest in Greece.

The category page Wikipedians/Greece has been replaced with Category:Wikipedians in Greece but your name still appears on the old list. You might considering moving it. You might also consider adding adding Template:Greekwiki to your user page.

A Wikipedia:Greek Wikipedians' notice board has been in existence for some time but is terribly underutilised. It would certainly benefit from your involvement.--Damac 12:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I have added myself to the category and have put the template on my page thanks.WHEELER 00:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[1]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 02:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Effeminacy, synoecism, and xenelasia

To be fair, SimonP was not the one who put the {{cleanup}} tag on Xenelasia. That was Pmanderson. And SimonP add the cleanup tag to Synoecism over month before he added it to Classical definition of effeminacy, so I don't think you can accuse him of wikistalking. However, it was IMO poor form of both Pmanderson and SimonP to add the cleanup tag to articles without explaining on the talk page what precisely was wrong with the article and what ought to change. I haven't read the three articles completely, and I know nothing about the subject, but from skimming them over, I would recommend that you cite the analyses of contemporary scholars. Your references sections in these articles are mostly to original texts or to 19th-century authors. The reference to Paul Rahe at Synoecism is a good start. What do other published contemporary scholars have to say about these issues? Presenting your own intepretation is original research, and is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. --Angr (t·c) 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it for meWHEELER 22:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascio

I've just tried cleaning up the referencing at Fascio, which had become quite a mess. Indeed, it was enough of a mess that I may not have gotten everything correctly attributed. Since much of this was yours, can I ask you to take a look and correct anything that is not now correctly cited? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Just to let the reader know, I am responding to SimonP on his talk page. I am catching on to how evil works--I notice that he puts links into the edit summary line to say that SimonP is playing by the rules but Wheeler is not. I know how this works at Wikipedia (a clique of legalisms and if you don't play by their game you get burned). So to know that I am responding to SimonP please go to his User page atUser_talk:SimonP#Hostility.
Please stop adding links to your own personal essays, they are original research of low quality and should not be linked to by Wikipedia. - SimonP 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have rather firm External links guidelines, one of those rules are that you should not link to any sites that "you own or maintain." The links you are adding are to pages that are entirely your own work, and are attempts to promote your own views. Also important is the rule that "pages that contain a substantial fraction of factually inaccurate material or which contain unverified original research should not be linked to." - SimonP 21:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is not just theories developed from one's own researches, it is also unique syntheses of existing sources. Your Crete/Sparta essay, for instance, is original research because no one else believes that "Doric Crete is the progenitor of much of the institutions found in Doric Sparta." You have simply strung together a number of ancient and modern sources that happen to mention the two societies in the same sentence. Also those essays are unquestionably your own, they were created by you, they are maintained by you, and you personally have a great interest in seeing other people read them. While you might not be gaining financially, these links still fall under the definition of spam. - SimonP 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SimonP is here: User_talk:SimonP#Hostility.

Myson of Chen

Myson of Chen has been proposed for deletion. Reasoning is on the talk page. I was tempted to pull off the notice myself, because the reasoning seemed awfully strange to me, but I thought I'd run it by you as the person who contributed the article and might understand the guy's reasoning better. NickelShoe 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information I found was through Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar, IIRC. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-4 17:37

Please, no spam

Regarding this edit: my talk page very specifically requests that people not spam me, especially with requests for votes regarding some subject of which I have no knowledge or interest. – Clockwork Soul 08:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain your post on the Joe Sobran page? - CDreamlings

Destra

Hi, I found an Italian copy of Doctrine of Fascism online:- "Ammesso che il sec. XIX sia stato il secolo del socialismo, del liberalismo, della democrazia, non è detto che anche il sec. XX debba essere il secolo del socialismo, del liberalismo, della democrazia. Le dottrine politiche passano, i popoli restano. Si può pensare che questo sia il secolo dell'autorità, un secolo di «destra», un secolo fascista; se il XIX fu il secolo dell'individuo (liberalismo significa individualismo), si può pensare che questo sia il secolo «collettivo» e quindi il secolo dello Stato." Thought you might be interested. Rich Farmbrough 22:39 8 June 2006 (UTC).

