User talk:Anna Quist

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! NickelShoe (Talk) 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits.

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you again remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing.

Anna, please listen
Deletion templates are not supposed to be removed. Discuss it on the talk page and wait for a decision is made. If the AI is as large as you say it is, there will be no problem. Zazaban (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna, I wanted to clarify. You are allowed to remove the WP:PROD notice as you did (but you shouldn't remove any other deletion templates).  Wikipedia operates by consensus, so we try to make sure everyone agrees with an action. So with the maintenance templates, you should fix the problem they're bringing up or else explain why you don't think the article needs them (on its talk page).  Unfortunately, if you don't work with others and instead just repeatedly undo their actions, you'll very likely be blocked under WP:3RR.


 * So you're an anarchist yourself? Cool, I've been involved in anarchist stuff for about 10 years myself (though mostly all I do is food not bombs and anti-war stuff nowadays :/ ).  Let me know if you need any help or anything.  Hit me back at my talk page, because I'm bad at watching other people's talk pages.  Peace,  delldot   talk  01:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Hello delldot.

I have improved the Anarchist International page on wikipedia by adding the following text today:

"It must be said that a so called "Anorg-warning" based on quotes from two leftist-marxistoid persons from Denmark and Germany (no longer active), published by Jamal Hannah, a member of the mainly marxist Industrial Workers of the World, at flag.blackened.net is almost entirely false, see [1] and [2] and search for "Hannah". Nobody should pay attention to this false "warning".

For a discussion between the Industrial Workers of the World and the anarchist International Workers of the World see [3].

Some external links to the Anarchist International and associated organizations are found at the following link [4]

I am not used to edit at Wikipedia, so I need help. If you can help me it would be fine.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist

(84.215.147.184 (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

That's not an improvement, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to have content like that. Zazaban (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, it is of course an improvement. Who are you to talk for Wikipedia? I know the rules at Wikipedia.


 * Hi! Replied to your note.  delldot   talk  01:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT THE ANARCHIST INTERNATIONAL PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA !!!!

From the "Deletion page" of Anarchist International:

Anarchist International

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

De-prodded, posting on behalf of Zazaban. Prod summary was "Per WP:HOAX; http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html and WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR" delldot   talk  02:01, 28 June 2008

The http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html is a total hoax, the stuff on this link is about 100% rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . (Anna Quist (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Per above. There is strong reason to believe this organization consists of only User:Anna Quist and at most 2 or 3 others. No evidence has ever been offered up of otherwise. Zazaban (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * delete in favor or anarchy, lets delete it!Myheartinchile (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: No verifiable evidence of the existence, let alone notability of AI. Significant amounts of the material on the anarchy.no site have been shown to be plagiarized, and other material simply copied from Wikipedia itself. Libertatia (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Vanity/COI issues as well. History page shows that two primary editors are self-proclaimed members of the "International." Libertatia (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is also false and rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html .(Anna Quist (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

---

I have followed the rules on Wikipedia and added the following to the Anarchist International Wikipedia page today:

It must be said that a so called "Anorg-warning" based on quotes from two leftist-marxistoid persons from Denmark and Germany (no longer active), published by Jamal Hannah, a member of the mainly marxist Industrial Workers of the World, at flag.blackened.net is almost entirely false, see and   and search for "Hannah". Nobody should pay attention to this false "warning".

For a discussion between the Industrial Workers of the World and the anarchist International Workers of the World see.
 * There is no "discussion" at this link. The page appears to be an unsourced attempt to smear the Industrial Workers of the World and a few specific anarchists as marxist, or even fascist. Substantial searching has revealed no actual chapters of the International Workers of the World, which is pretty strange in an era where a small infoshop generally has significant web presence. Given Wikipedia standards, a possibly nonexistent union can hardly be used as support for the notability of a possibly nonexistent organization. Libertatia (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Some external links to the Anarchist International and associated organizations are found at the following link

The links on this note should prove without doubt that the Anarchist International is quite a large network.


 * The links all appear to have nothing more than contact information derived from the AI website. These is nothing that independently verifies the large claims made by the article. This is an open-and-shut case for deletion. Libertatia (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable person in Norway (Oslo) he/she can come and see that the AI-network has about 2000 valid e-mailadresses, networkmembers/subscribers for anarchist groups and individuals.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist


 * Those are all from your own website. I'm not sure if that counts as reliable. Zazaban (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

---

They are external links, not the link-site of www.anarchy.no ... You can check that the external links are valid - try them.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist


 * I either vote for deletion, on the grounds that the page is nonsense or an objective article that reflects the nonsensical nature of the "Anarchist International".--58.165.233.113 (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you vote deletion? If so, put it up in bold, like this Zazaban (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I officially vote for deletion.--58.165.233.113 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The homepage of the Anarchist Internatonal, www.anarchy.no, is not nonsensensial. Try to prove it and you will fail. The article Anarchist International on Wikipedia is objective and to the point.

The organizations/networks associated to the Anarchist International are found at the link-page of www.anarchy.no, and then there is a big network of networkmembers/subscribers related to the different organizations/networks.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Quist (talk • contribs) 07:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Blatant Hoax and Possible G11 --Numyht (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Anarchist International is no hoax. You are not matter of fact...

Anarchist Greetings Anna Quist
 * Delete, and create another article on the Anarchist Federation in Norway, the sole component of the imaginary AI. --Soman (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We have had a Norwegian page of the Anarchist Federation in/of Norway (AFIN) and the Northern Anarchist Confederation (NAC)/Anarkistenes Organisasjon i Norden (ANORG) for several years. We have had an English Wikipedia page for the Anarchist International for several months, and this is going to continue. The Anarchist International is probably the largest anarchist network in the world, and it would be a shame if some ochlarchists from Anarchism.net and a few leftist marxistoid persons should stop this. You know nothing about the Anarchist International...

As for Zazaban I have problems with taking him seriously. In a discussion on Anarchism.net he answered with the following "intelligent" and a bit ochlarchical statements: "You're one to talk. - And, just to see how you react; FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. FUCK FUCK. FUCK." Source. I would not put too much weight on what he means. I don't think such comments are funny.

Anarchist Greetings Anna Quist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Quist (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's mainly because sense hasn't worked with you, so I tried nonsense. But really, ad hominem attacks have no place here. Zazaban (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This fails the usual test of notability, which is whether there is coverage from independent sources. Having an international organization of anarchists is like having Alcoholics Anonymous as a brand of beer. Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that there is no coverage from independent sources, se link to independent, external, sources, covering AI, at.

You don't seem to understand. True anarchism is a.o.t an accumulated updated research front of libertarian research, that is just what www.anarchy.no is. If the Anarchist International Wikipedia page is deleted, it is a severe attack on free research and publication of free research. I ask everybody that are for free research to support our claim that the AI-page should not be deleted.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist --Anna Quist talk


 * Hi again Anna, replied delldot   talk  18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist International
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template hangon underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Zazaban (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not recreate this article again. If you have an issue with the closing decision of Articles for deletion/Anarchist International then you will need to take it up at deletion review. Kevin (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have explained why the deletion of the Anarchist International is not fair above, with sound matter of fact arguments, without positive response. The content is verified at external links, see, a link that was also added to the AI-Wikipedia page 14.07.2008, but it was deleted again. The conclusion is that the present editing group with the power to delete at Wikipedia consists of ochlarchists, and enemies of anarchism. (Anna Quist (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC))
 * You're the only one who thinks it's unfair. Zazaban (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only one that think it is unfair, remember your "deleting discussion" with another AI-member that you have linked at Anarchism.net. , i.e.. Anyway the Wikipedia editors can vote with consensus that the world is flat, and put up an article about that. The deletion of the AI-Wikipedia page is a similar case. The deletion does not have scientific standard. The conclusion is that Wikipedia does not hold scientific standard in this matter. (Anna Quist (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC))
 * That user is a vandal, not a good example. Zazaban (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The only significant vandalism in this context is the deletion of the AI-Wikipedia page, and that is done by you and some other ochlarchists/vandals. (Anna Quist (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Like I said, take it to deletion review. Zazaban (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, in fact, I insist you take it to deletion review. There's a link in Kevin's post. Zazaban (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss this with you on a deletion review. I discuss as little as possible with ochlarchists/vandals as you Zazaban. (Anna Quist (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC))
 * It won't involve me. Zazaban (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts
Hey Anna, I feel like I maybe did a bad job of explaining my perspective before. I think I understand your feelings on the matter, you think the subject deserves an article and that it's not fair for Wikipedians to decide it doesn't, right? My perspective is this: This is Wikipedia, a project with very specific goals. We need those goals to remain narrow in order to have a cohesive project, so we can't just be a free speech venue (although there are sites that do offer similar opportunities, like indymedia and social networking sites). To us Wikipedians, the question is about whether the article is good for Wikipedia, not the world at large. As far as I can see, that's the only way the project will work. Similarly, Wikipedians have to decide by consensus what stays and what doesn't--again, I can't see any other way to work it. I can certainly understand how you'd want to resist and fight back, but please see my point: Wikipedia isn't The Power, we're a community project to provide a free, valuable resource indiscriminately. If we're successful, it'll help take back control over information from media conglomerates. This is why I'm strongly urging you to work with the project rather than against it. Besides, we get tons and tons of people trying to disrupt the project every day, we deal with them very efficiently, by blocking them. I don't want that to happen to you because I can see you're trying to do the right thing.

I think the sources you're pointing to as resources for the AI article aren't reliable enough; I assume that's why it was agreed to delete the article in the AfD discussion. If you want an article on AI to be kept, I suggest creating a new one in your userspace (that is, any page beginning with User:/Anarchist International... such as User:/Sandbox); you'll need to cite reliable sources like mainstream media, journal articles, and books. Sources can't be forums, blogs, or self-published because there's not enough editorial review to ensure accuracy. For an article to be verifiable, every fact in it must be attributable to a reliable source. If you create a verifiable article with reliable sources, I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be included. If the subject's not mentioned in reliable sources, we simply can't have an article on it. Definitely let me know if I've misunderstood your perspective. I'm glad to continue discussing it.

