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

Imperium Europa/Viva Malta

Hi, I didn't understand why you deleted these political parties from the libertarian page. Drew88 08:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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){{RFM-Request}}

Get real

I already discussed the change. Your templates aren't going to fool anyone. And if anything is vandalism, it is removing dispute templates from the article when there is an ongoing dispute in talk. 72.65.69.157 03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

List of terrorist organisations

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. 72.65.69.157 03:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How many reverts have you done in all your incarnations? Intangible 14:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting is not vandalism. You broke 3RR, not me. As far as my "incarnations", my IP changes frequently, but as the scope of your comment is intended to reflect "Chairman LMAO" (who is not me), I can not properly answer. I don't know why you feel it is that you can run roughshod over someone's edits and treat them as contemptible items you can disregard at will, but in doing so it is you who is violating policy. 151.205.37.254 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where have I violated 3RR? Intangible 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You made four reverts in the course of a few hours on the article in question. [2] [3] [4] [5] I did not report you because you did not yet have a warning, but any further instances will. Frankly I do not know how new of a user you are (and thus whether you should know you committed a violation) but it does not particularly concern me; I am not attempting to make this a war of stubborn personalities but am simply interested in good, encyclopedic content. 151.205.37.254 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and at at all times I reverted section blanking vandalism. Nothing wrong with that. Intangible 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave reasons in my edits and in talk for the deletions. That very fact shows that there is a content dispute and not simple vandalism. That excuse is not going to hold water. I would strongly suggest that you reassess your attitude towards this matter. 151.205.37.254 21:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Front National (France)

You're a man one can do business with! Tough but fair. All the same, maybe we should steer clear of each others articles and edits in future?! regards Marcus22 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Neo-fascism

Please do not post further text on my user discussion page. Please go away. You are a pest. Your request is another bogus stalking incident. Stop bothering me. If you refuse mediation next time I will seek further sanctions for your blatant POV trolling. If you insist on this confrontation, have it on entry discussion pages, not on my user discussion page.--Cberlet 02:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I did, I got no answer. Intangible 02:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion re: User talk:Cberlet

Hello! You recently requested a third opinion regarding the deletion of one of your comments from user Cberlet's talk page. I don't believe I've had any past involvement with either you or Cberlet, and I've had no involvement with the Neo-fascism article that seems to be at the root of the mess, so I feel that I can give you a neutral opinion.

A user has a significant amount of control over the contents of his or her user talk page. The only thing that a user absolutely cannot remove from their user talk page is warnings or other administrative notices. As the Wikipedia:User talk pages policy says, removing non-harassing personal messages without replying can be viewed as uncivil, and can become an issue in arbitration or other dispute resolution proceedings (especially if the user seems to be burying evidence of a dispute).

On the other hand, it seems to me that "baiting" a user -- making comments on the user's talk page when the user has made it clear that comments are unwanted -- could also be seen as uncivil, or even as harassment in extreme cases.

User Cberlet is obviously very upset that you declined mediation. I'm not even going to begin to dig into the merits of that mediation or of the underlying dispute, or to attempt to say who's right or who's wrong. But regardless of who's in the right in the underlying dispute, it seems to me that the smart and civil thing to do is to give the upset user some space. The User Talk Pages policy suggests this as well; if a user is removing your comments on their talk page, and it's not a serious enough matter for dispute resolution proceedings, move on. Continue to make appropriate and civil comments on the appropriate article's talk page. If Cberlet won't interact with you there, then that's unfortunate; but you'll at least have stated your position appropriately, which can only help you.

I hope this opinion is useful. Kickaha Ota 04:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of relative words

You wrote "Left" and "right" are relative terms pertaining to a political situation (in time and space). If these are relative terms, how can one use them without resorting to WP:OR and WP:POV?

Very simple. As with many other words, use them in the common sense that they are used in the locale and era discussed.

If, for instance, one says "constitutional" about France in 1995, then it is implied that this designates, by default, things found in accordance to the Constitution of the French Fifth Republic according to the criteria of the Constitutional Council of France. Of course, there are people that would like to discuss French events according to whether they would be constitutional according to, say, the constitution of the United States of America; in this case, one can always give a longer explanation. Or, there are some people that allege that certain things are unconstitutional despite the Council judging them to be so; in this case, one can always say "according to Foobar, blah blah".

