User talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2004-2008

Cheers for the additions on anarchism and Marxism! I've done some minor edits on it, good stuff! --Sam

Re: your comment on my talk page about my edit of the free information paragraph, your previous edit clarified some of the details of my initial version, and allowed me to more clearly state my original meaning. Also, thanks for the nice summary of the Hungarian revolution of 1956. &mdash; Miguel 03:57, 2004 Mar 3 (UTC)

Please do not revert my removal of some of the historical events. If you want to argue on the talk page or rewrite the corresponding articles, go ahead, but I stand by my assessment that, given the way these events are described in their own wikipedia articles, they may not be properly anarchist. &mdash; Miguel 22:14, 2004 Mar 4 (UTC)

anarchism
why are you vandalizing this article? Seems like a weird thing to do... Sam Spade 03:26, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, sounds good, but who is the troll? Sam Spade 03:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * even MORE interesting! Maybe your right. If nothing else gives I'm gonna have to rewrite at least 2 of those 3, w loads of citations and verifiability, but frankly I don't think anybody wants that (me rewriting pages I dispute the very concept of). I am a reader, and I like to learn. hence my love of encyclopedias. But one of the areas I understand the least is left-wing, "anarcho-communist" type philosophies/politics. These crappy articles arn't teaching me, or anybody else, anything other than anarcho-communist POV. I want objective truth... what to do? Sam Spade 03:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, but I already failed. User:NicholasTurnbull is now in the driving seat, so to speak :) - FrancisTyers 00:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

left communism
Hi Fifelfoo. Given the articles you have been editing I wondered if you could improve our article on left communism. At the moment, it goes into great detail on the pre-1940s period but has nothing on the post-WWII movement. Warofdreams 10:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) Hello Fifelfo I'm the author of the entry on Left Communism as it was prior to your additions. I must disagree with your additions to the article. This is for a number of reasons. First a lot of your material is not NPOV and would need to be rewritten to take this into account. Secondly, and fundamentally, the Left Communist tradition had 2 wings which continue to exist. To include information on autonomism, Johnson-Forrest and lord knows what else is crazy. A lot of the currents you mention need separate entries of their own in which their relationship to Left Communism can be mentioned. But if your structure is retained then there is noplace in this wiki for the further history of the actual Left Communist groups. Moreover your material does not harmonise with the earlier material or with the accepoted definition of Left Communism as a political tradition commonly acknowledged by the left and by scholars. Sorry to be a pain and I hope you can continue writing on the subjects you had included in the Left Communism entry but please not in that entry. Btw I'm not a Left Communist. I'm one of those rare Bolshevik leninists interested in them however.
 * I think you've provided a good structure for it. I'll try to fill some more in, but the reason I've not touched it before is because I don't know much about left communism.  I think your definition is broader than that in the first part of the article, but it makes sense to define it as it is used.  Re:autonomism - there are some surprising gaps in Wikipedia.  It really depends on what people have been interested enough in to write about, and if nobody who noticed it was missing felt able to write an article on it...  I'd advise you to start articles based on what you know; they can always be improved by others later. Warofdreams 19:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jock Haston

Australian legislative election, 2004 FAC
Thanks for your comments about the article, but please reconsider. There's very few undecided seats at the moment - it's down to about four in each house, eight in total, and those are being updated practically daily with the latest details. If there are problems with lingering POV, pictures, analysis and grammar, where are they? For the objection to be actionable, we need some pointers to where these may indeed be. Ambi 09:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for...
support on "bicycle" article. lots of work went into it.Sfahey 23:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Howdy
firstly, re:APESMA; why are you so dispariging of APESMA? Where are you getting your info from (other than the official site?). I took "APESMA has not taken its workers out on strike within living memory." out of the article because my father assures me that they did take a group of managers out on strike last year in victoria. Im trying to convince him to add info to the article (he's a union rep for APESMA). Im not saying your take on APESMA is wrong, just that ive always had a good opinion of it (because my father is so involved in it) and i would like to know if my opinion is in need of some minor alteration.