I'll talk to Zazaban and ask them to step back from this matter because I think it's not doing either of you any good. Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot   talk  22:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Delldot. If you take a serious look at you will find a lot of reliable external sources confirming the content of the Anarchist International, including listing of International Journal of Anarchism at a well known New York university. By the way the original AI-Wikipedia article was posted by H. Fagerhus, the editor of International Journal of Anarchism, in itself a reliable source, and not by me. (Anna Quist (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Out of the english language websites, most were either generic lists, or about the IWW or other organizations that you claim to be affiliated with but have never proven to be. Zazaban (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The International Workers of the World, affiliated to the Anarchist International must not be mixed up with the mainly marxian Industrial Workers of the World, that is not affiliated to AI. It is proven from the homepage of the International Workers of the World that it is affiliated to the Anarchist International, see http://www.anarchy.no/iwwai.html.

There are several independent newspaper and other articles about the Anarchist International and affiliated organizations, quoting from :

"Articles about the Anarchist International etc. are a.o.t. published in the paper-editions of the largest newspaper in Norway, Verdens Gang 06.11.2001, p 39, "Anarki er demokrati", reprinted at http://www.anarchy.no/vg1html.html, Universitas 23.10.2002, p 1, "Akademiske anarkister", pp 14-15, "Anonyme anarkister" and 13.11.2002, p 17, "Replikk fra Anarkistisk Universitetslag", and the two largest economic newspapers in Norway, Dagens Nærlingsliv 2/3 June 2007, p 3, "Lest siden sist", and Finansavisen 17.10.2007, p. 64, "Norges Anarkistråd avviser skattetrussel", reprinted at http://www.anarchy.no/dnfa.html . The articles in Universitas are also available online, see below.

We will also mention the articles about the first and second IFA-IAF congresses in Oslo etc. in the IFA-IAF organ CRIFA-bulletin, documented at http://www.anarchy.no/ifadok.html and http://www.anarchy.no/mandate.html.

More material about the Anarchist International etc is found in the 487 pages book "About the northern and southern sections of IFA-IAF and the Anarchist International AI-IFA-IAF - Anarchism and syndicalism in Norway about 1850 - 2000 - Anarkismen og syndikalismen i Norge ca 1850-2000", International Journal of Anarchism © ISSN 0800-0220 no 2 (35) ISBN 82-90468-25-3 Anorg forlag, Oslo, Norway 2005, by the Norwegian anarchist historian H. Fagerhus. He has a.o.t. also written an article in the book "Arbeiderhistorie 2005 - Årbok for Arbeiderbevegelsens arkiv og bibliotek" ISBN 82-90759-22-5, pp 103-116, and the article "Anarkofeministene" in the journal Sentralposten no 3 - 2005, pp 17-18. (Anna Quist (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

If you read the updated  you will see that there are not only "generic lists" but several quotes and articles of the Anarchist International and affiliated organizations/organs. You should read all of it before you make (wrong) judgements.

About lists it is important to notice that the International Journal of Anarchism is listed together with all the other main economic journals on the web, by several universities, etc., and that proves that it is a highly reliable journal. (Anna Quist (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I think it's great that you're working on it in your sandbox Anna, I sure appreciate you listening to my advice. I don't have time to look at the sources now, but I will when I get the chance.  Journals sound like a good source, I'm not as sure about the website anarchy.no itself--what kind of editorial review does it have?  You can certainly cite the sources it links to, if you can get them, those sound good.  My only problem with the article so far is that it only has one inline citation--remember, we need to be able to back up every claim in the article (although sources that affirm that the group exists are a start, they're not enough). If you want, I can mark the sentences in your sandbox that I think need citations.  Thanks for working so hard on this and for taking my concerns seriously.  Peace,  delldot   talk  02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops!!!
My bad! I undid your blanking of YOUR sandbox... My apologies. I obviously wasnt thinking. Lucifer (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Delldot about editorial review. Quoting from the webpage of The International Journal of Anarchism, http://www.anarchy.no/ija.html.

"Articles to IJA may be written in any language, and should be provided with an English summary. If the article is written in English, the summary can be omitted.

International Journal of Anarchism is a Refereed scientific journal. Refereed materials are publications reviewed by "expert readers" or referees prior to the publication of the material. After reading and evaluating the material, the referee informs the publisher/editor if the document should be published or if any changes should be made prior to publication. Refereed materials are also referred to as Peer Reviewed. Refereed materials are significant to the research and the literature of library and information science because they assure readers that the information conveyed is reliable and timely. With some exceptions a refereed article is one that is blind reviewed and has two external reviewers. The blind review requirement and the use of external reviewers are consistent with the research criteria of objectivity and of knowledge. The referees can a.o.t. help you polish the content of your article by improving the grammar, punctuation, and consistency, and by making content suggestions. The referees of the IJA are independent Norwegian senior researchers loosely associated to the AI-secretariate. Their first language is Norwegian, but they are rather clever in English and other languages."

(Anna Quist (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

PS To delldot. You wrote:"If you want, I can mark the sentences in your sandbox that I think need citations." I think this is a good idea. Hope you have time soon to do it, see User:/Anarchist International for comments. (Anna Quist (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Another reason for to have the Anarchist International Wikipedia page is that the Anarchist International www.anarchy.no is the most popular real anarchist organization web-site in the world, according to the web information company Alexa, see http://www.anarchy.no/popular.html. (Anna Quist (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

Responses to the article in userspace

 * Looking good Anna! I've marked parts I think need citations--basically any time there's a statistic (broadly defined, including dates), potentially controversial fact, or quote.  More thoughts:
 * You can reuse a citation, if it endorses more than one fact in your article. Use instead of.
 * It would be great if you could flesh out the reference you have, with publisher, location, and an ISBN if you can find it.
 * To create a link to another Wikipedia article, enclose the name of the article in double square brackets, like this.
 * I would not use anarchy.no as a source, although it's certainly fine to include it as an external link. Usually websites aren't that reliable unless there's something really special about them.
 * For the sentence ...was not a federation, but an authoritarian group..., I would cite the source that called the group authoritarian rather than asserting it in the article, for WP:NPOV reasons. You could use wording like "so-and-so accused the group of being authoritarian..."  Same with "made it necessary": says who?
 * Similarly, for the sentence The suspension and the disallowance of their congresses will remain until ..., I would replace with so-and-so said that the suspension and the prohibition of their congresses would remain until... with a citation.  The article is supposed to merely report facts, not be asserting anything of its own.  Similiarly, the article should avoid using words like valid, again to avoid assertion.
 * I would do away entirely with the sentences Thus they state that people that do not agree with them are lunatic, just like in the Soviet Union. This only confirms ... and other sentences that seem to aim to convince the reader what a bunch of jerks these Marxists are--they may well be, but Wikipedia is not the place to be pushing a particular viewpoint. All articles must be absolutely neutral and balanced.  POV pushing is strictly out.  This is of utmost importance to the survival of the project.  The sentences I quoted also have problems with original research because the writer is drawing a connection that has not been published.
 * The next paragraph has similar neutrality problems. Words like "dogmatic" would need to be attributed to a source, the article can't assert that itself.  The Anarchist International is a global, undogmatic, free thinking, nonsectarian modern anarchist international, with sections for anarchoindividualist, anarchocollectivist, social individualist and mutualist anarchist and anarchocommunist as well as green/ecoanarchist, anarchosyndicalist and anarchafeminist anarchists sounds like an advertisement for the group, also a problem with WP:NPOV (too favorable).  It's obvious which side of this conflict the writer's on, the article reads like it's trying to convince you to join that side of the conflict.  In a truly neutral article, the reader should not be able to tell what the author's point of view is at all.
 * I urge you to read the WP:COI guideline and decide whether you are truly able to remain neutral in writing about this topic.
 * However, I think the purely factual stuff about the history is fine and should stay if there's a reliable source for it (note that I don't think the anarchy.no site will cut it). The notability guideline calls for multiple reliable independent sources, so I would recommend finding more sources in order to avoid deletion when you do move this to the mainspace.
 * Sorry if this sounds harsh; as I say, neutrality is of utmost importance. I think only the last few paragraphs are problematic, the first part of the article will be fine with citations. I think it's great that you've taken the citation policies to heart and put so much work into creating a quality article! I can tell you're trying to do the right thing here, thanks for taking my advice so far.   delldot   talk  14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, replied delldot   talk  18:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability and third party sources
Hi Anna replied on my talk. Peace, delldot   talk  14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, replied again. delldot   talk  17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * :) delldot   talk  19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another reply delldot   talk  15:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Anarchist International
A tag has been placed on The Anarchist International, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. triwbe (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your article
It looks good, feel free to create it, but please next time, can you put something like that in a Sandbox in userspace and give Delldot, me, on anoher admin a link? Thanks, -- Maxim (talk)  11:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a little copy edit and some tags. See the talk page. I think maybe you should explain on the talk page that this artice is substantially different from the previous afd one. It may make a passing admin think twice. Good luck. --triwbe (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page
I have made som major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page, and I am sure it will meet the WP:RS standards this time. Thus I hope you will not delete it if I publish the new website on Wikipedia. What is your opinion? Please give a quick reply. The new material is: "The International Journal of Anarchism (IJA), [17]the organ of AI and International Institute for Organization Research [18], the independent research institute of AI, is a Refereed scientific journal, and the only Refereed anarchist scientific journal in world, quoting from IJA's official website: Articles to IJA may be written in any language, and should be provided with an English summary. If the article is written in English, the summary can be omitted. International Journal of Anarchism is a Refereed scientific journal. Refereed materials are publications reviewed by "expert readers" or referees prior to the publication of the material. After reading and evaluating the material, the referee informs the publisher/editor if the document should be published or if any changes should be made prior to publication. Refereed materials are also referred to as Peer Reviewed. Refereed materials are significant to the research and the literature of library and information science because they assure readers that the information conveyed is reliable and timely. With some exceptions a refereed article is one that is blind reviewed and has two external reviewers. The blind review requirement and the use of external reviewers are consistent with the research criteria of objectivity and of knowledge. The referees can a.o.t. help you polish the content of your article by improving the grammar, punctuation, and consistency, and by making content suggestions. The referees of the IJA are independent Norwegian senior researchers loosely associated to the AI-secretariate. Their first language is Norwegian, but they are rather clever in English and other languages. The electronic issues of the International Journal of Anarchism are updated every time there are significant more informations about the different events and cases. But unless special cases, they are not redistributed by e-mail when they are updated. Also the IAT and other pages at www.anarchy.no are updated almost every day. Thus, to be updated on the news and comments about anarchy, anarchist(s) and anarchism in different connections, it is necessary to visit the AIIS-web sites every day. The IJA is listed among the other main scientific journals in the world by several universities and other academic sources, i.e. the US Oswego State University of New York's List of Economic Journals on the Web, see [19], by Cpa Directory Index - Law Research, see [20], Resources and Links at http://www.crsp.com, see [21], by Benno Torgler - Researcher in Economics, Tax Compliance and Tax Morale, see [22], Economic journals on the web of http://cba.unomaha.edu/, [23], and Interneteki Ekonomi Dergileri, see [24]. The IJA is thus seen as the most reliable anarchist journal in the world. Other important, but non-academic anarchist journals, that have published AI-IFA-IAF material is Le Monde Libertaire (French) and the multilingual CRIFA bulletin, see Further readings below. Other important non-academic journals that have published AI-IFA-IAF resolutions are the largest newspapers in Norway, Verdens Gang, see [25], and the two main economic journals in Norway, see [26], and Further readings."

