User talk:WHEELER

User talk:WHEELER/National Socialism/draft, User talk:WHEELER/National Socialism/discussion, User talk:WHEELER/Principles of Definition
User talk:WHEELER/Archive1, User talk:WHEELER/Archive2, User talk:Wheeler/Archive3, User talk:WHEELER/Archive4,

<< >>

They're quotation marks, unless I'm strongly mistaken. Every country or at least langauge group seems to have their own way to write quotes. Don't look at me!

I'm not sure if italian uses these only for quotation and literal text, or also perhaps for emphasis. Ask mussolini ;-)

Kim Bruning 08:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind, Andy already answered :-)

Hmm, If you have answers to questions on your user page, it might be a good idea to remove the question, else folks might answer it several times. Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 08:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We are all assuming things. None of us is experts, we're just guessing. I would like somebody in Italy and some professionals to answer. This is a good thesis for a disertation for somebody.WHEELER 13:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, the << >> symbol is called a chevron or guillemet , latin languages use it as a punctuation mark the way we use a quotation mark.

guillemet (gee-yuh-MAY) Also called chevron. Looks like two closely-spaced greater-than or less-than symbols. Use like quotation marks. Used in French, Italian, and Spanish.

So un secolo di <<destra>>, un secolo fascista is translated exactly as I said at the top of this page "a century of the 'right', a fascist century."

AndyL 10:49, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the article Nazi 25 points program

This was indeed very much missing in the Nazi article. Andries 18:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

National Socialism

WHEELER, I'm afraid I can't step in here. There appears (from some limited research on my part) to be very little to say about National Socialism that isn't sayable at "Nazism". I don't think it would be necessarily wrong to have an article on "National Socialism", but it appears that the history of "national socialism" is very brief, and essentially a prelude to Nazism. I don't think it's unreasonable of Andy to combine it into Nazism, especially since people looking for information on Nazi ideology might well go looking for it at "National Socialism" -- better for it to be a redirect, I think. I hope Andy is polite to you about it, however. Sorry I can't do more in this instance, but I'm afraid I don't share your outrage. Jwrosenzweig 16:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, the redirect was put in some time ago initially. If you want to eliminate it then start a discussion in Talk:Nazism however, given your own claims that the Austrian party influenced the German and that the key figures of theAustrian party joined the German movement I don't see how you can justify the separation of the articles particularly as National Socialism and Nazism are seen as synonymous by virtually everyone. AndyL 16:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

National Socialism

well, there is National Socialist German Workers Party, which I think would be a better place for Nazism to link to. Did he merge your content? What was your content? I suggest you make a subpage for it in your user name space until this is resolved. Sam [Spade] 17:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, instead of trying to convince me personally put your arguments on Talk:Nazism and see if you can convince the community. AndyL 17:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it would be clear to most people what "ns" means. Be a bit more descriptive eg Hans Kreb (National Socialist). AndyL 19:24, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I unredirected the page for you. Put some substantive text in there before someone re-redirects it again :-). You can also clear out a redirect yourself:

Read carefully now: ;-)

Just go to the page itself, and you'll be redirected.
Now under the title of the page you redirected to , it'll say "redirected from ..." (fill in wherever that was) . Click on "redirected from ..." to go to the page that's actually redirecting.
Now click edit, and delete the line that says #redirect. (or do a revert)

There, phew. Confused yet? ;-) Well read carefully, it'll become clear I think.

hope this helps! Kim Bruning 19:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, your whole statement about "We demand" equalling socialism is completely POV. What does that mean for the US Constitution which begins with "We the people"?AndyL 21:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, you described the statement yourself as "commentary" when you submitted it. Despite castigating me for not listing references there are no references for this "commentary" it is simply your opinion and as you well know that's not appropriate for wikipedia. I'm sorry it took you two hours to write it but that doesn't justify the inclusion of POV commentary into an article. Sorry. AndyL 22:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, you are conducting original research and then drawing your own conclusions and writing them into an article. That's not accepted practice and this has been pointed out to you by others in the past. Again, your two paragraphs are your POV, they don't belong in an article. AndyL 22:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

keep work in progress at a site external to wikipedia

Well, hmm, I'm not sure what you're doing is original research or not, but it's definately a bit hmm, well unorthodox. This is great for historical research, I mean *really* interesting. The freaking problem is that this is wikipedia, where we're supposed to post the end results, not the works in progress. That's the bad news. The good news is that there are sites that wikipedia is friendly with where works in progress would be appreciated for what they were. You might even get help on there that you are so sorely missing here. Once you actually have all your stuff solid and bulletproof, you could then reference it on wikipedia anyway. Since, well, bulletproof is bulletproof ;-)