secondly i am SURE i have seen you some place before so if any of the following apply please tick the box, are you part of SCA, currently go to USyd, involved with left wing groups in sydney, have anything to do with the spanish/portuguese/latin american/brasillian communities? The bellman 02:11, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)


 * what was the link to the AMWU allegations against APESMA? The bellman 02:50, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)


 * okay cool, btw re:Demarkation dispute, are you sure that "only one union may be the registered representative of a particular type of worker"? because from what i understand the public sector service union, has the right to represent any (?federal?) government employee, and the govt employs lots of people who also fall under the juristiction of APESMA (and i imagine also the NTEU, and some other unions). The bellman 03:52, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)


 * thanks for clearing that up, you sure seem to know your unions. Just out of interest, you said you worked at Usyd, which union have u thrown your lot in with? The bellman 04:37, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Middle-class
Fifelfoo, I'm just learning to use Wikipedia, so please correct my Wikiquette.

Concerning class in the UK (previous second paragraph after 'Sociological debates concerning definition' in middle-class), I have to disagree - I do not perceive that UK culture 'still reeks of really visibly obvious middle-class types' - please could you give some examples of this? As one of 'them' in the sentence 'UKGBNI class society has a very specific constellation they like to call Middle Class', I would also appreciate examples, as I simply don't recognise this characterisation. For myself, I find the not-very-specific definition in the first paragraph of the node middle-class after 'Sociological debates concerning definition' rather representative of the non-specific way I find people in the UK use the term. As for 'We all know who lost the class-war in the UK' ... I don't. Please, help me out here. Sorry about all these questions, but I really don't understand at all!

Concerning Keep the Aspidistra Flying, I cannot agree that Orwell depicts a 'straitjacket' of class - the novel is about incomes in a market-based economy, self-pity, thoughtless socialism, love, hurting those you love etc., but not really about class. The principal character deliberately takes ever less-well-paid jobs in the course of the narrative, wallows deeper and deeper in self-pity, then finally takes the loathed job in advertising when he is to become a father. The aspidistra is indeed a symbol of 'respectability' (and hence could be called a symbol of class), but in the context of the novel, it is much more a symbol of his acceptance of responsibility, and his willingness to display that acceptance to the world (in the front window) - even if it means working in advertising. For most of the narrative, Gordon Comstock doesn't make any noticeable effort to find a different well-paid job, or do anything much other than give up (and what he rails against isn't class, it's his own perception of an all-pervading snobbery, and probably also capitalist market-based economics) - although he does continue writing poetry. The ten pounds he receives when his poem is unexpectedly published, is squandered in self-destructive ostentation born of envy and self-loathing. I claim that the book doesn't describe people trapped in their circumstances by the accident of their birth, nor even really by their education, or lack of it, so it doesn't describe a 'straitjacket' of class; on the contrary, the characters all decide their situations by their choices (Julia with her relentless self-sacrifice, Rosemary with her unconditional love, Gordon by his self-pity, Ravelston by his guilt and guilty charity). These choices are constrained (and in Ravelston's case, enabled) by economic circumstances in the same way as they are in any capitalist market-based economy with the possibility of inheritance ... but not by 'class'. - JDE.


 * Thanks for your contributions JDE. I think we might be talking about different things with class, and that might cause problems.  In terms of caste, the UK has been steadily losing restrictions on intermarriage, education and mobility between earnings based sub-cultures.  However, in terms of Marxian middle class (in and of itself controversial), the UK still has a very clearly defined link between family status, potential earning, sub-culture, accent &tc.  Ownership of housing is one big indicator of middle class status in the UK.  As far as who lost the class war in the UK, well, workers compensation in the UK is a big sign, as is the fact that the minimum wage is below the EU standard for minimum decent living.  Aspidistra isn't perhaps the best example, but the hero is slumming it and quite noxiously so (He wants to sleep with the common people, he wants to do whatever common people do) which is a key indicator of middle class status, at least for me.  Three-penny Opera comes to mind.  Stone me if Three-penny Opera isn't an indicative work too.  If you could remember the name of the article Orwell writes on the (on the cheap) Private School System in the UK in the 1930s, that would be the best indicator of class in the UK.