I have also added another article to the Further readings list and added one new source at the External section. I hope Wiki-consensus about publishing of the page can be reached before I publish it. What is your opinion? Is the page good enough for publishing? The proposal to the new AI- Wikipedia page is in my sandbox, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International.

PS. Since there seems to be Wiki-consensus for publishing it, I have published it. (Anna Quist (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Speedy deletion of The Anarchist International
A tag has been placed on The Anarchist International, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Skomorokh 06:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page and it is published by Wiki-consensus, approved by Maxim
There have been major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page and it is published by Wiki-consensus, approved by Maxim, see Maxim's talk page,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maxim Quoting from Maxim's talk page:

"Major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page

I have made som major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page, and I am sure it will meet the WP:RS standards this time. Thus I hope you will not delete it if I publish the new website on Wikipedia. What is your opinion? Please give a quick reply. The new material is at User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International

I have also added another article to the Further readings list and added one new source at the External section.

I hope Wiki-consensus about publishing of the page can be reached before I publish it. What is your opinion? Is the page good enough for publishing? (Anna Quist (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes, it is. Feel free to publish it. Maxim(talk) 13:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)" (Anna Quist (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

ANI thread
Hello Anna, you might be interested in knowing that there is a thread about you and the Anarchist International articles here. Regards, Skomorokh  09:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The so called "anorg-warning" is entirely false
An argument against the AI-Wikipedia page is the so called "anorg-warning". This document is entirely false, quoting: [edit] Anarchist International Anarchist International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log) De-prodded, posting on behalf of Zazaban. Prod summary was "Per WP:HOAX; http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html and WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR" delldot talk 02:01, 28 June 2008

The http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html is a total hoax, the stuff on this link is about 100% rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . (Anna Quist (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) (UTC)

Strong Delete Per above. There is strong reason to believe this organization consists of only User:Anna Quist and at most 2 or 3 others. No evidence has ever been offered up of otherwise. Zazaban (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC) delete in favor or anarchy, lets delete it!Myheartinchile (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Strong Delete: No verifiable evidence of the existence, let alone notability of AI. Significant amounts of the material on the anarchy.no site have been shown to be plagiarized, and other material simply copied from Wikipedia itself. Libertatia (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Vanity/COI issues as well. History page shows that two primary editors are self-proclaimed members of the "International." Libertatia (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) This is also false and rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html .(Anna Quist (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

--- (Anna Quist (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC))
 * I included the rebuttal of the warning in the ANI thread linked above, for neutrality. Regards Skomorokh  13:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The debate
Anna. I think you have a decision to make here - ask for the article to be speedy deleted - this gives you the chance to try to improve the article once more and re-create later. OR go for Afd - which will mean the whole debate taking place - but if the result is "delete" then I think it would be the end and the article will never be allowed. Jump in here or ask me to make a comment for you. --triwbe (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anna, could we please hear your thoughts on this? I'm holding off from nominating the article for AfD, but only as a courtesy. Regards, Skomorokh  15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a speedy delete is a good option. Neither the AFd (?). I work with the article in my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International and have improved and changed it several times. I don't know what Afd is. There are added reliable independent third party sources to the article. I think it is unfair to question the reliability after all these changes are done. I think the discussion should continue here on my talk page, and on the basis of this discussion I will change the content of the AI-wikipage in my sandbox, and later, after discussing with, say, Maxim, I will publish the changes, i.e. after broadest possble consensus. I am interesting in improving the article from the present B-rate to A. We have had a similar page in the Norwegian Wiki-site for years, and we ahve had no trouble with this. I think you are creating problems where there really are none. WHile we work on improvements teh article should stay on Wikipedia. As mentioned I don't know what the Afd is, but it does not sound good. I must repeat that Maxim approved the article before publsing. I see no reson for you to question his authority and judgement in this matter.

(Anna Quist (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Sorry for the jargon, Anna. AfD stands for Articles for deletion, meaning the article is put before all the editors to decide whether it should be deleted or not. Maxim is simply a user, like you or me, and carries no extra authority. If you don't want the article to go to AfD, triwbe is going to delete it from Anarchist International, although you will still be able to edit it in your sandbox. I hope this is clear, Skomorokh  18:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anna, there are enough people that think this article should not exist, for what ever reason (not inlcuding me, I am just trying to mediate).


 * Option 1) speedy delete the main article and you will be sure to have another chance to recreate it when ever you think it will be acceptable.


 * Option 2) Articles for deletion process. You saw this before when it was deleted previously here Articles for deletion/Anarchist International. The article is put under discussion for up to 5 days and afterwards a decision is made be consensus. If there is a consensus to delete, then the article is deleted. The point is that we feel that if the AfD says delete a second time then there will be little chance of the article ever being allowed. I cannot say what the result of an AfD would be, but there must be a consensus to delete, if the consensus is mixed then the article will stay. But looking at current edits and comments there will sure to be some strong arguments for deletion.


 * If you do not choose soon then some one will make the option 2 choice for you.


 * What do you think ?


 * --triwbe (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read the new AI-wikipage very well. There are several references to independent large newspapers, anarchist journals outside AI, and independent websites. I suggest you read the AI-wikipage before making any judgements.

I see no reason to delete the article while it is improved. Why such hurry? I feel a bit manipulated. I would like others' opinion before I make a decision, especially Delldot and Maxim. I was not a part of the last Afd debate because I was on holiday, so I have not a clue about what it is like. I will like you to give me some more advice. By the way, is not Maxim and Admin with higher status than an ordinary user such as me.

(Anna Quist (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC))


 * My opinion is that if you speedily (voluntarily) delete then you and the others will have plenty of time to review and change in peace.


 * You say you were not part of the last AFD debate. Are you sure ? Read Articles for deletion/Anarchist International carefully and then look at the history here which clearly shows you adding to the debate.


 * I have the agreement with Skomorokh to give you 24 hours to choose, I hope by then Delldot and Maxim will have checked by then in so take your time. --triwbe (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be right that I was in it in the start but, but I really can't remember, I went on holiday 30 june and was not back until 14 july. if the debate lasted in my holiday I was not in that part.

(Anna Quist (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

I will check the file.

PS. I have checked the file. The debate stopped 30 june, when I went on holiday. I was really surprised when I found the AI- page deleted after I come home on 14th july.

AI-Wikipage again - deletion or Afd, are these the only options?
I have posted on Delldot's and Maxim's talkpages. Hope to hear from them.

"Hello delldot/Maxim.

I have got some proposals for speedy deletion or Afd from Skomorokh and Triwbe. I feel I am being manipulated a bit, what is your opinion? - I would like you to say a word in the debate on my talk page if you have time, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Quist#The_debate "

I feel som hostility vis-a-vis AI here that I find irrational.

(Anna Quist (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

AI-Wikipage has rank B on the assessment scale, other anarchist pages have a much lover rating. Why should the AI page be deleted?
Say the International of anarchist federations' page (only southern IFA-sections) has a much lower rating then tha AI-page. Why should the AI-page be deleted and other stay? (Anna Quist (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC))
 * As far as I can tell, you rated it yourself. Zazaban (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not rank it myself. I don't know who did the rating, perhaps Maxim or Triwbe. I don't know how to do the ranking. You should be more careful with the truth Zazaban

(Anna Quist (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

Zazaban is very hostile to the AI - if he can decide deletion - it will be deleted the same what arguments I put forward
Zazaban is very hostile to the AI - if he can decide deletion - it will be deleted the same what arguments I put forward. The main reason for the deletion of the initial page was the http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html. IIFOR has proved that this documet is a hoax, rejected and put down alle these arguements against AI at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html. Thus I see no reason for deletion, if the routine for deletion vs not, is fair. My main question is, does Zazaban really have the power to delete, same what the facts are? (Anna Quist (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

What exactly do you mean is negative with the AI-page ?
Someone - I don't know who, has placed the tag with questions about the AI page:

1. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.

Ad 1. There are independent third party publications, three main Norwegian newspapers, Le Monde Libertaire and the CRIFA-bulletin and several webpages under external links.

2. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.

Ad 2. "Notability" is a word thay can be interpreted in many ways. I guess the question of notablity is related to the so called "anorg-warning" at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html. This is however a total hoax, rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html

3. It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter.

Ad 3. I have no "conflict of interest with the subject matter". I am acting in a scientific, objective way, stating facts in this matter

4. The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax.

ad 4. I have answered to this under part 2. AI is not a hoax.

Tell me what exactly do you mean is negative with the AI-page?