I'd suggest you might want to shop around and find a site you like for this kind of thing. Ask some of the more experienced wikipedians for advice on where you might go. In the end it's more a matter of procedure leading to tidiness than a really big change in your modus operandi. It does lead to everyone being happier all around. So that'd be really good.

If/when you do figure out a good spot to keep work in progress, don't forget to tell us about it. I sincerely think it's interesting enough to track.

As long as you keep writing, that's the important thing. :-) Kim Bruning 21:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Deletion?

WHEELER, you mentioned on Kim's talk page that I'd deleted your article on the Definition of a Republic.....really? I am almost positive I didn't. I never delete any pages around here but blatant and utter nonsense, and even though I often disagree with the conclusions you draw, I'd never call it nonsense. When did I do this? Are you _sure_ it was me? If you aren't sure, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make that assertion -- I can assure you, if you do demonstrate to me I did delete your page, I will restore it will all possible haste, as it would have been against policy. Thanks. Reply here if you like, or my talk page -- I'll check back here regularly. Jwrosenzweig 17:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I really don't remember deleting that, and I have to say it sounds so far out of character for me that I feel confident in saying it was someone else. I would never delete someone's good faith contribution -- at most, I would have moved the page to a subpage of your userpage, and then deleted the redirect in article space, which might have occurred if I thought it was basically a personal rant. I hope this is settled? And as far as National Socialism goes, I think there are two problems. I do agree with you that Nazism is getting too big. But the concern is 1) that a separate article will be confusing. 95% of the people coming here and looking for "National Socialism" will be looking for the Nazis. But perhaps that's fixable with a new title. 2) is that your article appears to be a very idiosyncratic view of National Socialism. For example, most scholars would not identify Jean-Jacques Rousseau with National Socialism....far from it, in fact. So the problem you're hitting is that your conclusions are often greatly in opposition to what is currently accepted knowledge. This is not to say that you are necessarily wrong about Rousseau or your other disputed assertions...only that we can't NPOV make the assertions you are making in parts of National Socialism. You can make them in an essay somewhere else, and argue it out with other experts. My personal experience with Rousseau (now long past - a fine graduate seminar that I got much out of) suggests to me that you're misinterpreting him, taking isolated remarks about Rousseau and extrapolating them too far. But that's just my personal experience, and I'd be open to having my mind changed -- I have only read some of Rousseau, and you may be aware of works I haven't seen. But that mind-changing is not going to happen here because we don't do original research. Perhaps a compromise is available, although it sounds to me as though there are few or no possible compromises that would be acceptable to Andy and yourself. Have you considered mediation with Andy? Or Kim's advice about finding a place to write essays online? I do think that you can't continue as you have here -- it's frustrating for you. And there's no need for a leisure time activity like Wikipedia to be frustrating. I hope we can find some way of resolving this. Good fortune to you. Jwrosenzweig 17:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was talking about practical stuff actually

I still see Classic definition of republic from here? It's not deleted as far as I can tell. To address another concern of yours, I once quoted wikipedia policy to "edit mercilessly" that which needs editing, since that's how articles get polished. :-) I didn't say "delete mercilessly", and that would be rather out of character for me.

I don't know about establishments and so, in my experience there's no such thing really. Sometimes folks can feel quite intimidated by academics, but they only really bite if you bite them first. :-)

You'll meet several kinds of people online. For instance AndyL is a friendly and intelligent person, once you know how he works, and how to deal with him. You are a friendly and intelligent person too, but dealing with you requires a bit of a different bag of tricks. I try to read things you write to understand how. Luckily for you perhaps, you haven't yet met any muslim fundamentalists or radical socialists or so. I've met those both online and offline as well. Interestingly those are also sane people, but require yet another approach to keep them happy.