If we did not apply this simple, common sense criterion, then our speech would become utterly cluttered with explicit contextualization. For instance, imagine discussing American institutions. As you probably know, there are a few people that disagree with the appreciation of what is constitutional or not according to US courts; yet, we say "unconstitutional" and not "unconstitutional according to the US District Court of Foobar, US Court of Appeal of Foobie, and to the US Supreme Court, but not according to Mr John Soandso of Whatsthisplace". If we really need to discuss the disagreement of Mr Soandso, we can do it once and for all.

There are some people who disagree that Benedict XVI is the rightful pope; see for instance sedevacantism. Yet, almost everybody else in the world says "the Pope"; and we would clutter Wikipedia unnecessarily if on each and every occasion of the use of the word "Pope" we had to say "Pope according to just about everybody except such or such group".

With respect to France, there is a commonly accepted classification of parties used by the mainstream media and even in official summaries. Some people disagree with it; for instance, Mr Le Pen claims that he is right-wing, not far-right (but previously claimed to be neither left-wing, nor right-wing), and that the other parties are left-wing; some Trotskyite groups claim that just about all mainstream parties are right-wing. We can note these disagreements in the appropriate articles, but it seems excessive to systematically add these reservations after each and every use of the words. David.Monniaux 15:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yor categorization

That is absurd. "Socialism in France" would be a clutter cat, and we can all agree that all communist parties are socialist parties! I also do not approve of you "French nationalist parties" cat, which is both vague and without much use in the French context (especially when there is a "Far-right" one). Dahn 21:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I had opposed the creation of left and right categories (except fot far right, which is objective), but I must point out to you that they are not limited to the French case. Cat:Liberal is a trans-cat, as it is (parties can be included both there and in left-wing or right-wing, where it applies). As it is, I see no problems with it.

Nationalism is an absurd point to make. Let me ask you: would the gaullistes and monarchists fit in that as well? What does it take to be "nationalist", especially in a country were the left wing is traditionally centralist, and, ever since Orleanism, the right-wing (all the way to the FN) tends to be unusually regionalist? The far-right category avoids the ambiguity, and anything "nationalist" is either duplication or nonsense. Dahn 21:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Again: Nationalism itself is cath-all, especially in a French context. The categorization is useless here, and what I had asked you was if Gaullisme en masse wouldn't fit there, and what the hell does this category have to say about monarchist parties. Also, having a syncretic dogma (and it is not especially syncretic compared to others in France and elsewhere) does not prevent the FN from fitting into the far right. Dahn 21:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Again: I had asked you what they both are to nationalism! Dahn 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Again: this is about whether a category for Gaullist parties will not be a subcat for this one! As it is, far right serves the very purpose of such a categorization. "Nationalism" is either duplication or a misnomer. Dahn 22:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And what "special meaning" does "nationalism" have in this case that does not include the Gaullistes and the monarchists (hell, even many socialists)? Dahn 22:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, the "foremost thing" those parties are is Far Right. Nationalism is a vaguer term than Far Right, and it describes attitudes which feature prominently in other categories. Do you get my point? Dahn 22:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before: a far right party in France is one that opposes most revolutionary legacies, blends conservatism and populism in the way Boulangisme did, advocates a measure of decentralization (a localism which is partly similar to nationalism, but differs from textbook nationalism in that it is Blood and Soil localist rather than ethnocentic), and opposes Laïcité. The terms for left-wing and right-wing are indeed vaguer (although User:Tazmaniacs has done a good job of clarifying the vagueries in categorization), but that does not imply anything for this particular category. Frankly, if you get some info on Integralism, the Action Française, Syndicalism, Cercle Proudhon etc., you get a sense of why "Nationalism" serves no purpose and "Far right" makes perfect sense to use. Dahn 22:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because Boulangisme is just one of its many aspects. Dahn 22:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What I would do is include Category:Far right political parties in France into Category:Nationalist parties and Category:Far right politics in France into Category:Nationalism. The topics are related, for all the differences, and we thus get rid of the category you created, which at best repetitive. Dahn 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all "heterogenous". It includes parties which share a common legacy, which may lead to complex results (just as categories for socialism). What I was saying is that Boulangisme is one of the aspects of Far right, by no means its only aspect. We are not only talking about a common attitude, we are talking about a common cultural legacy (as you will find with those parties responsible for the February 6, 1934 crisis) Let me add that, contrary to this, nationalism in France has several and very different sources (consider Olier Mordrel attacking the "Jacobin" left-wing for bring ethno-centric!). Dahn 23:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all: far right is an ideology in French context (and not only). Secondly, nationalism is not an ideology per se, but rather a guideline enforcible for those parties which guide themselves exclusively by a vision of Volkgeist, with very different ideologies otherwise (nationalism groups parties which have nothing but this in common, especially in European contexts - it is arguable that virtually no party in France had a completely Volkgeist-based vision). Dahn 23:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