See also the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchist_International

(Anna Quist (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

The AI-Wiki-page is deleted once more, who did it and for what reason? Please undelete it! The discussion page is also deleted, where can I find it?
The AI-Wiki-page is deleted once more, the name Maxim is mentioned on the discussion page. Did you delete it? Remember you said it was ok to publish it, and it is even been improved since then. Thus I mean the deletion is an error. Can you please undelete the page. Also please answer the question, who did it and for what reason?

The discussion page is also deleted, where can i find it? I would like to copy it to my talk place - it was an interesting discussion, and it must be stored somewhere on Wiki

This message is also posted on Maxim's talk page

(Anna Quist (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

The AI-Wiki-page is deleted, this was not a part of the deal - Where can I find the discussion page?
(Copy of message to Triwbe)

The AI-Wiki-page is deleted, this was not a part of the deal. Can you undelete it, or may I repost it from my sandbox? What do you think I should do? - See see my talk page... The discussion page is also deleted. Where can I find the discussion page? It must be stored somewhere here on Wiki, and I would like to copy the content to my talk page.It was an interesting discussion.

(Anna Quist (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Sorry, you took too long and there seems to still be a lot of major concerns among the community. I did not propose nor delete the article. The (rather brief) discussion is here Articles for deletion/Anarchist International (2nd nomination). It was proposed for delete by and closed and deleted, very quickly by. You can ask him to give you a copy of the article and the talk page. there is nothing more I can do. Again sorry. --triwbe (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please undelete the AI-Wiki-page, what is the reason for deletion?
Copy of post to Bjweeks

Triwbe has said you have deleted the AI-Wiki-page, what is the reason for the deletion? It was rated class B, and sould not be deleted. Please undelete the AI-Wiki-page, besides I want a copy of the AI-page's talk page to paste it on my talk page. It should not have been deleted but perhaps going at an Afd. See my talk page for more information, Regards ... (Anna Quist (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Why the article was deleted, and why it will stay deleted
Another user, Ohconfucius, discovered and announced that much of the Wikipedia article directly reproduced what was within this page of anarchy.no. Neither that page within anarchy.no nor the top page of anarchy.no clearly states that the content is released either via GFDL or into the public domain, and therefore its content cannot be reproduced within Wikipedia. BJweeks was entirely right to delete it, and fast.

In case you're wondering: If anarchy.no had released its material via GFDL or into the public domain, the discovery that the material came from anarchy.no would probably pushed the direction of the deletion debate more certainly toward deletion, as Wikipedia does not serve as a conduit for organizations to write about themselves.

You'll find the deletion debate here. You'll see that although there are minor disagreements among the people who spoke up, nobody disagreed with my finding that virtually none of the content of the article was independently verifiable, and that it was instead merely on the say-so of Anarchist International itself.

You will be unable to re-create an article at either Anarchist International or The Anarchist International, and any attempt to think of some other name in order to re-add similar material will be treated as disruptive.

I hope that you enjoy editing articles on matters that are completely unrelated to Anarchist International. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Hoary - this so called deletion "debate" has only a few posts, and is thus not much valid
I have read the so called deletion "debate" for the AI-Wiki-Page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchist_International_%282nd_nomination%29

It has only a few posts, the main contribution is Hoary's. I did not know about this "debate", or else I would have joined in and turned down and rejected some misunderstanding of Hoary et.al, see the next post on my talk page. Thus I think the deletion is wrong. If the AI-Wiki-page needs some improvements, to be within Wiki-consensus, this will be done. (Anna Quist (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Message to Hoary - Anarchy is cooperation without coercion/destruction/deletion - about the deletion of the AI-Wiki-page and cooperation to achieve an updated AI-page with general Wiki-consent
I have read your note at my talk page "Why the article was deleted, and why it will stay deleted". I find really no good arguments for your demand for speedy deletion. Sources on www.anarchy.no are of course relevant to an article about AI. Ad the copyright matter, GDLF etc, I am not sure about this. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know the routines. But I am sure we can reach an agreement on the copyright question. I want to discuss this, with the aim at a good solution within Wikipedia bureaucrat rules. I would like som more information on this matter, and please be so kind to inform me.

Leaving the bureaucracy at side for a moment, I will inform you a little about the content of the AI-Wikipage:

Someone - I don't know who, had placed a tag with questions about the AI page:

1. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.

Ad 1. There are independent third party publications, three main Norwegian newspapers, Le Monde Libertaire and the CRIFA-bulletin and several webpages under external links.

2. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.

Ad 2. "Notability" is a word thay can be interpreted in many ways. I guess the question of notablity is related to the so called "anorg-warning" at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html. This is however a total hoax, rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html

3. It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter.

Ad 3. I have no "conflict of interest with the subject matter". I am acting in a scientific, objective way, stating facts in this matter

4. The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax.

ad 4. I have answered to this under part 2. AI is not a hoax.

The AI-page is B-rated, i.e. a fairly good Wiki-page, and it should not be deleted.

I think you should agree with me in this matter, since it is the truth. In case you don't agree: Tell me what exactly do you mean is negative with the AI-page?

We, anarchists and other editors on Wiki should cooperate without coercion/destruction/deletion, on making the best possible AI-Wiki-page. I am open for suggestions. My long term aim is an A-rated AI-page. I will not republish the AI-page until Wiki-consensus on the page is reached in advance, including you. I will work in my sandbox, until Wiki-consensus is reached, and then publish an updated AI-page. I think you should cooperate in this matter. Your seemingly hostility vis-a-vis AI and the AI-page seems a bit irrational.

(Anna Quist (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I find really no good arguments for your speedy deletion of the AI-apge. / The speedy deletion is prompted by one reason: reuse of material that is presumed to be copyright.

1.A.Q. As elected by the AI-secretariate to be one of the spokespersons for the Anarchist International, I can use the copyrghted material on www.anarchy.no freely. Thus there is no problem with the copyrightin this case.


 * The other matters you bring up are irrelevant to the speedy deletion but they certainly would be relevant if there were on copyright concern.

2.A.Q. As mentioned the copyright question is solved, see 1.A.Q.


 * I guess the question of notablity is related to the so called "anorg-warning" at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html . This is however a total hoax, rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html / Simply, one group (let's call it X) has alleged that another (Y) is of negligible significance. The allegation may be true, false, or somewhere in between. Of course Y will reject it. Such a rejection is itself insignificant. The question is of what unrelated, disinterested groups, writers or publishers say.

3.A.Q There is no "unrelated, disinterested groups, writers or publishers" in this context. But the rejection of the so called "anorg-warning" is not insignificant. As you will see from the rejection-document, the rejection of the so called "anorg-warning" is based a.o.t on independent third party sources of the northern sections of IFA, such as the organ of the southern IFA, the CRIFA-bulletin and the French anarchist newspaper Le Monde Libertaire own articles.


 * I have no "conflict of interest with the subject matter". I am acting in a scientific, objective way, stating facts in this matter / Your adherence to the tenets of science and objectivity have nothing to do with it. Are you or are you not a member of "Anarchist International"? If you are not, do you or do you not have a close personal or financial relationship to it? -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

4.A.Q. I am a member of the AI-secretariate and AI, that is true, see pictures of the AI-secretariate at http://www.anarchy.no/pictures.html. But I have no "personal of financial" relationship, it is purely professional as an anarchist. Do you say that a member of an organization cannot write about the organization on Wikipedia at all? This is in case new to me, and that also probably will make deletion of a lot of Wiki-articles including the page of the southern IFA. In case I will find someone independent with knowlegde of AI to write an article about AI, a.o.t based on the notes by me as source. I can think of several that can write it. (Anna Quist (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC))


 * You're saying that Anarchist International is of major importance. If this is so, people with an interest in anarchism -- and 25 of them take the trouble to list themselves here -- are sure to know about it and to be interested in it and willing to write it up. There's no need for a member of its own Secretariat to write it up.


 * If AI is of major importance, then it's sure to be written up in various publications independent of itself. Any of these 25 people, or others, will be able to find these publications and write up an account of AI based on what they find them. Some of these 25 will probably want to. If at first they don't seem to want to, you can give them a single concise, gentle nudge in that direction on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism (not a long speech, multiple nudges, or a campaign). It won't be necessary for you either to find a writer or to provide notes to any writer. -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to Bjweeks - Anarchy is cooperation without coercion/destruction/deletion - about the deletion of the AI-Wiki-page and cooperation to achieve an updated AI-page with general Wiki-consent
I find really no good arguments for your speedy deletion of the AI-apge. Sources on www.anarchy.no are of course relevant to an article about AI. Ad the copyright matter, GDLF etc, I am not sure about this. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know the routines. But I am sure we can reach an agreement on the copyright question. I want to discuss this, with the aim at a good solution within Wikipedia bureaucrat rules. I would like som more information on this matter, and please be so kind to inform me.

Leaving the bureaucracy at side for a moment, I will inform you a little about the content of the AI-Wikipage:

Someone - I don't know who, had placed a tag with questions about the AI page:

1. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.

Ad 1. There are independent third party publications, three main Norwegian newspapers, Le Monde Libertaire and the CRIFA-bulletin and several webpages under external links.

2. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.

Ad 2. "Notability" is a word thay can be interpreted in many ways. I guess the question of notablity is related to the so called "anorg-warning" at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html. This is however a total hoax, rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html

3. It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter.

Ad 3. I have no "conflict of interest with the subject matter". I am acting in a scientific, objective way, stating facts in this matter

4. The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax.

ad 4. I have answered to this under part 2. AI is not a hoax.

The AI-page is B-rated, i.e. a fairly good Wiki-page, and it should not be deleted.

I think you should agree with me in this matter, since it is the truth. In case you don't agree: Tell me what exactly do you mean is negative with the AI-page?

We, anarchists and other editors on Wiki should cooperate without coercion/destruction/deletion, on making the best possible AI-Wiki-page. I am open for suggestions. My long term aim is an A-rated AI-page. I will not republish the AI-page until Wiki-consensus on the page is reached in advance, including you. I will work in my sandbox, until Wiki-consensus is reached, and then publish an updated AI-page. I think you should cooperate in this matter. Your seemingly hostility vis-a-vis AI and the AI-page seems a bit irrational.