As far as I'm aware, wikipedia is not being censored, but it *can* be quite merciless! You noticed that I think. Even so, Jwrosenzweig and myself are partial to you and feel that you deserve to be able to continue researching and writing. We've been talking about you a bit too (see: User_talk:Jwrosenzweig).

On dealing with Academics

I've heard some misconceptions from you, but:

Academics don't deliberately lie (they'd loose their jobs if they did)
Academics are not out to attack you personally.

At least let's hope not. You're practically an academic yourself by now, as in you're reading books and looking things up and finding things out and Enjoying it apparently, else you wouldn't stick to it :-)

I hope you don't intend to lie or use personal attacks against people? No? Phew. So why do you think other folks would deliberately do that to you? Have you considered they might honestly think that they know the truth? :-) And who knows perhaps they do, and you're wrong, just like sometimes they're wrong and you've proved them wrong. When that happens, it happens. Don't let your ego get in the way of learning, just like those folks shouldn't let their ego get in the way of learning either.

An academics job all day is to find stuff and try to prove it wrong (that's the short abridged version, see philosophy of science and scientific skepticism for more detail. Especially my rant at talk:scientific skepticism might be worth seeing :-P. ) If you happen to have some stuff at hand, an academic will find it, and as a matter of routine try to prove it wrong. That's their job, it's nothing personal. If your work stands up to academic nitpicking, well congratulations, you just gotten yourself on the way to scientific truth.

It's like playing a game of rugby or american football, it's all a bit rough and tumble. You can choose to take a bruise or two and enjoy the game, or perhaps you don't like rugby and are just bewildered why all these guys are charging you all the time... Oh, you have the ball!

So, it's the same with a new idea. You've got the ball. What will you do, drop it and run, because you hate rugby? Or are you going to face up to your peers and play! :-)

I might talk with you a bit more later. Also, please talk with Jwrosenzweig, he's a wise fellow (but take note, he does have responsibilities which I don't.)

In any case, See you in the field ;-) Kim Bruning 17:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Undelete National Socialism

On Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, you wrote:

I am requesting that this article be undeleted and restored as *National Socialism*. A discussion of Maurice Barres, a Frenchman, who coined the term should have its own page. It was deleted and some contents moved to Nazism article. I wish that this would be returned to normal. National Socialism needs to return as a seperate article.WHEELER 15:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

National Socialism has not been deleted. AndyL redirected it to Nazism, but all the old content is still there: see the last pre-redirect revision. —No-One Jones 18:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, AndyL didn't actually delete anything, he just made a redir, the same as I do a half-dozen times each day, though usually on less-controversial topics. :-) I see he left a note on Talk:National Socialism several days ago, with no response from you or anybody; that would be the right place to come to an agreement on how the two articles' content should be divided up. As I understand it, "Nazism" is literally a an abbreviation of the mouthful "Nationalsozialismus", so it's hard to see how they can ever be two different things - but even so, I look forward to seeing your explanation on Talk:National Socialism. Stan 18:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. —No-One Jones 18:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, your article has been accepted by Wikinfo. You can edit it if you like at http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=National_Socialism AndyL 14:11, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please stop arguing on my talk page instead of on the topic's talk page. AndyL 14:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please see Early National Socialism/draft. I did not do this somebody else did so please don't mess it up.WHEELER

I* moved it there. AndyL 14:29, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, I noticed you added to my user discussion page deriding me for claiming that Nazism was not socialist in nature, if you had read anything I had written you would have seen that I was one of the very few who was arguing to the effect that Nazism was indeed socialistic, however after reading your own profile before making note of that I see that we disagree on quite a bit, such as Fascism being socialistic when it was squarely a reaction against it. The political Right & Left I wouldn't say are defined on religious terms, there are the highly reverent religious on the Left, and highly atheistic on the Right. Nagelfar 05:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dent

Left a note at the pump, sorry, I'm running out or I'd copy it here. Hope it helps, Jwrosenzweig 00:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem

Hey, I take it you were the anon who left a message re. Erik Kuehnelt von Leddihn on my talk page, and I wanted to toss out a hearty your welcome. It's an article that deserves good treatment and you generally kicked it off well, I just dusted a bit and evened things out where my trained lefty eye caught something. ;) Wally 04:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Move Early National Socialism/draft to talk page?