From the Nationalism article: "Nationalism is a form of identity that holds that (ethnically or culturally defined) nations are the "fundamental units" for human social life, and makes certain cultural and political claims based upon that belief; in particular, the claim that the nation is "the only legitimate basis for the state", and that "each nation is entitled to its own state." Can you see how vague that is? That is why nationalism is and should remain an umbrella term, including both Nazism and, say, Liberal perties of ethnicities in Austria-Hungary. If it is an "ideology" stricto sensu, then I am led to believe that Tomáš Masaryk and Adolf Hitler have the same ideology!

Far right is an ideology in France and several other places - parties pertaining to it are, by definition, grouped alongside a political goal (opposition to the French Revolution and Republican institutions). The English term may be vaguer (although the vagueries start from a concrete situation: that of deputies in France seated to the right of the speaker, and doing so by their own choice), but bringing in the "this is an English-language wikipedia" argument is, frankly, insulting my intelligence - parties confirm to local circumstance, and not to the "English language".

I am getting quite tired of explaining the obvious to you. Dahn 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

duplicate categories

thanks Hmains 01:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

3RVNational Front

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

See [6], [7], [8], [9] (that's for today) [10], [11], [12] and yesterday... Tazmaniacs 20:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cooling off period

Guys, please don't get too mad, but seeing the way that you two were going at it I've decided you need a rest.

I've blocked you both for a bit, with the blocking summary:

• Cooling down (edit war between Tazmaniacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Intangible (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on Front National (France). Signs of gaming

I'll explain what I mean by gaming. It seems to me like you decided to fight out your opinions by just being rude and reverting one another's edits, and you quit when it seemed that you'd "used up" what you thought was your entitlement.

But you don't have an entitlement to treat Wikipedia this way. It's an encylopedia, not a game show. Please go off and have some fun somewhere in the outside world, come back and, batteries recharged, both do your best to work together, using the discussion pages, to produce a great article you can both be proud of. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock you both now. Please proceed with care and don't resume edit warring. Please use the talk page. I want to see the differences here resolved just as much as you do, but not by a test of endurance. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Vlaams Belang

Hi, You seem to have performed 3 reverts on the Vlaams Belang page over the last couple of hours ! Have a nice day ! --LucVerhelst 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Vlaams Belang

You wrote :

Vlaams Belang

If anything before the foundation of Vlaams Belang goes, I will remove anything that happened before 2004 from the article. Intangible 18:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you do, this will be in violation of WP:POINT.

Please don't. --LucVerhelst 18:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Re.

Let's stay civil, shall we. There's no need to start issueing commands. Nobody died of saying "please" now and again.

Thank you. --LucVerhelst 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Afshin Ellian

Hoi Intangible, zou je eens een blik kunnen werpen op het artikel Afshin Ellian. Mocht je een idee hebben om het artikel te verbeteren zou dat zeer gewaardeerd worden ;) Groetjes, jaco♫plane 19:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! jaco♫plane 15:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Economic totalitarianism AfD

I think you have to wait until the end of the deletion review with this one. ~ trialsanderrors 11:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Economic totaslitarianism

Hi there, the article is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_12#Economic_totalitarianism. I've closed your nomination since it's best to have discusion in just one place. Dr Zak 13:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edits to CEOOR

Wow. You seem to have an archive that is as impressive as Jvb's ! Nice !

(And you seem to have adopted is style of reverting, too...) --LucVerhelst 22:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Words

It's "non-notable", not "non-noticeable". Just so you know. DS 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice comprimise

re: Italian general election, 1948 Nice comprimise, if no one verifies the info in a week, I can remove the paragraph and move it to the talk page. Nice job, I appreciate your work on this wikipage. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Drieu La Rochelle

Please see my remark at Talk:Pierre Drieu La Rochelle#Devoid of any nationalism? - Jmabel | Talk 04:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert to "sane version"

You reverted the Guido Demoor article without providing arguments, apart from "I revert back to a sane version. I don't feel like 'rewriting history' just based on Humo."