(Anna Quist (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Replied to in the section above. -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Message to Delldot, Maxim and Triwbe about cooperation to improve the AI-Wiki-page
As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks    on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC))


 * As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks    on a request from Hoary. / Wrong. I requested its deletion via one process. That process was interrupted by the observation by Ohconfucius of presumed copyright violation, and request for a fast deletion. BJweeks acted on this. However, I agree with both Ohconfucius and BJweeks.


 * As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. / If AI is indeed the largest anarchist network in the world, then a number of those people who have already edited articles on anarchism are certain to be very familiar with it. They are sure to want to write about it, and will have no trouble whatever coming up with disinterested, credible sources for what they want to say. So you have nothing to worry about. -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The www.anarchy.no has about 15 000 visitors and 50 000 hits per month. Thus it should be well known. The number of networkmembers/subscribers are about 2000 valid e-mailadresses. I however don't know if the anarchist contributors on Wikipedia know the www.anarchy. no and AI as well as to write an article about it. I don't think any of them are networkmembers/subscribers to the IJA-newsletters. As far as I can understand you, it is not forbidden on Wikipedia to be a spokesperson for an organization and also write a Wiki-article about the same organization. I of course have the best knowledge of AI, and I think it is natural that I write the updated article, however I will try to cooperate with other anarchist contributers here on Wiki to make the new improved AI-Wiki-page as best as possible. Please confirm clearly that it is not forbidden for a spokesperson to write a Wiki-article about his/hers organization.

PS. Could you provide me with links to talk pages of anarchists and anarchist discussion lists here on Wikipedia, so I don't need to vaste to much time on it, on my talk page?

(Anna Quist (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Message to Zazaban and Shomorok about cooperation to improve the AI-Wiki-page
As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks    on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Replied to in the section above. -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Same message to Enric_Naval, Nsk92, ThuranX, Cast, L0b0t, Pete,Hurd, Annette46, Artene50 and, T-rex

 * I guess this concerns the outcome of Articles for deletion/Anarchist International (2nd nomination). As far as I can see, the article was speedily deleted as a copyvio. Based on how the AfD was going, it seems clear that the result would have been delete or maybe even SNOW delete even if speedy deletion did not occur. If you disagree with the speedy deletion of the article, the proper place for filing an appeal is at WP:DRV. Nsk92 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding developing a better version of the article, you are certainly welcome to do that and you can work on it in your userspace (but please remember that copyvio material is not allowed in either the userspace or the mainspace). I chose this AfD for participation basically at random. Personally, I have close to zero interest in the subject of anarchism, so I am not the right person to ask to work on this. However, if you look at other anarchism-related articles on Wikipedia, you'll find quite a few users there who are interested in the subject (look at the talk pages or the history logs). Apart from the copyvio issue (which is fixable), the main problem with the deleted version of the Anarchist International was the lack of significant coverage of by third-party reliable sources. So, if the article is to be recreated, finding such coverage is what you would have to concentrate on. Nsk92 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nsk92's assessment of the situation. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The impugned article was long on POV and short on RS.Annette46 (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2008

(UTC)

== Message to all anarchists on Wikipedia - Anarchy is cooperation without coercion/destruction/deletion - about the deletion of the AI-Wiki-page and cooperation to achieve an updated AI-page with general Wiki-consent==

The AI is certainly not a "hoax/spam/non-notable; worth keeping an eye on for quality control", see my arguments below.

I find really no good arguments for the speedy deletion of the AI-Wiki-page. Sources on www.anarchy.no are of course relevant to an article about AI. Ad the copyright matter, GDLF etc, I am not sure about this. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know the routines. But I am sure we can reach an agreement on the copyright question. I want to discuss this, with the aim at a good solution within Wikipedia bureaucrat rules. I would like som more information on this matter, and please be so kind to inform me.

Leaving the bureaucracy at side for a moment, I will inform you a little about the content of the AI-Wikipage:

Someone - I don't know who, had placed a tag with questions about the AI page:

1. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.

Ad 1. There are independent third party publications, three main Norwegian newspapers, Le Monde Libertaire and the CRIFA-bulletin and several webpages under external links.

2. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.

Ad 2. "Notability" is a word thay can be interpreted in many ways. I guess the question of notablity is related to the so called "anorg-warning" at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html. This is however a total hoax, rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html

3. It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter.

Ad 3. I have no "conflict of interest with the subject matter". I am acting in a scientific, objective way, stating facts in this matter

4. The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax.

ad 4. I have answered to this under part 2. AI is not a hoax.

The AI-page is B-rated, i.e. a fairly good Wiki-page, and it should not be deleted.

I think you should agree with me in this matter, since it is the truth. In case you don't agree: Tell me what exactly do you mean is negative with the AI-page?

We, anarchists and other editors on Wiki should cooperate without coercion/destruction/deletion, on making the best possible AI-Wiki-page. I am open for suggestions. My long term aim is an A-rated AI-page. I will not republish the AI-page until Wiki-consensus on the page is reached in advance, including you. I will work in my sandbox, until Wiki-consensus is reached, and then publish an updated AI-page. I think you should cooperate in this matter. Your seemingly hostility vis-a-vis AI and the AI-page seems a bit irrational.

(Anna Quist (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I find really no good arguments for your speedy deletion of the AI-apge. / The speedy deletion is prompted by one reason: reuse of material that is presumed to be copyright.

1.A.Q. As elected by the AI-secretariate to be one of the spokespersons for the Anarchist International, I can use the copyrghted material on www.anarchy.no freely. Thus there is no problem with the copyright in this case.


 * The other matters you bring up are irrelevant to the speedy deletion but they certainly would be relevant if there were on copyright concern.

2.A.Q. As mentioned the copyright question is solved, see 1.A.Q.


 * I guess the question of notablity is related to the so called "anorg-warning" at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html . This is however a total hoax, rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html / Simply, one group (let's call it X) has alleged that another (Y) is of negligible significance. The allegation may be true, false, or somewhere in between. Of course Y will reject it. Such a rejection is itself insignificant. The question is of what unrelated, disinterested groups, writers or publishers say.

3.A.Q There is no "unrelated, disinterested groups, writers or publishers" in this context. But the rejection of the so called "anorg-warning" is not insignificant. As you will see from the rejection-document, the rejection of the so called "anorg-warning" is based a.o.t on independent third party sources, independent of the northern sections of IFA, such as the organ of the southern IFA, the CRIFA-bulletin and the French anarchist newspaper Le Monde Libertaire own articles.


 * I have no "conflict of interest with the subject matter". I am acting in a scientific, objective way, stating facts in this matter / Your adherence to the tenets of science and objectivity have nothing to do with it. Are you or are you not a member of "Anarchist International"? If you are not, do you or do you not have a close personal or financial relationship to it? -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

4.A.Q. I am a member of the AI-secretariate and AI, that is true, see pictures of the AI-secretariate at http://www.anarchy.no/pictures.html. But I have no "personal of financial" relationship, it is purely professional as an anarchist. Do you say that a member of an organization cannot write about the organization on Wikipedia at all? This is in case new to me, and that also probably will make deletion of a lot of Wiki-articles including the page of the southern IFA. In case I will find someone independent with knowlegde of AI to write an article about AI, a.o.t based on the notes by me as source. I can think of several that can write it. (Anna Quist (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC))


 * You're saying that Anarchist International is of major importance. If this is so, people with an interest in anarchism -- and 25 of them take the trouble to list themselves here -- are sure to know about it and to be interested in it and willing to write it up. There's no need for a member of its own Secretariat to write it up.


 * If AI is of major importance, then it's sure to be written up in various publications independent of itself. Any of these 25 people, or others, will be able to find these publications and write up an account of AI based on what they find them. Some of these 25 will probably want to. If at first they don't seem to want to, you can give them a single concise, gentle nudge in that direction on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism (not a long speech, multiple nudges, or a campaign). It won't be necessary for you either to find a writer or to provide notes to any writer. -- Hoary (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

---

As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC))


 * As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. / Wrong. I requested its deletion via one process. That process was interrupted by the observation by Ohconfucius of presumed copyright violation, and request for a fast deletion. BJweeks acted on this. However, I agree with both Ohconfucius and BJweeks.


 * As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. / If AI is indeed the largest anarchist network in the world, then a number of those people who have already edited articles on anarchism are certain to be very familiar with it. They are sure to want to write about it, and will have no trouble whatever coming up with disinterested, credible sources for what they want to say. So you have nothing to worry about. -- Hoary (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The www.anarchy.no has about 15 000 visitors and 50 000 hits per month. Thus it should be well known. The number of networkmembers/subscribers are about 2000 valid e-mailadresses, for groups and individuals. I however don't know if the anarchist contributors on Wikipedia know the www.anarchy. no and AI as well as to write an article about it. I don't think any of them are networkmembers/subscribers to the IJA-newsletters. As far as I can understand you, it is not forbidden on Wikipedia to be a spokesperson for an organization and also write a Wiki-article about the same organization. I of course have the best knowledge of AI, and I think it is natural that I write the updated article, however I will try to cooperate with other anarchist contributers here on Wiki to make the new improved AI-Wiki-page as best as possible. Please confirm clearly that it is not forbidden for a spokesperson to write a Wiki-article about his/hers organization.

I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone

PS. Could you provide me with links to talk pages of anarchists and anarchist discussion lists here on Wikipedia, so I don't need to vaste to much time on it, on my talk page?

(Anna Quist (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

To all members of the Anarchist Task Force - about improvement of the AI-Wiki-page
I have just joined the Anarchist Task Force, and I have had some problems with publishing of my Anarchist International Wikipedia page, see my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International for the present version/proposal. This page needs improvements to reach Wiki-consensus, and this should be a somewhat collective project to avoid a "COI"-template. As I am new to editing here on Wikipedia I need help with the page, I hope for your cooperation with this improvement. As an introduction to this cooperation, feel free to read this note on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Quist#Message_to_all_anarchists_on_Wikipedia_-_Anarchy_is_cooperation_without_coercion.2Fdestruction.2Fdeletion_-_about_the_deletion_of_the_AI-Wiki-page_and_cooperation_to_achieve_an_updated_AI-page_with_general_Wiki-consent.