 * Your wikiquette is by the way excellent. If you "revert" or delete an edit, it usually pays to say why on the talk page.  And wikiquette rewards people who be bold so keep it up. Fifelfoo 00:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

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


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

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

Australian unions
Fifelfoo, you may want look at "Parties to the Award" by Raj Jadeja. Its an archival research tool specific to Australian Unions. Available from the Noel Butlin Archive Centre (ANU) for nix. It is also substantially electrified on ATUA Love! An An 04:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Minor quibble with your to-do list. Why divide the Flight attendants into different entries for the two 'divisions' (domestic/international), but no comparable disagregation for any of the other unions? SilasM 23:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That's the way it came from the ACTU page, which I didn't write. Historically some unions have the same name, but are really really different.  The Australian Services Union (Services) is left wing, secular and uses the organising model.  The Australian Services Union (Clerks) is right wing, groupers and uses the services model.Fifelfoo 04:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's a big call. I'm a member of the ASU Private Sector division in Victoria, and that branch was rid of groupers by Lindsay Tanner in the early '90s. It's not really a question of some unions "historically" having the same name - there are a small number of very large unions divided into different divisions. Hence: Mining and Energy Division, Construction and General Divisiona and Forestry Divisions of the CFMEU. These parts of the registered organisations have more or less autonomy from one another and from their unions' national offices, reflected in their rules. SilasM 06:42, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thx
Thank you for correcting the article Államvédelmi Hatóság and making NPOV commments on it. Killing ÁVH officers without judicial proceedings wasn't substantive mark of the Hun. revolution in '56, altough some foreign (non-hungarian) and communist's propagandist try to accent this. Most officers died in regular combat, and revolutioners were not the attackers, they were the attacked potential causalties. And our roman(?) friend have forgotten to speak about the lot of killed and tortured men in the prisons and camps of ÁVH before the revolution... Gubbubu 00:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Molotov cocktail

 * Why remove safety warning and replace it with a bland article of the legal aspecs? james_anatidae 08:41, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Georg Lukács
Good work on the NPOV cleanup on Georg Lukács. I would have just reverted the paragraph of incomprehensible allegations; what you provided was much better. Thanks. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

European toilet paper holder
Thanks very much for the lovely Marxist edits! :-) --Bischånen|Tåk 10:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

phrasing on Hungarian Revolution of 1956
I agree that the line is still not phrased in the manner I would have chosen, but I think it is more proper than the previous semicolon method. I am new to editing pages on Wikipedia so I'm not sure if I am properly communicating with you right now. Thanks. --Waxwing slain 16:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

apropos of New Left
Sincerely curious: what is the difference between Marxism and marxism? Thanks, -- Viajero 17:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Australian labour movement
I would not describe the 1980s as having "dramatic falls in real wages", rather, real wages were constrained and the ALP sought the introduction of social benefits in compensation, such as the mandatory Employer Super contribution, Medicare, etc. The article definitely needed bringing up to date, and I added a link to the 1989 Australian Pilots dispute, and some detail on the 1998 Australian waterfront dispute. I don't think union power is dead, but it is becoming more constrained, and union membership in general continues to fall. Your doing great work writing up the unions!--Takver 14:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have started the Australian Rail Tram & Bus Industry Union article. --Takver 13:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1956 Hungarian Revolution
Just done a few not-quite-major edits to this one. Feel free to drop a line on my talk page if you feel anything's wrong with it (or for any other reason). And a huge THANKS for writing up so much good stuff already on the topic. I might happen to collect some more detailed info later on, from the available resources in Hungarian.

KissL 10:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fifelfoo, we are trying to drum up support for putting up the 1956 article as feature this October 23 via the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. I remember you were once quite active editing this article, and I believe firmly that your presence would be a welcome and healthy balance to the brunt of attention we would get if successful. Please take a moment and by all means please cast a vote. Thanks! Istvan 20:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Social class
Tnx for your rewritting. When removing info, I suggest you move it to talk, so eventually somebody can source it or disporove it with sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 30 June 2005 08:44 (UTC)

Tim Tam Suck
As an ex-novocastrian, thanks for the support. The removal of American cultural dominance on Wikipaedia is a long and constant battle.--Porturology 3 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

Hogeye
Check out his talk page. Someone blocked him for 24 hours and is threatening a permanent block if he continues to disrupt Wikipedia. Thought you'd be as thrilled as I am ;) --Tothebarricades July 7, 2005 06:13 (UTC)

Transformation problem
Thanks for your edits, which are mostly useful improvements on my text. There are however a few things which I feel you got wrong. To avoid misunderstandings, I propose now to discuss them with you, one by one, before going on to new edits.