Please revert back. As per WP:DR : "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." --LucVerhelst 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You started rewriting this article from scratch after just putting a message to the talk page, without discussion. Intangible 15:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And completely following Wikipedia rules doing it. Please revert back.--LucVerhelst 15:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Anarchism

The place of individualist anarchism within anarchism is not disputed. The place of anarcho-capitalism is. The distinction is made based upon the sources available. Please see WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources for more information. Using etymology is, I would think, an example of original research, which should be avoided. I'm not even sure what your intentions are. What do you think the template or the article lacks? --AaronS 19:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What WP:OR? Can one not even use logic anymore to discuss? Intangible 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Logic is great. When you're writing an encyclopaedia article, however, verifiability is better. Back up your claims with reliable sources. Also, since you ignored my overtures to discuss this situation with you and instead decided to engage in an edit war, I've reported you for violating WP:3RR. Please see WP:ANI/3RR. --AaronS 19:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why this would be a primary source... Intangible 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It was written in 1889, very close to the events in question, and during a time when there were no standards for things like peer review. For starters (from WP:OR):

Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.

--AaronS 20:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if your logic is true, this does not pertain WP:Verifiability. Intangible 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

You broke 3RR. I suggest that you revert yourself. -- Vision Thing -- 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I don't agree though with your suggestion. If I cannot put a NPOV tag to an article to indicate a NPOV dispute, I am left with nothing. Intangible 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, other user will probably remove the tag anyway and, if reported, you will be blocked for 24H. That doesn't solve anything. -- Vision Thing -- 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

17th November terrorist group

Please keep an eye on the entry for 17th November, which user Tazmaniacs is attempting to trim into conforming to his bias, by deleting [13] sourced entries he doesn't like. It is odd enough already that we allowed him to insert his fringe-lunatic unsubstantiated [14] conspiracy theories into the entry, but now that he's attempting to delete opposing views he is seriously overstepping some bounds. Thanks. Porfyrios 20:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[15] made on July 18 2006 (UTC) to Anarchism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to post this information on the incident report talk page, before you blocked me:

• This is where I provided a cite: 17:19, 18 July 2006
• This is where User:AaronS reverted my edit: 17:26, 18 July 2006
• This is where I went to the talk page: 17:31, 18 July 2006
• This is where I put the NPOV tag to the article: 17:39, 18 July 2006

I find it strange, if not completely against the intentions of 3RR policy, that I, who explained my position on that article's talk page, should be punished for doing so. The only thing I did was to put a NPOV tag on the article that would alert knowledgable and interested editors to go to the talk page for further discussion on the comment I left. If I cannot alert other users that something is wrong with an article, how can I possibly receive any comment back on what I write on the talk page? Intangible 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, all edits of mine after I put the NPOV tag to the article [16] are of course simple revert of vandalism added by other uses, so that does not even pertain to the 3RR rule. Intangible 14:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

unblock|Contradicts 3RR policy intentions

I see your point, but I'm not going to unblock you. You may have been making an effort to discuss with the other editor, but when that failed, you still continued to revert, and you weren't reverting simple vandalism. The 3RR is there so people don't just revert each other back and forth. Anyway, AaronS was also blocked for all the reverting; it was done so that the reverting stops, because it's disruptive. Mangojuice^talk 16:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page has not yet finished at all! Intangible 17:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment at User talk:AaronS to that effect, in denying his unblock request. Just go back to the talk page when your block expires and continue the discussion. Mangojuice^talk 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is currently under featured article review. Objective comments or help in maintaining featured status would be appreciated. -- Vision Thing -- 21:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tanguy Veys

Hello.

I saw your work at Wikipedia. Keep up the goed work!

You think Tanguy Veys is enough important to make a page on him?

Thank you! TanguyVeys 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha, this will only get me more in trouble :-) But maybe in due time... Intangible 20:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Individualist Anarchism

Thanks for supplying a good source for the lead sentence of individualist anarchism. I noticed that your referance was to pages 46-66. Could you do me a favor and check the journal to find out on which page the phrase "individual sovereignty" or "sovereignty of the individual" first appear? Blahblahblahblahblahblah 09:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I was looking for, thanks. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 01:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

New Democracy (Greece)

Hi there Intangible, I noticed your removed the Greek New Democracy party from the liberal party category, noting that the party is a member of the International Democratic Union, and not the Liberal International. However, Wikipedia's article on liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Liberal_conservatism) specifically mentions Liberal Conservatism as a strand of the liberal philosophy, including IDU parties. Moreover, there is a very strong, purely liberal ideological current in the party (often antagonizing the conservatives), the party identifies itself as liberal, and it is systematically criticized by opponents as "neoliberalist" (apparently some kind of political bugaboo in the left-leaning Greek public discourse). In American terms, the party's policies would most closely resemble those of Bill Clinton (ie pro-market but with a clear slant in favour of some welfare-state policies, such as a national health system). On that basis, I propose that both "conservative" as well as "liberal party" categories are retained in the New Democracy entry.

Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration. See [here]--Cberlet 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Get Ready

Carefull withg this one and stay on your toes, I have seen more than one user lynched at an RfArb. Email me if you would like some advice. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm

That self-described anarcho-communists can hijack this template for the worse is a shame. Intangible 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you are accusing me of being a communist? (Seeing as I was the one who made the change). - FrancisTyers · 01:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, me again

Intangible, Tazmaniacs, hi. I won't be blocking this time if you both cease warring on Groupement de recherche et d'études pour la civilisation européenne. If you continue I will block both of you, but you won't continue so that's not a problem.

There appears to be contention over the claim that this is a far right political group. Tazmaniacs if that is removed by anyone do not add it in again unless you provide a reliable source in the article for that statement. This also covers the inclusion of Category:Far right politics in France

Tazmaniacs, you also seem to have removed a {{fact}} tag from the statement "Several GRECE members founded the éditions Copernic in September 1976, which published writings of authors seen as "precursors", such as Louis Rougier, Oswald Spengler or Julius Evola." Please either leave the tag there or provide a reliable source for the statement.

The requests I'm making of Tazmaniacs are not arbitrary; they are covered by our Verifiability policy (which you may sometimes see cited as WP:V). The policy says that unsourced claims may be removed and should not be restored unless sourced. --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:French liberal parties

I see you went ahead and recreated Category:French liberal parties the same day it was deleted via CFD. I will be deleting it again. If you choose to recreate it again against consensus, you will be blocked. --Kbdank71 15:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Freeway/motorway/whatever category

--SPUI (T - C) 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism template

In a word (or six), Yes. - FrancisTyers · 15:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In a word (or six), Yes
1  2 3     4  5     6

:) - FrancisTyers · 16:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Rocker

Do you have a source for that Rudolph Rocker quote about individualist anarchism? That can be added to the Anarchism in the United States article. There used to be an American individualist anarchism article but it looks like someone deleted it or something. TheIndividualist 02:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How about the page number for the Blackwell source? What's the name of the entry? IndividualistAnarchist 17:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

your arbcom

Hey, Intangible, I left a comment at your arbcom thing. I hope it will help and I'm sorry for the way you are being harassed. Shannon^{duck talk} 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you 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 10:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My edits

Please stop reverting my edits. You know that there's a dispute, based upon your involvement in Template talk:Anarchism. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to instigate an edit war. I'm not going to revert your reverts anymore, but I'll tag the section if you continue to give undue weight to your source. --AaronS 21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight? I'm citing sources here. Have you ever cited sources? Intangible 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the positive of claim, so the burden of proof is not on me. It's on you. Considering all of the good discussion that's going on at Template talk:Anarchism, this is highly disruptive and tendentious of you. There's no point to it, and it doesn't help anything. --AaronS 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of ANI

Your post to the Administrator's Noticeboard about the blcoking of IndividualAnarchist also erased 3 comments from other users. [17] I hope this was an accident. If not, please don't do it again. Thatcher131 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lingeron Block

I have been requested to steer your attention to the matter at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Lingeron_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. Lingeron appears to have been blocked as a sockpuppet without complete confirmation as such, as she and TheWolfStar (whom she is accused of being a sock for) are both on the RoadRunner network, which has a large pool of dynamic, shared addresses. It would be appreciated if you could give your own objective input on this matter. Thanks. - MSTCrow 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Useful idiot

I see you have marked this article with a {{NPOV}} tag. It would be helpful to discuss what lack of neutrality you see on the talk page; especially since this article has been accused of opposite forms of bias while have substantially identical texts. Septentrionalis 01:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My error; you may have changed spacing in the process. Septentrionalis 01:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Do you have an e-mail? Mine is anarchism at inbox com. -- Vision Thing -- 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

s-templates

Hi, I would like to inform you that lord lieutnants of a county like Lord Lieutenant of Cheshire are'nt military offices, but honorary titles. Secondly the Earls of Carnarvon were created in the Peerage of Great Britain, and not of England or the United Kingdom. Could you be perhaps a little more careful with your use of s-reg, s-off and s-hon templates? Thanks and Greetings Phoe 10:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with Politics!