Wow, it's been, what, two or three years and WHEELER is still on about this? It was just a mistranslation into English, that's all - no conspiracy - either that or Conservatives in Britain or Hoover wanted to misdirect people to think fascism was left wing instead of right wing. The version of the Encyclopedia at my university with a 1932 copyright date says "destra" ie right so no, Mussolini did not change "left" to "right" in 1940. Homey 08:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians

To inform you, you've been added to the missing wikipedians. If you are not permenantly gone, you can remove your name from the list. --66.218.18.148 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinko Sakic

Why isnt Dinko Sakic in the list of Living Nazis?Just because of his natinality he is not mentioned,even though he was one of the worst nazi monsters during the war

YXYX 03:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Keep up the good work on Wikipedia. BTW your beard is cool. :P --Ysangkok 20:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Published

The journal you're citing does not seem to be a peer reviewed publication, but rather one mainly geared to publishing the work of hobbyists. The managing editor, according to the site, is "a fully qualified IT-Systemelectrician" and not a recognized scholar. Congratulations on getting your work published, and I suggest that journals such as that one are a far better venue for your reinterpretations of history than is Wikipedia. - SimonP 14:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're looking for more recent secondary sources. Perhaps you might consider searching some of the more prominent journals? A quick search gives an example list here: http://www.colorado.edu/Classics/clguides/periodicals.html - I can't vouch for all of them, but I know a lot of them are well respected and used. L'Année Philologique has a search engine which you might want to try, and I have heard that some people have derived a fair bit of use from a collection known as "JSTOR", though I've not used it myself. --Nema Fakei 00:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question on consensus and other policies

I think you've missed something here; perhaps I can explain. Wikipedia's policy of consensus does not override other policies, it's how those other policies work. It is through a consensus that phrasing is accepted as NPOV, it is by consensus that we judge whether references are relevant and useful where there is uncertainty. If we did not seek consensus, every single person would simply battle away with their own personal view of the One NPOV Truth, and we would be left with permanent edit wars and incoherent, contradictory articles. Hope this makes sense. --Nema Fakei 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the definition of NPOV when I started at Wikipedia. NPOV meant that ALL AND ANY information is included. I thought NPOV is about inclusion of both sides. I have a reference that says A. And another one that says B. Both are included.

See Nema Fakei, your answer sets me up for it says that User:Pmanderson can just disqualify any and all references I make. This is what he has done. He doesn't accept NOTHING. Your answer Nema Fakei backs up User Pmanderson to stall, obfuscate and DISCOUNT EACH and every reference I have. This is what consensus means is that a whole majority can sit there and deny and deny freely and by doing so censor opposing viewpoints. Your consensus nullifies any reference I make and so negates NPOV. This is how you get around NPOV. IT is called gaming the system and that is exactly what your friend Pmanderson is doing.WHEELER 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ALL AND ANY information is included" - not really. NPOV states that WP should not make overt value judgments on the veracity of controversial claims. Where there is controversy, WP should explain the arguments in that controversy as succinctly as is appropriate to the context. Anyway, WP cannot possibly contain every idea expressed by every academic (never mind anyone else) has had in the past two and a half millenia, which is why we have a number of other policies such those on notability. Your example "I have a reference that says A. And another one that says B. Both are included" is a better way of putting it, and it's an immediate consequence of the NPOV policy: the claims A and B should both be reported (assuming both references are notable and credible and assuming they are both found to make the claims they're being presented as making) in the most suitable place within the most relevant article (or in a new article if none is relevant and the claims are important enough to merit inclusion).

And yes, it is necessary to subject attributions to consensus so that, for example, we don't have to put up with contributors demanding that we include a claim that Ennius was deaf based on M. Crosby's article in Hesperia 1949, page 108. A consensus-based decision to reject this attribution ('censor' the claim, if you will) would be perfectly correct, as the article is in fact titled "An Athenian fruit measure", and has nothing to do with Ennius or his auditory faculties.

