User talk:Intangible

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Cleanup resources
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• Wikipedia:Five pillars

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

League of Nations

Hello Intangible, you just changed a link in League of Nations, but may be the old link was better. The institution of the League of Nations was arranged in the Treaty of Versailles. May be it should be changed back to that? Nightworker 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the old link was to the paris convention (which produced the versailles treaty). I just reverted the anonymous changes. Intangible 00:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-Inscrits

I reverted your edit because (1) it was marked as a "minor" cleanup when it fact it was a substantive edit to the page's content, (2) included patently wrong information (the UK Tories and the Olive Tree are NOT non Non-Attached) and (3) commented out a whole swathes of content, which while a little spotty grammar-wise, were suitably NPOV. The Tom 18:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, I shouldnt have marked that box.

2. Roger Helmer is a Conservative Non-Inscrit (the Conservatives are somewhat planning to move out of the EPP-ED creating their own parliamentary group), Gianni Rivera was chosen for the Uniti nell'Ulivo.

3. This article shouldnt be about labeling party ideologies, that can be done on the individual articles. The fact that these MEPs are Non-Inscrits says enough about them not willing to align with a parliamentary grouping.

Intangible 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Frieda Van Themsche

Why did you remove the link, and rename the language? I admit, I'm not an expert, but I would be surprised if a Flemish nationalist politician would refer to her personal page as written in Dutch, and not Flemish. AnonEMouse 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

a) Because Dutch is the official language of Flanders. There are many Flemish nationalists who rejoice Dutch language and culture. b) The Belien piece is about Hans van Themsche, and only shortly mentions Frieda van Themsche. Intangible 14:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, then I'll keep the language. I would prefer to return the Belien piece, though. You're quite right that it is about Hans, but it does mention Frieda, and their connection is the main reason she has become famous outside Belgium. Possibly more important, it is in English; we really should have an English language reference. All the ones I could find only mentioned Frieda slightly, and most were about Hans - this one is at least from Belgium. If you can find a better English language link, great, but until then, can we put this one back? AnonEMouse 15:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

AHA

Please quit reverting, I've backed up my edits with some very reliable sources (BBC news! and the official reports of the dutch house of representatives). --84.30.97.206 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the Trouw article?! Intangible 23:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Hans Van Themsche

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Waggers 15:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just being Bold. I removed a categorization which defied Wikipedia consensus. Intangible 16:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I support Intangible on this. He did nothing wrong, and as far as I know he did not violate 3RR, in contrary to his opponent. 1652186 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Neolibertarianism - conservative/neoconservative

Hi,

Saw your edit on neolibertarianism -- I was debating whether or not to make that change, but can you elaborate on why you think it's negated? --Daniel11 02:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Neolibertarianism#Conservatism_vs._neolibertarianism. Intangible 14:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Arab European League

__________________ Hi Intangible, Looks like you sent me a message, that is, when I go to wikipedia a get an orange banner with a message. I've read the message but the banner doesn't go away. It is some sort of a stylish coded warning whatever about a discussion page of an article obiously written by you. Could you please explain to me how could you have received that "free speech" award star when you are trying to supress a normal public ironic humorous speech like some taliban or some other extremist. I was just adding to the discussion by giving the same point as the other users. That certain images (should I say caricatures) should be put in the article because in the other article of the similar nature the caricatures were put in it. In the end I don't care if you do not agree with me (everybody has an opinion) and if you removed my short sentence from that comments page, but I don't see a reason for sending me coded warnings and threats. Is civilised behaviour too much to expect in our western civilisation?

Because I found the comment to be offensive and not adding to the debate, which is the point of an article's talk page. Intangible 23:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gabri ajax deal

Do you have a source for that? jaco♫plane 23:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Gabri will hold a press conference tomorrow. It seems he might choose Villarreal also, so i've added that bit. [1] Intangible 23:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say that I've seen your contributions appear all over the place in the last few weeks, and you've been doing a great job, keep it up! Ik neem aan dat je ook Nederlands bent? ;) jaco♫plane 18:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Neofascism

Yes of course. Don't hesitate in putting "citation tags" where you think citation is needed (if you are referring to the most recent additions, a lot of the source is in the articles themselves; you need to show me what exactly needs citation in this neofascist articles). Regards, Tazmaniacs 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD move

The redirect created in the move makes sure everything points to the right page. I don't think anyone will mind, since the page was grossly mislabeled, and now it's topically accurate. (Keep your fingers crossed). Here's the page that covers the issue: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. --Polar Deluge 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist categories

Hi Intangible,

The problem about these sort of categories is they start edit wars—look what happened on the Hamas article for example. Also, I agree with Wikipedia:Words to avoid, regardless whether it's an official policy or not. Just because two countries may call "X" a terrorist organization, should we say it is? Don't get me wrong, as an American, I am still angered by what happened on 9/11, but I feel that it's not Wikipedia's job to label organizations such as the PKK as terrorist just because a bunch of countries do. —Khoikhoi 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the NPOV category Organizations accused of Terrorism is aleady a sub-category of Category:Terrorism. —Khoikhoi 01:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, ask the 10-15 people that have been edit waring over it ever since the category was created. I'm not sure what else to say. I guess there are a greater number of people that everyone is 100% sure that they can be called terrorists than organizations, which tend to be more decisive. —Khoikhoi 01:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Fascism

I propose we enter into mediation on this page. Please indicate whether or not you accept.--Cberlet 01:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC){{Neo-Fascism}}