It would seem we have brought Category:Politics under control. It sat neglected for a year too: hopefully others will be inspired to act. I have also gotten good feedback on the creation of {{catdiffuse}} : use it where you see a category in danger of ending up like this one did. Cwolfsheep 04:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OOPS, Sorry

Sorry man, I meant to put TheIndivualist in that comment. Ya'll's names got mixed up up in my gulliver. I will change it. Peace, Blockader 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop removing the word 'unique' from anarchism. Your continual reverting is disruptive. --AaronS 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

category:Dutch liberals

I saw you 'won' the CfD of category:Dutch liberals. Congratulations! I hoped to vote in it, but in noticed the CfD too late. You made some interesting comments though: you want to category to only include 'influential liberals'.

I disagree with you vehemently on this, because your proposal is problematic under Neutral point of view and No original research. There is no criterion to decide who are influential liberals and who aren't. Furthermore I think you gave an interesting start for the creation of Dutch politician categories for all ideologies (not just liberalism and conservatism), which would classify all dutch politicians. (BTW I'm assuming your Dutch since your first edit is on D66).

I'm not sure how to create that system, so I wanted to discuss it with you. Currently there is category for liberals, communists and conservatives.

• Liberals would include all self-proclaimed liberals, and members of the VVD, D66, VDB, PvdV, LSP, LU, LP and RB.
• Communist would include all self-proclaimed communists and members of the CPN, CPH, SDP, RSP.
• Conservatives would include all self-proclaimed conservatives and members of the pre-1918 Conservative Party.

There are two major groups of politicians which then lack categories.

• Christian Democrats: which could be solved by a category christian democratic politicians or confessional politicians, which would include all self proclaimed Christian Democrats and politicians from CDA, ChristenUnie, SGP, GPV, RPF, ARP, EVP, CHU, KVP, RKSP and general league.
• Leftwing people: which is rather problematic because a category including leftwing in its title would never survive a POV-check, on the other side it is the best name to encompass all major parties, which are neither liberal or Christian-democrat. If we would go for category socialists. It could include all self proclaimed socialsits and politicians from SP, the PSP, the SDAP and SDB. But not from the PvdA (social-democrat), GroenLinks (green), PPR (green?). On the other side a category social democrat or green would only cater to one party's politicians (resp. PvdA and GL).

Finally there is the problem of Pim Fortuyn highly influential politicians but very defiant of classification (liberal? conservative? nationalist?).

I don't know how to solve this problem but when it was decided that the category dutch liberals would be kept, these problems were created. I hope you will cooperate with me in solving them. -C mon 21:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually

Report me if you want for i only have 3 edits today even if you could count them all as reverts you got nada. Oh i hope you noticed how many your boy DTC has today. 10, 12? Nice to pull out rules only against those who disagree with you. thats not POV at all. piece, Blockader 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you see me threatening to report any of the people i disagree with despite massive amounts of edits? Singling people out is childish and not in the spirit of fairness. report me if u will. Blockader 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

FAR of anarcho-capitalism

You might want to check out the FAR of anarcho-capitalism and have your say before the discussion is over. As of now, it looks like a keep, but you might want to add some extra support. --AaronS 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Joost Eerdmans

Hey Intangible, could you take a look at Joost Eerdmans? I wasn't really sure what would be good categories to place it in. Thanks, jaco♫plane 20:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Siclo Incident

Sir,

Your article has no sence of realities.

• The boat Soilco involved 3 french and 5 Belgian and not 8 franco-french wich is an undefinied race of people.
• 29/12/1988 - 8/11/1987 = 1 year <<< 5 years
• 10/4/1990 - 8/11/1987 = 3 years < 5 year

Your sincerly --Ymulleneers 11:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Intangible and AaronS are placed on probation and may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Should any user placed on Probation under this ruling violate any ban imposed under this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AE

I dropped your name at WP:AE. --LucVerhelst 18:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories of Dutch politician types

Hi, I just want to remind you of the discussion we had about the categorization of Dutch politician types (see here). Are you still planning on doing something about this situation? Errabee 15:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

wp:npa

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

[18] and [19]

--LucVerhelst 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you get tired of your nonsense then? Intangible 20:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)