Now, while I agree with you that there is the potential for abuse, I'd argue that there's even more if we have no such policy, as an individual can disrupt wikipedia and overrule a majority of everyone but them. Even if you're not convinced by that, that's the way WP works, and the only way you're going to get it to change is to engage constructively with the processes. The alternative to give up and ignore WP remains, of course. But I'd rather not advocate that in your case, as I'm sure you have much to offer WP. Have you tried applying your knowledge to articles other than political/social commentary and the rather hairy definition issues that go with them? The Ancient Greece stubs and the Ancient Rome stubs categories are worth looking at: you're more likely to be able to make good, uncontested edits there which will improve understanding of the ancient world, whereas I fear much of the time you spend on the more controversial subjects will ultimately be fruitless. At least, until you find some references which more convincingly support the points you're trying to make. --Nema Fakei 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Thanks, and I do agree with you on the need of notability.

I am just here to correct the Republic area. I have done much work but it gets overwritten and deletted. The article I started Kalos Kagathos has been completely rewritten. Not only was it totally rewritten but the history page were I started it was erased. Not only was the History excised but the talk page was also reformatted.

And you seriously think that I am going to work on any other page on Wikipedia?

I authored and did all the work for Early Nazi Timeline. The most important fact was the first section. When I checked it over time---Someone deleted the first section and IT REMAINED deleted for a very long time. Finally, under anonymity did I restore it.

I authored and did all the work for Nazi 25-point program. Where I got all that info is from Erik von Keunhelt-Leddihn. Everday, someone would come by and delete all his words.

I could go on and on and on. I am just here for republic on the grounds of the honor and glory of my ancestors. Other than that, I am back to Wikinfo. The childish games and the constant vandalism are an iritant. One works so hard---only to have it erased. On Wikinfo I can sign all my articles and have them protected.

Muller and Rahe are excellent material. They are only attacked because they are politically incorrect. That is the only basis. ThanksWHEELER 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity you feel that way, but I do have to say that I think WP is just not a place to be honouring or glorifying ancestors; as you mention, there's no protection, no permanence, and NPOV policy precludes value judgments. Do consider those stubs, though. Even if you can't win the big battles on esoteric political categorisation, fleshing out the more concrete details of the ancient world might at least do them some service. -Nema Fakei 02:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had reference upon reference that backed each other up and he deletes it. Pmanderson refers to I. M. Finley who calles Muller's research a "Thousand page fantasia". Now, Muller is critical of democracy and is a promoter of Aristocracy. I read his book--It is fantastic. Werner Jaeger, the German classicist who wrote the magesterial Paideia quotes him. I. M Finley is a Communist and a member of the Frankfurt School. Just because this Commie belittles a book, gives the right to User:Pmanderson to discount every reference from Mr. Muller. This is consensus. On references to Paul A. Rahe. User:Pmanderson says Rahe is an eccentric, so the Consensus says--we discount him. By attacking all my references, the clique in control, "This secret consensus", can discredit every single reference I have! This is now Wikipedia Policy! I have had enough of this BS.WHEELER 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried explaining this on the policy page a long time ago. What happened with the Classical definition of republic is that a whole bunch of British (modern) republicans ganged up and voted that off! FACT: over some 80% of all American faculty of colleges and universities ARE democrats and especially Socialists. Socialists do manipulate language and learning to further their ideology! That is a Fact. With a majority who are democrats and socialists teaching a majority of people----Me and people like me, Old School, traditionalists, Monarchists---are shit out of luck. With your """consensus""" you ensure that we are marginalized and censored. But that is the whole point of WHO CREATED THE Consensus Policy at Wikipedia!WHEELER 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP seems to have an article Classical republic - this looks like the right place for the information you have. --Nema Fakei 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes

WHEELER, please bear in mind that the Village Pump is not an appropriate place to resolve a dispute over article content. I have closed the discussion there, and I would appreciate it if you don't reopen it.