WHEELER, considering the state of the vfd debate on Early National Socialism/draft, I'd suggest that if you want to keep the work somewhere on Wikipedia, move this to a subpage of your own talk page. Perhaps if you compile some of your facts to get something verifiable and not redundant it might one day exist in Wikipedia proper under this or another title. Your pursuits are not in vain, its just that Wikipedia is not the place to draft up "original research" or its like. —siro χ o 02:06, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks I will do that.WHEELER 13:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an admin or anything, so I'm not sure how to move the talk pages and such from the Early National Socialism/draft page. I was just making a suggestion to save the data on your page before it is deleted. Sorry I don't know how to do that. —siro χ o 05:07, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Complaint

WHEELER, I have filed a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:WHEELER. You may wish to comment. I request that you retract and apologise for your anti-Semitic comments AndyL 04:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus to delete the article. Can any admin delete it now or should we ask someone who hasn't participated in the vote to do it?AndyL 20:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is typical Andyism, you never want to follow the rules. You want to break the rules to suit yourself, yet demand that I follow them but you don't have to. This is a good example of your mindset.WHEELER 14:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, try to think for a moment. If I didn't want to "follow the rules" why is it that, in the post of mine you are quoting, I am asking WHAT THE RULES ARE(!) rather than going ahead and doing something without asking? It amazes me that you can read something and somehow derive a meaning *opposite* from what is written. This tendency of yours explains a lot. AndyL 18:22, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You wanted it to be deleted now. Even I know the rules of 5 days. And you know better.WHEELER 18:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know the five day rule *WHICH IS WHY I ASKED*! Would you have preferred it had I not asked and just proceeded to delete it? Does the fact that I didn't delete it once informed of the rule not tell you anything? That you accuse me of never wanting to follow the rules because I asked about the rules and then followed them is something else. AndyL 19:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I take it you have never participated nor read the rules on the Deletion page?WHEELER 13:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is correct. AndyL 14:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well then I will delete my comments on that portion.WHEELER 14:11, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Congrats baby! I adore you!

Oh Wheeler, I'm sick of being mad at you. You're just too cute to be mad at. That's why I've decided that I adore you! (I even gave you you're space on my page! You are so lucky!!!) StoptheBus18 21:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Requests for mediation: User:AndyL and User:WHEELER

AndyL has requested mediation between you and him regarding your comments at Talk:Early National Socialism. Could you please respond, either on Requests for mediation or on my talk page, to say whether you are prepared to accept mediation. If you accept, could you please say whether you have any preference over who the mediator is from those listed below AndyL's request.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee, 18:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Effeminacy

I made comments on Talk:Effeminacy that I'd like you to respond to, seeing as how you're (apparently) the primary author of the article. (In short, I'd like to move the article over to prescriptions regarding gender roles to flesh it out.) Please respond at Talk:Effeminacy rather than here, since that's where I'll be watching. :) - Korpios 17:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AndyL

I have found this user to be impolite as well, and am concerned about certain of his actions, but rather than accepting my complaints as valid or issuing any sort of a rebuke, AndyL was recently promoted to sysop. I think complaining about him is the wrong strategy, because it is clearly falling on deaf ears. Myself, I'm trying to change the policies. My advice to you is to avoid him, and the pages on which he edits. Unless there is a change in policy and community concensus to act, the wiki power hierarchy is largely an aristocratic popularity contest (rather than the meritocracy which it should be). Sam [Spade] 23:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, once again, let me remind you that your draft Early National Socialism article was rejected by an overwhelming vote to delete(actually somewhat rare on wiki where it's usually difficult to get a consensus to delete anything). The disambiguation page still exists, it's at National Socialism (disambiguation). National Socialism had been a redirect page to Nazism for a very long time and, as you recall, there was strong opposition when you tried to turn it into a separate article. The lack of support for your position when you put in an RfC request should give you a hint that your position is not supported by the community.