Let’s start from the beginning.

Soon after the definition (unaltered from my text) you write: “The transformation problem comes into being when Marxist economics are used to predict opportunity costs. Within Capital Volume I states the relations of value between commodities, and the nature of the relations of production in a productive environment. Volume III describes the relationships between distributors of production. A solution to the transformation problem would unite Marx's statements regarding the structure of production with Marx's statements regarding the nature of distribution.”

As it stands, this appears to say that the “transformation” problem was not introduced by Marx himself. But this is just not true. Chapter 9 of Capital Volume III bears the title: “Formation of a General Rate of Profit (Average Rate of Profit) and Transformation of the Values of Commodities into Prices of Production”. Within it, you will find several tables, devoted to numerical examples, similar to my Table 2.

Hence, a more factual way to put things would perhaps be something like: “The transformation problem was formulated by Marx in Chapter 9 of Capital Volume III, where he also tried to solve it.”

If you want to add something specific about the role of this problem within Capital’s wider system, you might perhaps use Marx’ own words, taken from the same Chapter: “In Books I and II we dealt only with the value of commodities. On the one hand, the cost-price has now been singled out as a part of this value, and, on the other, the  price of production of commodities has been developed as its converted form.” In fact: “Without such deduction the general rate of profit (and consequently the price of production of commodities) remains a vague and senseless conception.” On the other hand: “The transformation of values into prices of production serves to obscure the basis for determining value itself” since “The actual difference of magnitude between profit and surplus-value — not merely between the rate of profit and the rate of surplus-value — in the various spheres of production now completely conceals the true nature and origin of profit not only from the capitalist, who has a special interest in deceiving himself on this score, but also from the labourer.” In Marx’ view, the solution of the “transformation” problem is then also the way to see through such concealment.

My only objection to this would be the introduction of the Marxian notion of cost-price, which is a really unnecessary complication, as it also requires some proper (and critical) explanation. Mario 8 July 2005 11:15 (UTC)

Problem number 2.

At the beginning of the third paragraph your edit reads: “It has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of most economists that a general solution to the transformation problem does not exist.”

Now, as it is still stated in the introductory paragraph of the article, the transformation problem is a mathematical one, concerning the existence of a set of functions with certain well-defined properties. So what you have written here amounts to something like: “It has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of most economists that 2 + 2 = 4”. This is slightly ridiculous but of course strictly true, since indeed most economists agree with that. However, it may be actually seriously misleading if it is taken to mean – as it well might – that the conclusion 2 + 2 = 4 is essentially subjective, so that any numerate non-economist (and even some economist) might disagree with it. Maths is not an opinion, as I am sure you agree.

My suggestion here would be just to revert to my original formulation: “It can be shown that, contrary to Marx’ opinion, such a general rule does not exist, so that his transformation problem has actually no solution, outside some very special and unrealistic cases.” This of course has the extra indication that Marx got his maths wrong (“contrary to Marx’ opinion”). Yet this is not only true, but the object of a later sub-section in the article. So why censor it? Mario 8 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