Any contribution, matter of fact criticism, to give input and advice, or even contribute to new sections, will be helpful, and is much appreciated. Please join in the project...

(Anna Quist (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

1. A comment from Hoary, with answer from A.Q. etc

 * It really doesn't matter if anarchy.no has half a million hits per month: an article on the organization that runs it should be written from independently published information about it. If that information is out there, anyone can do this job; if it isn't, the organization doesn't merit an article. (Have you read WP:AMNESIA?)


 * As somebody at the centre of an organization, you can indeed write about it. But doing so is sure to get the "COI" template slapped on it, and will lead to great scepticism about the veracity of anything that's said within it. This is particularly true for this article, with its history of deletions.


 * Incidentally, I'm puzzled by the way you're addressing anarchists in your title. Articles on "Christian Democrats" (say) are not exclusively edited by "Christian Democrats"; similarly, articles on Anarchist organizations ought to be writable by Anarchists, Socialists, Conservatives, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will ask others, anarchists as well as non-anarchist to contribute to an improved AI-Wiki-page. I start with the Anarchist Task Force on Wikipedia, and will ask the members of ATF to give input and advice, or even contribute to new sections, so the "COI" template should be avoided. (Anna Quist (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I have no problem with WP:AMNESIA, that is the scientific, matter of fact way of thinking I am used to. But I will keep it in the forefront of my mind...

(Anna Quist (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC))
 * These is an inherit conflict of interest if you are to work on this Article Anna Quist. There is a policy on wikipedia that one does not work with articles on is personally involved with so to avoid bias and other consequences of such editing. But it is just a policy of course and can be neglected if necessity so deems. Lord Metroid (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A.Q.:I see your point, but I am afraid the other members of the ATF has too little knowledge about the AI. A possible bias should however be avoided if several of the ATF join in the editing of the renewed AI-WIKI-page, and more or less use me as a source regarding AI. A second solution is to form an editing project group with interested ATF-members including me as editorial group. A third solution is to use an independent researcher as main editor. There are several senior researchers at an independent research institute i Norway (not AI), that we use as anonymous referees, when we make a refereed article to the IJA, i.e. blind reviewed and has usually two external reviewers. These anonymous reviewers are not members of AI, and don't get paid for the job, but have significant knowledge about AI and anarchist research in general, and often meet with us at the main AI-secretariate-office (where also I mostly work with AI-stuff), and I could ask one of them to be the main editor of the article. That would probably stop a discussion about bias and lack of objectivity. I think the second alternative is a good solution, i.e. it will involve the Wiki-ATF members, i.e. good for a Wiki-project. Perhaps also some non-ATF-members could join in the project group, to keep up a non-anarchist opinion also. (Say Maxim and Triwbe)

(Anna Quist (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

The answer is no
The US Republican Party (just to take one example) neither writes its own Wikipedia article nor nominates others to write it. An Anarchist organization should not get preferential treatment. If you nominate one or more people to write up your organization, no article resulting from this will be allowed on Wikipedia.

The very persistence with which you are attempting to have an article about your own organization works against your credibility as a potential contributor. Clearly Wikipedia is not a place for you to write about this organization or about Anarchism. If you want to write about your organization or to direct others to write about it, please do so on some other website. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, please do so on matters that are entirely unrelated to Anarchism.

If you continue to persist in your claims that your organization is so little known to the wider world that your input, and/or input from your associates, is necessary to create an article about it, this makes yet clearer what a number of people here already believe: that no organization named "Anarchist International" has had any real notability for decades, or merits any Wikipedia article at all. -- Hoary (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer is yes on the following condition

 * A.Q.: You are too negative to an AI-Wiki-page made by anarchists and non-anarchists, Hoary. I think the second solution mentioned above is the best, i.e. to form an editing project group with interested ATF-members including me as editorial group. It will involve the Wiki-ATF members, i.e. good for a Wiki-project. Perhaps also some non-ATF-members could join in the project group, to keep up a non-anarchist opinion also. (Say Maxim and Triwbe). It could also include you Hoary, and some anarchists that have been hostile to AI, to account for second opinions. The AI is quite notable, and Fang 23 disagrees with you on this matter Hoary. The conclusion is that answer is yes on the condition such a project group can be established.

I read your article User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International this organization seems notable enough for the article not to be deleted, its website has a lot of traffic and seems to be notable and there are plenty of other websites mentioning it.--Fang 23 (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasting time
Hi, I just happened to notice this message you left on Hoary's talk page (and, of course, immediately above), specifically this request: Could you provide me with links to talk pages of anarchists and anarchist discussion lists here on Wikipedia, so I don't need to vaste to much time on it... and I wonder why you think it would be okay for Hoary to waste his time working on your interest. :~) Regardless, I see you are already acquainted with WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism, and you might find Portal:Anarchism helpful. You should be able to track down most anarchism subjects, resources and editors who are interested in anarchism (who may not be anarchists themselves, of course) by carefully using those pages. All the best. Pinkville (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from the Anarchist task force
Hello again Anna. As Pinkville mentioned above, you are welcome to post a brief, non-copypasted request to the bottom of the talkpage of the task force, which is at WT:ATF. Regards, Skomorokh  17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning Please stop copy/pasting material to multiple locations, and do not use the WP:ATF page as a forum. This behaviour is disruptive to the encyclopaedia and can be easily avoided. Instead of copy/pasting, you can drop a brief note such as "Hello, I would like you to look at this and tell me what you think. Thanks, Anna Quist". If you continue to behave in a disruptive manner, no one will want to collaborate you and you will wear the patience of Wikipedia thin. Sincerely, Skomorokh  17:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice Skomorokh. As you know I am new to Wikipedia and even more new to the task force ATF. Next time I will post a brief note at as you suggest, I did not mean to be disruptive, I just don't know the rules here yet, because I am new to this forum. (Anna Quist (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC))


 * That's ok, everyone makes mistakes. Regards, Skomorokh  18:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What is CSD? And about the AI-Wiki-page B class
What is CSD? It was not me who rated the AI-Wiki-page as B class, who did it? And why do you think this was/is wrong? Please answer on my talk page. (Anna Quist (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC))


 * [message above originally posted on my talk page]


 * "CSD" means Criteria for speedy deletion.


 * At 19:50, 25 July 2008, User:Triwbe rated Anarchist International B for both Philosophy and Organizations; 50 minutes later, he rated it B for Politics too. For the intended meaning of B, see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information (84.215.147.184 (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC))

What is a "COI" template???
What exactly does COI mean? Please answer on my talk page... (Anna Quist (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC))


 * [message above originally posted on my talk page]


 * See Conflict of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I am just trying to put forward facts about the AI, so there is in reality no COI. (84.215.147.184 (talk) 06:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC))


 * A declaration by a writer, however sincere, that she has no COI is not enough to dispel allegations of COI. Please see "The answer is no", above. -- Hoary (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The rise of the epic sandwich.
The epic sandwich, it rises. Zazaban (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A brief note about the Anarchist Federation of Norway
The Anarchist Federation of Norway - Anarkistføderasjonen i Norge AFIN - Anarkistenes Organisasjon

http://www.anarchy.no/afin.html

The Anarchist Federation of Norway, was founded 13.09.1977 and affiliated to IFA - the International of the Federations of Anarchists - l'Internationale des Fédérations Anarchistes, 15.01. 1979; See the official organ of IFA at that time, Bulletin C.R.I.F.A no 39 avril-mai 1982 p. 10 and no 42 novembre-février 1982 p. 5. The term "organisasjon" is often used for federations and confederations in Norway, say, the National Confederation of the Workers is called "Landsorganisasjonen, LO".

The history, resolutions, actions, etc. of AFIN are summarized at web-pages found via "links" below and at the main page of the Anarchist International www.anarchy.no. The main direct action - and breakthrough - of AFIN was the anarchist velvet revolutionary change in Norway in 1994/95, where AFIN and AI-IFA-IAF were in the forefront in the revolution, see http://www.anarchy.no/a_nor.htm, http://www.anarchy.no/ija1994-96.html and http://www.anarchy.no/ija137.html. The degree of anarchy was estimed to about 53% after the revolutionary change, thus an anarchy of low degree. In Norway the system works significantly more from the bottom, grassroots, and upwards, than from the top downwards, to the bottom. Thus it is anarchy.

That is confirmed by a.o.t CNN. After the EU-referendum and revolutionary change the CNN (after a little help from the AIT/AIIS) reported: "an almost perfect society" etc, about the Norwegian economic-political system. The connection between AIIS/AI and CNN in those years (1994-95) was officially confirmed in a letter from a CNN/Turner official indicating a.o.t. the information from AIT/AIIS was interesting and intelligent. As this is perhaps a political document of some interest we will describe it a bit more. The envelope has the Turner logo and the sender organization's name is "Turner Broadcasting International Limited", addressed to S. Olsen, Anarkistenes Informasjonstjeneste [AIIS/AI], c/o F.B. P.B. 4777 Sofienberg N - 0506 Oslo, Norway. The letter, dated 7 March 1995, says a.o.t. the following: "Dear S. Olsen, Thank you very much for comments on the network's programming. We appreciate your feedback... We [however] do not have the capacity to reply to each of your faxes in turn. They are very informative but also quite substantial!... Thank you for your cooperation. With best whises, Dale Langley - Press Officer. CNN INTERNATIONAL," i.e. at the CNN's London office, UK. "Well, 'plenty all right - too much no good' as one of the AI councillors often says, - anyway the AIIS/AI spread the telefaxes on different offices of CNN and other newsmedia to be more cooperative. The main point is that CNN and other newsmedia responded to several of the AIIS/AI faxes in their news.

The velvet anarchist revolution made as mentioned Norway an anarchist society of low degree, and it has been anarchist since then. The degree of anarchy by now is estimated to about 54%. This is also confirmed in the paper editions of the two main economic newspapers in Norway, Dagens Næringsliv 2/3 June 2007 p. 3 and Finansavisen 17.10. 2007 p. 64, see http://www.anarchy.no/dnfa.html. The main policy of AI and AFIN is presented in the largest Newspaper in Norway, Verdens Gang 06.11.2001, p 39, see http://www.anarchy.no/vg1html.html. This article also states "Norway [as] a relatively anarchist country, however a bit far from the anarchist ideal (Norge som et relativt anarkistisk land, men nokså langt fra det anarkistiske ideal.)"

