User talk:WGee

Welcome!

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

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

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

Sweden Democrats and SweHomer

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

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

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

WP:BITE

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

Working together

Copied from FloNight talk

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

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

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

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

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

Copied from FloNight talk

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

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

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

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

Sign talk page comments

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

Sweden Democrats

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

Please respect Flonights advice

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

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

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

Email conversation

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

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

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

Your questions about SD

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

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

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

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

Watch the POV

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

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

Explanation

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

Userpage design

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

Sam Spade and socialism

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

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

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

Uni

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

Censorship

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

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

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

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

Thanks for asking - long reply

(Copied from my talk page for continuity)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WGee 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

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

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

Use of fair use images outside of main article namespace

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

RE:British National Party

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

BNP

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

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

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

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

About {{Communism2}}

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

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, WGee, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member, you might be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee, Titoxd, JoanneB, and Freakofnurture.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page, or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users on our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, please see the IRC Tutorial, which was written by one of our members. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to be!

Thanks!—G.He 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Chavez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table

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

Names of Russia

In your comment to Russia:

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

Please, see Chapter 1 Article 1 of the Constitution:

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

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

On "belittling and discriminatory comments"

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

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

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

A short Esperanzial update

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

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

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

Template:WOT

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

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

Front National

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

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

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

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

Anon edits and reverts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic rewrite (Hugo Chavez)

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

Mission Barrio Adentro

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

Email

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

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

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

Regarding 172's comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration Request Filed

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

Show good faith

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

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

NPOV tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On a related note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the backup re: personal attacks

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Hello,

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

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

WGee

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

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

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

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

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

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