Step back, take a deep breath, and work through the steps of dispute resolution calmly and coolly. You're not going to persuade anyone that your perspective is correct – or even appropriate for inclusion – by referring to people you disagree with as Marxists, Socialists, cliques, or Commies. Put down your CAPS LOCK key and exclamation point. If you can't participate civilly, you will find yourself (and your opinions) marginalized. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is the point. Socialist methodology is to aggravate their opponents so that they have grounds to marginalize them! It is a tactic well-used here.WHEELER 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your strategy is to do exactly what these imagined Commie bastards want. Is that a sensible approach? Be civil and don't broadcast your disputes all over the wiki in future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many days must I put up with it? This has been going on for Ten days now. For nine of those days, I was calm. I provided references. I refuted all their arguments. They kept on moving the goalposts. It seems to me that someone is getting away with Murder and the ""Wikipedia Community"" sits on the sidelines and does nothing. There is no self Correction. You mean to tell me that everybody is clueless "to aggravate them to marginalize them"?

The Shit keeps on getting better and better around here. User:Pmanderson can write this BS:

For the archaizing meanings of the word republic, as the commonwealth, or as a translation of politeia or res publica, see those articles. These were in some respects broader than the present meaning of republic, and would include not only the republics of antiquity, as above, but, for example, the following monarchies:

Sparta the Roman Empire Elizabethan England the Ancien Régime in France

And he can get away with it. First he slants. It is obvious slanting. And then the total off-the-wall BS I have ever heard. It remains and noone and noone does anything. I mean this boggles the imagination! I quote from a Wikipedia Classical republic and User:Pmanderson reverts and says Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Now, if this guy is this flippant---and you do nothing, Means I have nowhere to go but to explode.WHEELER 02:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a phrase in the UK, I do not know if you are familiar with it: "rising to the bait". If you are worried that you are being encouraged to get angry, the simplest way to defeat the tactic is to be polite and patient - either your opponents will get bored and go away, or it will become very obvious to all what's going on. If, on the other hand you do "rise to the bait", i.e. you do what they want you to do: throw accusations around (including accusations that you're being goaded), and use caps and bold, etc. then you will soon appear to everyone around to be the aggressor. No matter whether you've waited nine days or ninety.

It's not my place to debate the rights and wrongs between you and PMAnderson - not on this page, at any rate: I'm considering carefully what I can say on the talk page and what I can do with the article to try and resolve the issues. But do bear in mind that accusations of flippancy in response to a content submission you disagree with is bound to look disproportionate, and if anything is only going to ensure that "he can get away with it". --Nema Fakei 02:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.WHEELER 02:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh and by the way User:Work Permit @ List of republics just returned Pmanderson's edits of "archaizing", Sparta is a Monarchy and by inference saying the other meaning of the term "republic" is Monarchy and the Roman Empire is a Republic. You people deal with that. I am not. It is YOUR name "Wikipedia" that is going to be on that NOT mine! Let that stay and you will be assured to the be the laughingstock of some departments. Someone needs to talk with User Pmanderson because he may not have all his circuits wired correctly.WHEELER 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censored speech that other Wikipedians are not supposed to read

The following was deleted off the Wikipedia Policy page on June 18, 2007. Can't let the cat out of the bag.

(NB: it's not been deleted, it's just the discussion is closed, as the discussion belongs elsewhere. You can still view it here by clicking "show"--Nema Fakei 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

YOUR NPOV policy vs consensus

Hi, I, User:WHEELER was one of the early editors at Wikipedia. I was chased off awhile back. I came back on just to add Sparta as a republic at List of republics. I am constantly reverted. I have a ton of evidence! I posted all of it. But the last time I was one the biggest policy was NPOV but now I have come across another even greater policy "PER CONSENSUS". You state that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy---But in the bowells of Wikipedia--there is Clique that I must pass muster and no matter how much evidence-----------I am reverted! Consensus? How does a Monarchist, a traditionalist as myself, have "consensus" with Marxists? I can't edit the republic article because I am constantly reverted! I had my articleThe Spartan Republic published at Sparta a Journal. Yet, I post this, and the Clique will NOT allow Sparta on the list of republics. Why is that?