Another great direct action where AFIN and AI-IFA-IAF were in the forefront, was against the ABCDE-CONFERENCE/WORLD BANK in Oslo 24-26 JUNE 2002, see http://www.anarchy.no/abcde.html.

(84.215.147.184 (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Receiving a letter a person from the PR department of CNN saying that you are sending them too many faxes does not assert notability..... If those faxes were as long and frequent as the comments here, I can undertand why they couldn't reply them..... --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A.Q.: Of course we were cooperative, see added sentences above... there is nothing wrong with the notablity of AI/AIIS


 * Well, then indicate when CNN mentioned you on their news. You really need to find independient third party sources.

Source confirming that CNN responded to AIIS-press releases
A.Q.: The letter from CNN mentioned above confirms the following, quoting from http://www.anarchy.no/a_nor.htm :

"As mentioned, soon after the No-vote was known, the CNN and othe main international newsmedia reported that this was due to "Nationalistic" and "Non-internationalistic" [authoritarian, backwards] tendencies, based on disinformation from the Yes to EU government in Norway. However the Anarchist International Information Service AIIS - Anarkistenes Informasjonstjenest AIT - minutes after these newsreports faxed a message to main international newsmedia, including CNN, stating that Norway was libertarian, and [soon] anarchist. Soon after the CNN responded to the AIIS-faxes and changed the news, reporting about: "an almost perfect society", regarding the Norwegian economic-political system. Also other main international newsmedia changed their reports in a similar way. They however did not mention AIIS as a source, but they clearly responded by changing the news according to the facts from AIIS. In the next weeks and months the AIIS sent several faxes clearing up disinformation from the Yes-to EU government, which international newsmedia, including CNN, responded to in a similar way. The letter from CNN confirms that the CNN responded in this way to some, but not all, of the faxes from AIIS." No more sources than this letter is necessary as an independent third part resource. CNN is an independent third party source. You should read the whole http://www.anarchy.no/a_nor.htm to see the full context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.100.115 (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I just checked the page making claims about the ABCDE conference and it's just plain unbelievable that "A [world wide e-mail] consent ballot* i.e. accounting for the grassroots organizations** of the Internationals, (...) resulted in close to 100% international consent world wide for the resolution above, i.e. among anarchists as well as semilibertarians to the left and right and syndicalists".

More about the ABCDE action
You are taking your quote out of context, and thus have a wrong interpretation. In case one of the organizations mentioned did not support the action, they would of course have mentioned it on their web-sites. No such claim has been put forward. The whole context is the followig, quoting from http://www.anarchy.no/abcde.html : "

PROTEST VS THE ABCDE-CONFERENCE JUNE 2002

1. No to World Bank support to dictatorship and neoliberalist agriculture in the 3rd world for export to OECD countries, making increased starvation and death among poor people.

2. Yes to a new world order of anarchy, as proposed by Bakunin already in the 19th century, including increased birthcontrol. We gotta change the world now!

THE ANARCHIST INTERNATIONAL http://www.anarchy.no/ai.html

OPEN LETTER TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

The ABCDE-Conference, World Bank, UD, etc. should take into account that this resolution is backed by close to 100% solidaric consent from the anarchist and more or less libertarian international's grassroots-organizations world wide.

A consent ballot* i.e. accounting for the grassroots organizations** of the Internationals, etc. mentioned at the official linkpage of the Anarchist International, http://www.anarchy.no/links.html resulted in close to 100% international consent world wide for the resolution above, i.e. among anarchists as well as semilibertarians to the left and right and syndicalists. The organizations asked in this world wide e-mail consent ballot were:

1. The IFA-federations in the south and north, including the Northern Anarchist Confederation 2. The AI Network in Western Europe, also accounting for green anarchists, groups in the Netherlands and the Swiss Confederation 3. The Anarchist Confederations of Africa, Asia and Middle East, Eastern Europe and Latin America, i.e. sections of AI 4 The syndicalist IWA/AIT/IAA plus former Swedish IWA/AIT/IAA section SAC. IWA/AIT/IAA linked at http://www.anarchy.no/global.html. 5. IWW/AI (Anarchosyndicalist International) 6. IAF/AFI (Anarcha-feminist International) 7. AIUF, IFAY, etc. (Anarchist International University Federation including Anarchist Youths, and the available among the FICEDL-network) 8. Other units.

As far as a consent ballot investigation reflects realities, the resolution of AFIN above thus must be seen to have rather general consent among anarchist and libertarian grassroots-organizations broadly defined world wide. All in all these organizations may be estimated to cover more than 90% of the anarchists in the world.


 * ) Consent in political context means essentially that one "can live with the resolution", not necessarily actively support, "or signing up", as in a referendum or support list. A consent ballot, as opposed to a an ordinary referendum, is an investigation sent to the relevant units, not just a sample/poll, testing positively who are against, by option for reservations in a simple, free, way. Thus both they who don't care at all, are indifferent, or neglecting the case as well as the positively supporting are accounted for as having consent, i.e can live with the resolution.  A consent ballot is of course only relevant, as in this case, when the working hypothesis is expected to have a relatively broad consent in advance, because the resolution is little controversial seen on the background of similar resolutions from libertarian organizations in related matters and/or general principles.

The reason for making a consent ballot, and not a referendum or support list, is the experience that libertarian organizations, although talking much and loud of direct or participary democracy and actively support, in practice even in assumed controversial and principal matters may have weak grassroots respons, i.e. if the resolution doesn't affect the daily life directly for the ones taking the decision. Say, when SAC decided to stay in vs quit the IWA/AIT/IAA in 1959/60 only ca 6% of the members participated actively in the ballot, i.e. referendum. In non-controversial matters as in this ABCDE-case, you hardly get 1% feedback, and probably mixed up heavily with querulents and thus biased, although a large majority probably in reality are positively for or can live with the resolution one way or the other, and thus de facto have consent.

Thus consent ballot is probably the best way to express the preferences, not a referendum or support list, in such cases. They who feel they can't live with it, of course use the option to reply to the e-mail with the proposal with "not supporting". They have also the option to form a NO-organization/faction, etc. In controversial matters with both great principal and practical importance, that will affect the daily life very much for the ones taking the decision, as say the Norwegian EU-question, a referendum is of course the relevant method, not a consent ballot.

It must however be said that consent in such cases as the ABCDE-resolution is not necessarily the same as actively support of the resolution. Thus, it is not usual to sign up individual units as supporters of the resolution, as in a referendum or support list, results are accounted for only on aggregate level. The essential about consent, that the investigation reflects who can live with the resolution, and who cannot, is however mainly fulfilled if the consent ballot in other ways is fair and technically correct done, and that is correct in this case. We have received only quite marginal negative respons, ca a handful of replies "not supporting" in this case, mainly outside mainstream anarchism.

NB! Some were negative to getting mixed up with semilibertarians, say, the group 'angiolillo angiolillo' declaring: "Health! You can include our signature in the letter, but we don´t want no relation with "semilibertarian", we are anarchists, no middle term. We hate marxism, we fight against the states in all of their forms...  Anarchy all over!!!"

In this case AFIN and AI were mostly interested in consent from the bulk of anarchist grassroots organizations world wide, not necessarily actively support. In other cases actively support may be asked for, through a referendum or support list. In addition of course anarchists can be asked to participate or form support actions.

---
 * Not accounting the 'supranational' secretariates, that should have no significant executive power in a libertarian international, just coordinating and co-operating functions, i.e. they are just international organs, not really supranational with respect to political/administrative and economical power. More details about the investigation, dialog and results are available via AI. Use the e-mailform on the web-site of the Anarchist International for an update if interested.

AI's size compared to the Southern IFA-IAF-federations etc

 * As proof of the sentence above, you provide your link page, which has other very dubious claims as "AI's site is the most popular anarchist organization web-site in the world!".

A.Q.: This is not "a dubious claim", the popularity ranking is done bye the independent information company Alexa, see link at http://www.anarchy.no/popular.html, assuming that "Resist!ca" is semilibertarian marxist and not really anarchist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.100.115 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I won't even bother answering any more unless you can provide some solvent reliable third-party sources backing even the most modest of your claims. The AIN website just looks to me like a totally unreliable source, and I'm afraid that other editors share my opinion about it. I'm sorry, but I think that the article will surely remain salted (protected against re-creation) until you stop insisting on outrageous claims that have only clearly unreliable sources behind them.


 * Until now, the only reliable source found has been the one warning against your organization, so I'm afraid that you have quite a bit of homework to do before that article can get recreated.


 * Also, please stop trying to create a group just to create one article. That's just too small of a scope. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A.Q.: I have a lot of independent reliable third party sources about the AI, they are however so many that it will take some time to present them here on my talk page. Thus please be patient. Regarding the so called "anorg-warning", it is not based on reliable sources, including independent notable third part resources, see http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.67.100.115 (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a newer warning hosted on the official website of the international of anarchist federations . That strikes to me as a a reliable source for stuff about anarchist federations. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A.Q.: This is not a reliable source. We have rebutted this new so called "anorg-warning" also, at the same document http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html .Quoting:

"THE SO CALLED "ANORG-WARNING" IS FALSE

The Southern IFA-IAF federations have put up an article with an "anorg-warning", at http://www.iaf-ifa.org/documents/anorg_warning_norway.html. This rant is almost entirely false, and not based on reliable sources including notable third party resources. In this document we will reject and turn down all these lies with sound, matter of fact, scientific arguments. These lies from the Southern IFA-IAF federations are in red, while our answers are in black. The same is valid for http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html, that they have quoted. These pages are a total hoax. In this research we have not only quoted material from the Northern sections of IFA-IAF and the Anarchist International, but also independet third party sources, such as the Bulletin CRIFA, the main organ of the southern sections of IFA-IFA, letters from CRIFA, the French anarchist paper Le Monde Libertaire, and the British journal Black Flag, the Organ of Anarchist Black Cross (ABC) plus three main newspapers in Norway, Dagens Næringsliv, Finansavisen and Verdens Gang, CNN, and a letter from CNN to AIIS/AI, etc, see below. This message and file "THE SO CALLED "ANORG-WARNING" IS FALSE http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html, also includes a warning about defamation, libel and lies against The Northern Anarchist Confederation (NAC) - Anarkistenes organisasjon i Norden (ANORG), and the Anarchist International in general, www.anarchy.no & http://www.anarchy.no/ai.html ; - a Brown Card from the International Anarchist Tribunal (IAT) http://www.anarchy.no/iat.html will be the result of such authoritarian, ochlarchical behaviour."