Featured article submission
Although all the terms Alabamaboy objects to are fully defined later on in the article, I think he has a point as far as the lead section is concerned (which is the only part many people are going to read anyway). Perhaps you are better equipped than me in untangling academic jargon. Have a try, will you?Mario 15:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/History of Poland (1945-1989)
Replied and adressed many of your objections. You have much knowledge on the subject - I hope you will work on mainspace related articles and add some information you requested and evidently possess yourself. As to your review: a part of me wants to agree with you - there is still room for much improvement here. Another, however, notes that there is hardly any article on Wiki (among FAs) that would pass criteria as strict as yours. Wiki is always a work in progress. If we were to feature only perfect articles, we would never feature anything. Consider existing similar FAs from Featured_articles on History of... given country to see our current standard. I feel that our History of PRL article is above the average and up to our current standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Poland 1945-1989
Better? Relegating this content in its own section wouldn't be the structure that I'd choose, but it's the best that I could do without major changes in the article's structure, which probably would have been unpopular among many editors. 172 23:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, I wasn't aware of your work until about a week ago. It's clearly some of Wikipedia's best. It was a pleasure to go through and read your articles. 172 01:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

VfD / NA
You may want to consider voting on Votes for deletion/National anarchism (2nd nomination), as it could be of interest to you. An An 04:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Congrats
Awesome comment you made in the bias page of english wikipedia. I was literally LOL. Its nice to know that wikipedia is not completely full of brainwashed people. Keep up the good work!LtDoc 12:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ditto. --goethean &#2384; 17:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Anzac Spirit
Mate, your Anzac Spirit page is under vfd - thought you might want to look.--Porturology 06:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Darlington, NSW, Lane.JPG
The image you uploaded, Image:Darlington, NSW, Lane.JPG, was corrupt, and therefore deleted. – ABCD✉ 23:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

my problems w/ English :)
(Moved here from Talk:1956_Hungarian_Revolution)

....
 * I concurr with your edit Fifelfoo 23:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you please be so kind to explain your arguments? --torzsmokus
 * I agree with you because the Rakosi period makes Horthy irrelevant to the course of the 1956 revolution. Thus, having a couple of paragraphs on the nature of the Horthy government is counter-productive.  As such, I agree (concurr) with your edit.  Fifelfoo 01:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OHH I see. I didn't know that 'concur' (sic! :)) was a synonym for 'agree' - I thought it was in connection with 'concurrency' and so had the meaning 'disagree'. Sorry for my dull question :) --torzsmokus

Sources for Edith Bone
Hello, good work on Edith Bone, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Edith Bone? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 21:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom election
Thanks for your vote in the ArbCom elections. Something I have written has given you the impression that I think of the ArbCom process as judicial and not arbitration, but I don't regard myself as thinking of it that way. (Although a friend of mine did accuse me once of thinking too much like a lawyer, and he was a law lecturer who has now gone back into practice). I see this is how you have approached all the candidates, and the brief explanation on the pages is very helpful. Anyhow you're perfectly entitled to your vote but I thought I should let you know about a late question which I have answered which might give you more information on how I would handle a case practically - see this link. If you're still of the same view, then I apologise for taking up your time. David | Talk 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your vote
I regret that my deliberately terse statement did not provide adequate insight into my views on arbitration. I'm not sure what you mean by "demos," but I kept my candidate statement short as a matter of courtesey, not disrespect. On my Questions page I have endeavoured to explain, at length, my views on arbitration. I invite you to read there, and better know me. Given that the election runs another twelve days, I should think there's plenty of time for you to do so, and to pose additional questions of me. In my own view, a matter as weighty as arbitration cannot be explicated in 250 words or less. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you that you feel that way, and I regret that you have limited yourself in this regard. I would point you in the direction of various essays I've written, presently scattered about the encyclopedia, in which I expound on what I think the principles of the arbitration committee ought to bo and explain the legitimacy upon which it rests, but these are long&mdash;longer than you are apparently willing to consider. While this is fitting given your allusion to Demosthenes it is nevertheless disappointing.

Therefore, I'll do you the favour of distilling it into 250 words or less:

The Arbitration Committee is a body which has been granted the authority by the Wikipedia community to hear disputes and issue decisions which carry the weight of policy. This entails tremendous responsibility upon the committee&mdash;free from oversight, save the polls, it has the moral obligation to protect the encyclopedia while not injuring the individuals who collectively called it into existence. To that end, the goal of the Arbitration Committee should be to resolve disputes in a timely and transparent manner, so that those people who wish to contribute in good faith to Wikipedia may continue to do so without injury or delay. Its role should not be punitive nor judicial but rather advisory: the purpose of the community is to edit the encyclopedia, so the purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to help people edit the encyclopedia. When there arise situations where a party is so opposed to the community, so incapable of working with consensus, that there very presence constitutes disruption, only then does the committee recommend punishment. Even then, it is up to the community, expressed this time through the administrators, to carry out this recommendation.