You seem to think this is all my fault. Tell you what. If you want to risk the wrath of the wiki community by trying, once again, to make National Socialism into a separate article I promise not to utter a word of complaint anywhere. Not even on anyone's personal talk page. Do not take this as my giving you permission or an endorsement for you to do this. Rather, take this as an expression of my confidence that the community will act against any separate article at National Socialism as soon as its discovered. But if you think I'm wrong then that's your business and the consequences will be yours alone. AndyL 18:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

i will not place commentary nor will I place anything that was disputed. I will only place the facts. Thank you.WHEELER 19:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

diacritics

Quite comprehensive list is here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sonderzeichen#Tschechisch Qertis 07:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Glossary

Hi, I've noticed you really like to contribute to Nazi-era stuff; I also noticed your excellent work on Glossary of the Third Reich. I am thinking about doing a Glossary of WWII German military terms and am looking for feedback/ideas on the idea. I'm not sure whether to mix the military terms in with Glossary of the Third Reich or to do a new section or a new article. Anyway, any comment would be appreciated. There are other glossaries at [Category:Lists of terms] (for ideas). Thanks. --DanielCD 19:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm looking over the Weimar Glossary. If you get time, take a peek at the Glossary of German WWII military terms. Any comments always appreciated. --DanielCD 23:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation

WHEELER, the National Socialism (disambiguation) page is, by definition, a disambigutation page. Do not add "reference", miscellenia", section it off or otherwise try to turn it into an article. What we discussed above was the National Socialism page which is currently a redirect page. AndyL

I don't know how to correct your typo in the title you made of the disambiguated article or I would have done it myself. Satellite takes two "l"s. So it should be MOST (satellite). AlainV 02:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, let me remind you of what I said a few days ago:

You seem to think this is all my fault. Tell you what. If you want to risk the wrath of the wiki community by trying, once again, to make National Socialism into a separate article I promise not to utter a word of complaint anywhere. Not even on anyone's personal talk page. Do not take this as my giving you permission or an endorsement for you to do this. Rather, take this as an expression of my confidence that the community will act against any separate article at National Socialism as soon as its discovered. But if you think I'm wrong then that's your business and the consequences will be yours alone. AndyL 18:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note, I was referring to National Socialism *not* National Socialism (disambiguation). Evidently, your decision to rewrite the latter page instead of the former indicates that you now agree with me that National Socialism should be a redirect and that if you tried to make it otherwise the community would, sooner or later (as soon as they noticed), oppose you even without my intervention. If you don't now see this why are you trying to edit National Socialism (disambiguation) instead of National Socialism?AndyL 16:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No I do not agree with the redirect. Hitlerism and Nazism is not the apex of National Socialism. National Socialism existed before Hitler. That is what you don't understand and can not get over.WHEELER 16:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, read what I said again. I'm talking about the disambig page, not the redirected page. Why are you editing the disambig page? AndyL 19:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought the disagreement was over my commentary in National Socialism. Fine, you and others don't like my commentary. Do you argue with the facts? Look. What you reverted last time, is what I was going to stop at. I would like it to remain as National Socialism without it going to the Nazi article. What you reverted last I would like to see up in place of National Socialism. What I put in the disambig page where only facts. I wasn't going to add any more. I thought you agreed to end the redirect. National Socialism existed before Hitler in many other countries before Hitler and after Hitler. I think it is wrong because it is misleading to make it a redirect page. This is about people learning things. If someone from Japan wants to know all the information and historical development of National Socialism, he should be able to go there to the article. Nazism is just like Stalinism. Do all things relating to communism be directed to Stalinism? how about a little consistency?WHEELER 19:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, please try to read what I actually wrote! I didn't agree to end the redirect. I specifically said I *wasn't* giving you "permission". What I said was that I wouldn't interfere with your edits to the National Socialism article because I'm confident others in wikipedia will oppose the move. It's beyond me how you could possibly take what I said about the redirected article and use it to start editing National Socialism (disambiguation). I can only assume you don't focus very well on what you are reading and have a habit of inferring things that are not there. This is why talking to you is so frustrating, you seem not to have developed your basic reading comprehension skills (I suspect yhour listening skills are also poor) and seem not to understand about half of what people are saying. AndyL 15:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All I know is that Hitler read Nietzsche, the whole Conservative Revolutionary movement based their philosophy on Nietzche, yet when Nihilism is put in the Nazism article, it is removed. I know that there is a concerted effort to keep things from people and that censorship and the rewriting of history is paramount here. The obscuring of facts, the hiding of things, and the purposely trying to mislabel things is what is going on here.WHEELER 15:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your comments have absolutely nothing to do with anything I've written here. AndyL 17:02, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was just a friendly note. I was hoping to break the ice and to say that there is a lot of misconceptions out there and true conservatism is not evil. It is the supreme good. It is nihilism in any of its forms that is evil. I hate for people to be decieved because it is lies that kill people in the end. I just want to make this point.WHEELER 17:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, I have no idea what you're talking about on my talk page. All I did was wikify your article and make minor copy edits. AndyL 17:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RfC

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WHEELER2.