Furthermore, how can you have NPOV when a Consensus must approve of my edit? that is Illogical! What happened to verifiability and NPOV? You can't have NPOV AND consensus at the same time---that is illogical. I am glad I am at Wikinfo. I don't have to satisfy a clique of Marxists!!! WHEELER 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV? My ass! Consensus destroys NPOV.WHEELER 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONLY the POV of the clique is allowedWHEELER 19:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've posted this message at three locations already. The proper location to hold this discussion was at the article's talk page (where you did happen to post this also). I have replied there. Again, you are part of the consensus building process. There is no sense of consensus having to "approve" your edits, but that you must participate in a consensus building process if there are disagreements regarding a certain edit. Sancho 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I completely agree. Sometimes a cabal gets hold of an article and area and special interests can manipulate consensus evaluations. I'm not sure that there is a simple solution, but I'm glad that Wheeler shared the concern in the light of day. No easy answer. --Kevin Murray 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote another editor, this is systematic POV-pushing by a known purveyor of Original Research. Sparta was a monarchy; in fact, it had two kings at a time. This is a single-purpose account, pushing an obsolete definition of "republic" he found in a book published in 1824; it is being given due weight as the view of a tiny minority. I thank Kevin Murray for his care and his courteous retraction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT original research at all. I quoted Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. I quoted Paul A. Rahe who wrote a three volume study on Republics, Ancient and Modern. There are TWO definitions of republic Modern and Classical. There was a modus operandi, a consensus, many moons ago at Wikipedia between Kim Bruning and myself. The Moderns had their Republic article and I had Classical definition of republic. The link was in the inro to the Republic article. I was fine with this arrangement. Later on, Classical definiton of republic was voted off. And SimonP created like three different articles out of that Mixed government, Classical republics, Classical republicanism. Classical republics should be conjoined with mixed government or vice a versa.

I have not posted my opinions on republics but only from Rahe and Terence Ball. That is NOT original research. And according to original research, my paper, The Spartan Republic did get accepted to a Journal in England and is online. There is an academic advisor on board. And they did accept it.WHEELER 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHEELER's quotation from Ball says nothing about Sparta; I cannot comment further without a copy of the book in front of me. Rahe is a Carolina eccentric who believes, like John C. Calhoun, that the Constitutional Convention was a mistake. His views are, perhaps fortunately, still those of a tiny minority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said yourself, "still those of a tiny minority" that means NPOV kicks in. The definition of a republic by Ball says, "A republic is mixed". That is what it says. It doesn't say anything about Sparta. I have classical reference books that state Sparta is a republic. And Cicero, who is a Roman Lawyer, said Sparta is a republic due to it being MIXED. You can't mistake that.WHEELER 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two things wrong with this quotation:

It is incomplete: What Ball actually says is that the Roman Republic was a mixed government, and that "A republic, then, was a form of popular government, but it was not meant to be a democracy."
It is out of context. Ball is summarizing the views of Polybius and Aristotle. He is not stating his own.

I see no profit to discussion with any editor who abuses his sources so badly, as WHEELER has always done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson expresses a majority viewpoint because academia, who are majority democrats and a lot of them socialists, do not speak or tell the truth. WHEELER 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is our policy to follow the consensus view, not WHEELER's claim of the Truth. Hire a blog. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said I was open to negotiation at the Talk:Republic page. I am very open to negotiation. I placed my references. They were deleted.

I ask with references being deleted why verifiability? Everything I post is with references. That doesn't seem to matter at all.WHEELER 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting a little more PISSED OFF

You talk of consensus. I am on Talk:List of republics. I have refuted every argument, and placed copious amounts of references. Just now, I go back and User:Pmanderson has just reverted and added his own stuff. I have the quotes. Paul A. Rahe said Sparta IS a republic. Where is the discussion? THERE IS NO discussion on the talk page. Pmanderson refuses to acknowledge references! I am not leaving. Sparta is a republic and IT WILL BE PLACED on that page! NPOV is the WP policy! Who is going to enforce NPOV over the clique that guards those articles.! He even deleted the references. Sparta and Crete had the only references on that page---and User:Pmanderson erases it all. What's up Wikipedia? What is going on Wikipedia?WHEELER 21:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the negotiation?WHEELER 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, there hasn't been any discussion. I will ask Pmanderson to join discussion at the article's talk page. Sancho 21:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was happening above... sorry. I got confused. I started a section in the article's talk page that you two can hopefully use together to come to an agreement. Sancho 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. Sancho for starting negotiations. I am at Talk:Republic.WHEELER 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question on consensus and other policies

This was transferred from my user talk page.