Realize, that the committee is the community and that any decision ought to be an expression of the community's will&mdash;its consensus. When the committee acts in a manner inconsistent with preexisting consensus, be it divined through policy, Requests for Comment, or plain common sense, it acts illegitimately, and has harmed the encyclopedia by damaging the community's ability to police itself.

I hope this has aided you in understanding my position. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Unqualified candidates in ArbCom elections
I notice your complaints about the difficulty of voting in the ArbCom election bearing in mind the large number of candidates and their lengthy statements and answers to question. Just wanted to let you know that I mentioned it on the discussion page and it seems that there is general agreement that this could have been better handled - you might want to pitch in yourself, if you have the time. I also didn't realise that when I referred you to my answer to Harrypotter's question, that you had been heavily involved in trying to improve that very page. I would still be interested to hear any opinions on my answer, positive or negative. David | Talk 21:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

National Anarchism
Unfortunately this is not something which only exists on the internet. e.g. the Anarchist Heretics Fairs which were organised in the UK six or seven years ago with infiltrations into Class War, and Green Anarchist. While this remained a tiny movement of a handful of people, the evolution of people like Savin or the Eurasian movement, and Troy Southgate's involvement in arranging a meetibng between leading lights of the BNP and Alexander Dugin show something miore serious. In Russia and the Ukraine (where Savin is active) National Bolshevism and Dugin's outfit are of significance, even if they are far more marginal in America adn Western Europe. Also check out norman lowell who has ttried to organise anti-refugee demonstrations in Malta.Harrypotter 02:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

See also "A banner saying "LOCALS ONLY" with a symbol for anarchism in place of the "A" was displayed (Daily Telegraph, December 12)." 2005 Sydney race riots. Harrypotter 11:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's bloody ridiculous as evidence for National Anarchism. The only organised racist tendency at Cronulla (other than the police) was Salem's fascist mob. Fifelfoo 22:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

SLA
Let's not get drawn into a manufactureed POV war, eh?  An An  00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Richard Parker (British sailor)
There appears to be more than one "Richard Parker" who was a British sailor, there is also the one discussed in the Life of Pi article -- we need to disambiguate. Not sure what your thinking was to remove the redirect. --Stbalbach 04:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom
I want to thank everyone who took the time to vote on my ArbCom candidacy. I have placed some thoughts on this matter on my user pageand would welcome your thoughts.--Edivorce 22:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
Thank you for your comments on Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including keeping, merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. I wish you the best of luck in finding an article that everyone can agree with, and agree that original research is something that will need to be carefully watched in the article. Again, thank you for your comments. -- Jonel | Speak 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Katyń historiography
Tnx for your comments. As I am not that versed in the realm of historiography, do you think you could help me improve (create...) that section?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding Irving, are all of his works non-credible? I thought only his latter works were discared, and earlier are still ok? On another notes: while his neo-Nazi interpreations are of course to be discarded, has it been confirmed he lied about facts?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tnx for the info. I guess I'll have to search for some sources to replace him, but he doesn't appear to be that important to Katyń article. Would you suggest removing all info that is sourced from his book? This would affect another FA, Władysław Sikorski, even more.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to do this. See also Talk:Katy%C5%84_massacre.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