By the way, the only official web-site of the Anarchist International, including the International of Anarchist Federations, AI/IFA/IAF, is www.anarchy.no, with the original IFA/IAF logo on the links-page.

(Anna Quist (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I'm afraid that all anarchist organizations on the world except yours consider iaf-ifa.org to be the only official website of AIF-IFA and consider it a reliable source for anarchist stuff, and don't recognize any nothern IFA. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A.Q: A message to Enric Naval... And what are your notable third party sources that support your (wrong) claim that most anarchists, groups and individuals, do not recognize the Northern sections of IFA-IAF and the broader network the Anarchist International. There are 100s of web-pages linking up AI-organizations or quote AI-material, and almost none that links to the Southern IFA-IAF-federations except themselves. A large collection of external (non-AI) webpages and other third party sources linking to AI-organizations or quoting/publishing AI-stuff are documented at http://www.anarchy.no/external.html. This page has 185 external links to webpages (non www.anarchy.no/...) and 10 independent third party articles in paper editions with AI-links/material, and there are many more on the Internet. AI has also about 2000 networkmembers/subscriber to the IJA-newsletters, for groups and individuals, all in all about 50 000 persons associated to the AI-network. The Southern IFA-IAF-federations count all in all probably less than 1000 persons. I will ask you to stop these lies and smearstories about AI, or else you will be trialed by the International Anarchist Tribunal, and get an expelling Brown Card from the IAT on Internet for ochlarchical, authoritarian behaviour, see http://www.anarchy.no/iat.html .(Anna Quist (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC))


 * I have been taking a pair of days off. I'll answer on monday or tuesday. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I answer now.


 * Look, it's very simple. If you want me to believe that other anarchist organizations are affiliated to your organization, then you have to show me pages on their websites that say so. That's all you have to show me, and then I'll believe you.

A.Q.: There are 185 websites that link to or have material about the Anarchist International, se Some external links about the Anarchist International and associated organizations, direct actions, articles, resolutions, etc. . A lot of these, groups and individuals, are networkmembers/subscribers to the Anarchist International/IJA-newsletters. www.anarchy.no is also web-hotel and ISP of several organizations affiliated to AI. This is the way we are organized. If you know a reliable person in Norway, he/she could confirm that the AI has about 2000 valid e-mail-adresses, networkmembers/subscribers, for groups and individals via a meeting with the AI-secretariate.


 * Also, I resent that "ochlarchical, authoritarian behaviour" comment. There's no need to make such comments just because I don't agree with your assessment of your sources, and there are rules on wikipedia about making such comment about fellow wiki editors.

A.Q.:You have signed up the lies and smearstories about me an AI. This is authoritarian, ochlarchical behaviour. A Brown Card is a symbol of free criticism of authoritarian, ochlarchical, brown tendencies. It is not a juridical trial. Of course that you don't agree with me, is not a reason for a Brown Card. But lies and smearstories are!!!


 * And, finally, that comment about trialing me by the IAT is uncomfortably near to making a legal threat on other wiki editors, so please stop that.


 * --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A.Q.:If you argument in a scientific, sound,matter of fact way, you will not be put for the IAT, only if you spread lies and smearstories. Why are you so hostile vis-a-vis AI? We have never done you any harm. (Anna Quist (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Really, I have nothing against your organization. If you had some good sources for it, then I would even lend you a hand on writting its article. I'm just not convinced by the sources you are presenting. I just don't think that they fit the criteria listed at WP:RS, that's all.


 * I looked at your external link page. Some of the first ones are comments that you probably put yourself on forums, the list includes even pages where the only link is on the section for reader comments . It also includes list of journals , we already discussed the lack of reliability of those sources. Another one is extracted from a wikipedia article (and it no longer mentions you, so you should remove it from the list). Three of them are listing of Alexa categories. Another only links to one page on your website as an external link for historical information on anarchism on Norway, and specifically says to use the links with caution . Another one is just a huge list of links. I can't go throught all the 185 links, and I can't read some of them due to not understanding the language they are written in, but finding this sort of stuff mixed on the list is very discouraging.


 * As an advice, presenting a huge list that has a lot of bad quality links mixed on the middle will simply make people ignore your comments. I suggest that you pick a few good sources and then present them at the anarchist wikiproject, where people interested in anarchism can see them and decide to write the article based on them. The list that you are currently using is simply counter-productive. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

POV, RS
Dear Anna, POV means "Point of View". RS means "Reliable Source". Hope this helps you.Annette46 (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. It is not easy to be new on Wikipedia, without knowlegde to the rules and codes. I need all the help I can get, to later on publish a AI-wiki-page with mainly general Wiki-consent, and an AFIN-wiki-page with mainly general Wiki-consent. (AFIN is the Anarchist Federation of Norway, see http://www.anarchy.no/afin.html) (Anna Quist (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

I have added a short note about the existence of the Northern sections of IFA-IAF at the IFA-IAF-Wiki-page
This is based on reliable, independent third party sources, and I hope thus that it will not be deleted. The note is the following:

NB! This page only covers the Southern IFA-IAF-federations of IFA-IAF. There exists also a Northern section. The affiliation to IFA-IAF of the Northern sections, and the Nordic IFA-IAF secretariate, is confirmed in the Southern IFA-IAF organs Bulletin CRIFA and Le Monde Libertaire:   Congr&egrave;s anarchiste nordique et camp d'&eacute;t&eacute; 83, The second congress , Le Monde Libertaire, no 509 1983 p 9, French      Folkebladet, The creation of IIFOR in Norway , Le Monde Libertaire, no 591 1985 p 9, French      Marzocchi ed. , The first Nordic anarchist congress, Bulletin CRIFA, no 42 1983     Sacchetti ed. , The second Nordic anarchist congress, Bulletin CRIFA, no 46 1983   See also

Note on the IFA-IAF-Wiki-page
From the talk page of the IFA-IAF-Wiki-page:

I have added a small note on the IFA-IAF-Wiki-page about the existence of the Northern sections. It is based on reliable third party sources from the Southern IFA-IAF-federations, and should thus not be deleted. The note is also at my talk page. If anybody should propose changes, it should be discussed here, before any change. I can quote the most relevant texts confirming the affiliation of the Northern sections to IFA-IAF from these sources, if it is requested. To remove my note is history falsification. Wikipedia should not be involved in history falsification. (Anna Quist (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

(Anna Quist (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

I have updated my user page
I have updated my user page. Someone had put lies and smearstories on it. I would like to know who!!! This is deleted and some facts about me are added, see. (Anna Quist (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

joke has gone too far
Anna, stop adding this obviously unreliable information to articles, like you are doing now on International of Anarchist Federations. The IFA itself has a warning on its main about trusting information from anarchy.no and it was even updatd to warn about wikipedia entries.

This means that it's very easy to verify that the "Northern" IFA plain doesn't exist. If you keep adding unreliable information to wikipedia, I'll ask that your account is blocked for repeatedly breaking wikipedia's verifiability policy. Consider this your last warning. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to open a request for comment on an user's conduct, but I finally went for an article RFC. I was going to warn you about it, but I see that you already found it. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The information I am adding is based on reliable independent third party sources, easily verifiable, and 100% according to Wikipedia's principle about verification. It confirms that the Northern sections of IFA-IAF exists 100%. This is no joke. The so called "anorg-warning you are linking to is totally unreliable and 100% a hoax, and is 100% rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . If my account is blocked, it is an attack on the truth and verification(Anna Quist (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

Your edits on International of Anarchist Federations

 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Zazaban (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Zazaban (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Zazaban (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A message to Zazaban. If adding true and easily verifiable information to the IFA-IAF-Wiki-page, that is clearly misleading and biased, is vandalism, you have a wrong interpretation of the concept vandalism. My addition is 100% according to the Wikipedia principle of verification. If I am getting blocked it is real vandalism. You are a vandal asking for blocking me, for adding true and easily verifiable information to the IFA-IAF-Wiki-page. (Anna Quist (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

You appear to be engaged in an edit war at International of Anarchist Federations and you are already in violation of three revert rule which may lead to your account being blocked at any time. Please cease edit warring and do not add material whose reliabliity is disputed at the article's talk page until consensus is achieved there. (In fact, there is an active RfC at the article's talk page). Thank you, Nsk92 (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard thread.
Zazaban has started a discussion on your conduct at the administrator's noticeboard here; you may wish to come to your own defence. Sincerely, Skomorokh  22:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone has put a note on the administtrator's noticeboard signed Anna Quist. It is however not me, but someone posing as me. I am set up!!! (Anna Quist (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

August 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

sure it wasn't written by you?
Anna, please check the edits made by the IP that you claim that is setting you up. Do you recognize any of those edits? To clarify, this is the IP that wrote the note that was quoted at the administrator's noticeboard WP:AN) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Anna Quist/Anarchist International
User:Anna Quist/Anarchist International, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anna Quist/Anarchist International and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Anna Quist/Anarchist International during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Skomorokh 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Labor / Worker's Rights project
I recently drafted a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Workers_Rights_.26_Labor. proposal for a Worker's Rights & Labor Issues WikiProject] ... I thought you might be interested, since you are working on the Anarchism project ...

Cheers! Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Listed IAF article for deletion
Hello. I've listed the IAF article for deletion here I've noticed that you played a part in discussion at this page and would like your input. Peace and happy editing. 0nonanon0 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)