I think you've missed something here; perhaps I can explain. Wikipedia's policy of consensus does not override other policies, it's how those other policies work. It is through a consensus that phrasing is accepted as NPOV, it is by consensus that we judge whether references are relevant and useful where there is uncertainty. If we did not seek consensus, every single person would simply battle away with their own personal view of the One NPOV Truth, and we would be left with permanent edit wars and incoherent, contradictory articles. Hope this makes sense. --Nema Fakei 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the definition of NPOV when I started at Wikipedia. NPOV meant that ALL AND ANY information is included. I thought NPOV is about inclusion of both sides. I have a reference that says A. And another one that says B. Both are included.

See Nema Fakei, your answer sets me up for it says that User:Pmanderson can just disqualify any and all references I make. This is what he has done. He doesn't accept NOTHING. Your answer Nema Fakei backs up User Pmanderson to stall, obfuscate and DISCOUNT EACH and every reference I have. This is what consensus means is that a whole majority can sit there and deny and deny freely and by doing so censor opposing viewpoints. Your consensus nullifies any reference I make and so negates NPOV. This is how you get around NPOV. IT is called gaming the system and that is exactly what your friend Pmanderson is doing.WHEELER 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had reference upon reference that backed each other up and he deletes it. Pmanderson refers to I. M. Finley who calles Muller's research a "Thousand page fantasia". Now, Muller is critical of democracy and is a promoter of Aristocracy. I read his book--It is fantastic. Werner Jaeger, the German classicist who wrote the magesterial Paideia quotes him. I. M Finley is a Communist and a member of the Frankfurt School. Just because this Commie belittles a book, gives the right to User:Pmanderson to discount every reference from Mr. Muller. This is consensus. On references to Paul A. Rahe. User:Pmanderson says Rahe is an eccentric, so the Consensus says--we discount him. By attacking all my references, the clique in control, "This secret consensus", can discredit every single reference I have! This is now Wikipedia Policy! I have had enough of this BS.WHEELER 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried explaining this on the policy page a long time ago. What happened with the Classical definition of republic is that a whole bunch of British (modern) republicans ganged up and voted that off! FACT: over some 80% of all American faculty of colleges and universities ARE democrats and especially Socialists. Socialists do manipulate language and learning to further their ideology! That is a Fact. With a majority who are democrats and socialists teaching a majority of people----Me and people like me, Old School, traditionalists, Monarchists---are shit out of luck. With your """consensus""" you ensure that we are marginalized and censored. But that is the whole point of WHO CREATED THE Consensus Policy at Wikipedia!WHEELER 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 125: / Line 125: @@
 ==Censored speech that other Wikipedians are not supposed to read==
 ''The following was deleted off the Wikipedia Policy page on June 18, 2007.  Can't let the cat out of the bag.''
+(NB: it's not been deleted, it's just the discussion is closed, as the discussion belongs elsewhere. You can still view it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#YOUR_NPOV_policy_vs_consensus here] by clicking "show"--[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
 ===YOUR NPOV policy vs consensus===
 Hi, I, [[User:WHEELER]] was one of the early editors at Wikipedia.  I was chased off awhile back.  I came back on just to add Sparta as a republic at [[List of republics]].  I am constantly reverted.  I have a ton of evidence!  I posted all of it.  But the last time I was one the biggest policy was [[NPOV]] but now I have come across another even greater policy "PER CONSENSUS".  You state that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy---But in the bowells of Wikipedia--there is Clique that I must pass muster and no matter how much evidence-----------I am reverted!  Consensus?  How does a Monarchist, a traditionalist as myself, have "consensus" with Marxists?  I can't edit the [[republic]] article because I am constantly reverted!  I had my article[http://www.sparta.markoulakispublications.org.uk/index.php?id=105 The Spartan Republic] published at Sparta a Journal.  Yet, I post this, and the Clique will NOT allow Sparta on the list of republics.  Why is that?