historiography section
Please don't oppose articles on not having a historiography section. I don't see that it is needed in What makes a featured article section or almost any featured article period. Thank you --Jaranda wat's sup 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I read it closer and I don't think that History of Miami, Florida needs a Historiography section as it's the history of a city of 300,000 not the American Civil War, please re-conisider your vote until Historiography is a acuall reason for making a featured article, if not just place all historical articles on WP:FARC as they don't have it nither. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 23:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your constructive criticism on these articles, but by the discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_featured_article, the general concensus seems to be following that the historiography section is not required for becoming an article of featured article status. By voting against/ supporting articles for whether or not they have a historiography section, you are starting to enter the grounds of Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT). Perhaps if you could explain your idea clearer on the Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article page and the idea garners the support of the majority of users, this new idea can be implemented into the system; other than that I would suggest that you reconsider your votes and decisions on WP:PR and WP:FAC. Thanks again, AndyZ 20:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Real sorry about that; that semi-accusation was made kind of fast. However, I'm still standing by the idea that, as the concensus on the talk page for WP:FAC generally is showing that the historiography section is not necessary for FA status, that you at least reconsider your decision about the matter (or explain it in more detail on the talk page). Thanks, AndyZ 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As with above comments, can I also note that History of the Internet's Historiography would in escence be simple restatement of it's references. --Barberio 00:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jura Books
Hi, I have created a stub page for Jura Books. I thought you might want to add to the article.  An An  10:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Kairos
Wow. You referred to Catholic high school retreats as advertizing spam? Who are you. I just noticed it, and I'm going to redo the article "Kairos" and you ought not revert it.

a fan
I am your fan!!! 24.253.92.226 03:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution
The Historical debate section on 1956 Hungarian Revolution article is quite detailed and interesting...could you add a few references? Or let me know where generally to look for sources, and I'll take a shot at it. Ryanjo 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ian O'Connor
I have added a "" template to the article Ian O'Connor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. 172.162.16.135 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Newcastle Wikipedia Meetup
A few Newcastle Wikipedians are going to get together for dinner some time in June. We'd love you to come! Please click here for more details. --One Salient Oversight 13:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Left Alliance (Australia)
A "" template has been added to the article Left Alliance (Australia), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. WikiTownsvillian 14:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

National Broad Left
A "" template has been added to the article National Broad Left, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. WikiTownsvillian 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-Aligned Left
A "" template has been added to the article Non-Aligned Left, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. WikiTownsvillian 14:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

these articles in general
I am very ready to believe they are notable, but it does take some references, print is ok if they are not yet online. If you can add them, just remove the prod tag, but be aware you will probably have to defend at Afd. -- & same for all the similar articles. I strongly urge you to do what you can, but if you cant find sources individually, to find some way of combining them. I'll defend them -- as for all political parties at AfD & especially those closer to my heart--but without sources we won't get anywhere. Tell the comrades to get on with it--it would be a pity to lose the work. DGG 06:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Gold-Bug
Re: The Gold-Bug: I'm still skeptical that the Oxford English Dictionary quotes Thomas Holley Chivers. Could you take another look? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to be clearer... You are claiming that the Oxford English Dictionary is a reference for this sentence: Poe's friend Thomas Holley Chivers said that "The Gold-Bug" ushered in "the Golden Age of Poe's Literary Life." Does the dictionary really quote Chivers, or are you trying to say something else? My assumption is that you were trying to suggest that the Dictionary talks about Poe's use of the word cryptograph. If that's the case, there's already a reference for this and, unless there's something controversial about this that I'm missing, there is no need for a second source. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou
For your contribution Talk:Technocracy (bureaucratic) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29 It covers an incredible amount of ground in an informative and accurate and creatively put way. Could you please spend some time on the Technocracy movement article if at all possible and integrate what you are saying about Smyth and Taylor and Scientific management. That article very much needs some thoughtful editing with the kind of reference tags citations you have added to this page mentioned. Regards skip sievert (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is something you may find interesting. It is in Russian but you can translate it easy with this

http://babelfish.altavista.com/ AltaVista - Babel Fish Translation

Apparently some very interesting Russian viewpoint of recently discussed issues. http://viroos.sitecity.ru/stext_2903052426.phtml viroos.sitecity.ru The Russian babelfish translation thing is not perfect but it will give a pretty good idea.

Also thought you might find this article absurdly funny. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7388022.stm BBC NEWS | Business | US productivity beats forecasts skip sievert (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Kairosis
Hi there, I've tagged kairosis with original research because there doesn't seem to be any references. I noticed you've worked on it, and I was wondering if you might have access to references that might help the page. Thanks! --Quadalpha (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FAR
Shrine of Remembrance has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Avala (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)