WHEELER, I'm writing to thank you for your apology. I wish to emphasize that you did a great deal of good work on the article, creating the bulk of the present content and providing a great deal of references. If any of my comments in response to your use of "moderns" was offensive to you, I also apologize.

However, after your apology you once again accuse me of "ignoring history" (which is inconsequential, what is important is if wikipedia ignores history). I have not ignored history, nor your edits. I have simply added (historical) content to the article. Simply because our sources seem to differ does not mean that either is more or less suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, it simply means that we are using different sources.

Further, you have made a request for "classical sources" connecting effeminacy with gender, gender roles, or sexuality. I am not ignoring this request, but you must understand that it takes time to do research, compose that research, and add it to wikipedia. You, however, have also "ignored", o have yet to respond, to my question: if effeminacy applies only to one gender or sex, doesn't it inherently has something to with gender or sex?

One way of deflating this conflict, which would be supported by myself and was suggested by Snowspinner, is for you to create content on Malakos. Do you have an objection to this?

Lastly, if you find my sources questionable the best way, and the only way in article space, to question them is to find further references which directly contradict or question said references (for instance, a quote by Plato saying, "Effeminacy has nothing to do with gender, sex, or sexuality," would effectively disable any secondary source to the contrary, or you could find another "modern" "classicist" who describes the errors of my sources).

Hyacinth 22:17, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see you had already begun a seperate article (redirecting from malakos) when I posted the above comment. I moved the article title to Classical definition of effeminacy per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words. Hyacinth 22:32, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find it strange that you are willing to make very public accusations concerning my motives, yet you appear to not have read or forgotten my edits and comments. I have agreed from the start that "effeminacy" is not a gender role. There is no need to argue over what we agree on. Once again, please stop making personal comments about me. Hyacinth 19:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review

Hi, I saw you were interested in this, so here's the link :) Sam [Spade] 03:00, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Offensive language

Your declared of the Village Pump:

Do you want this resource to be used? What parent wants their children exposed to "penetration this" or "penetration that"? What libraries are going to link to this website with fist fucking and gerbil insertion techniques? Is this a playground for perverts or for the general community at large? While our site is going to remain de-linked, other online encyclopaedias are copying our work, posting it on their website and getting credit. How about establishing a family wikipedia?? a child-safe wikipedia? or a Christian wikipedia? That libraries and families can safely link too. Otherwise I feel, this site is going to be taken advantage of others and be sidelined. Has Wikipedia been turned into an adult playground for academic perverts and homosexual propagandists?

As you have been told again and again, you should refrain from attacking random people as "perverts" or "homosexual propagandists". Besides, you should stop attributing anything you disagree with to "American academics". David.Monniaux 07:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You'll notice that Holocaust (disambiguation) is primarily a list of links to other pages. The page is *not* sectioned off, there is no "miscellenia" section, no references etc. It is not an article. AndyL 16:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look at the huge paragraphs at the beginning of the page!!! and it also has external links. It refutes your arguments!!! WHEELER 16:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Besides, I thought your concern was about National Socialism being a redirect page, not about National Socialism (disambiguation)? AndyL 17:04, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the rules that you want enforced on that page. So are you making it up as you go along?WHEELER 17:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Disambiguation pages serve a single purpose: To let the reader choose between different pages that might reside under the same title."AndyL 21:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So the question is are you going to delete the external links from the holocaust disambig page and the huge paragraph before it?WHEELER 21:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re:

See my reply here: User_talk:Sam_Spade#The_importance_of_my_contributions

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

Beard

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

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

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

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

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

80.133.56.237

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weimar Timeline

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

Beard image license

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

Mussonili says fascism is reactionary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collectivism

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

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

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

Wikipedia the GNUL and idiots.

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

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

reply

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

Ochlocracy

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

FYI

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

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

Res publica

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

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

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

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

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

Article Licensing

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

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

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

Option 1

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

OR

Option 2

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

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