User talk:Intangible/Archive2

Request for Mediation has been filed
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. - DNewhall 05:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal comments
See my response at Arb enforcement. Generally, you need to knock off the personal remarks. "I don't agree with your edit because..." is much more civil than "Don't you get tired of your nonsense then?" It hasn't yet risen to the level of administrative action against you, but it would be best to tone it down. Thatcher131 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Vlaams Belang, Talk:Paul Belien and Talk:Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw
Could you have a look at Talk:Vlaams Belang, Talk:Paul Belien and Talk:Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw ? I have asked for you suggestions on improving the article and on my suggestions, respectively on 27 September, 27 September and 28 September. Thanks. --LucVerhelst 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Belgium
Hallo,

ik zag dat je werkte aan Pierre Carette, misschien ben je geïnteresseerd in een nieuw initiatief, WikiProject Belgium? Neem eens een kijkje en aarzel niet om je bij de lijst van deelnemers te zetten (zonder verplichtingen)!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: I assume you speak Dutch...


 * no problem...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 06:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ADVL.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:ADVL.JPG. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 17:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bow tie
Hi,

You may have an interest, since I saw your name in the history list of the Bow tie article: There's a separate article, List of bow tie wearers and an admin is suggesting deleting it. When I looked into the Bow tie page, I found there's already a list there. I don't have an opinion on which list should remain, but one really should go. I'd appreciate your advice on the Talk:Bow tie page, if you're interested and have the time.Noroton 00:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

?
What are you talking about ?

I dont know what you are talking about but I think you should be blocked for deleting so much text

Lokqs 05:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Fascism
"''Claims that Bush or the American conservatives are fascist are already presented in the Neo-Fascism article, claims made of course by the "usual suspects." The mention of their claims is not really Wikipedia worthy." Intangible 11:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)''


 * Strongly Agree. For the above-reason (and others), I have Tagged the "Neo-Fascism" article as "non-compliant." There is far too much unsupported editorial comment within the article. --Quoth the Raven 10:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs
I didn't go to Tazmaniacs. Why do you think ? --StormOpZee 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see he is not your best friend. Why do you always makes such trouble ? --StormOpZee 23:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Westmalle, Duvel and Palm. I'll try bockbeer when I come to Germany again.--StormOpZee 12:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: revert wars
You may very well have discussed your reverts on the talk page; nevertheless, you were still reverting back and forth, and that constitutes a revert war. The purpose of discussing your edits is to forment a consensus, and that requires that you slow down or stop editing temporarily, until you reach an agreement. -- WGee 04:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Operation Gladio edit
Hi,

Your recent edit to Operation Gladio was probably correct, but removing material because you think its 'bullocks' is not a helpful edit summary. Take a leaf out of Tom's book Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 14:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request
Note that this request has been made: here. --Cberlet 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

fraudulent claims re arbitration
''The next time you make another one of those fraudelent claims re arbitration, I will you report to the Personal attack intervention noticeboard for repeated and continuing personal attacks. Intangible 14:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)''


 * Please do not use the term "fraudulent" to describe the arbitration enforcement complaint. I believe that Cberlet's report was made in good faith and as I indicated, there have been aspects of your editing that verged on violating your probation, especially regarding Paul Belien and BBET.  If you continue to object to the labeling of political parties as "Far right" (more precisely, the reporting of labels applied by scholars and noted political pundits) I may very well ban you from editing the article.  I actually think you and Cberlet would make a good team if you would work together (or perhaps in spite of each other). Identifying the editorial voice of wikipedia editors and replacing it with the sourced views of others will only make the encyclopedia better.  I think Cberlet has been rather quick to jump on the arbitration remedy rather than looking at your edits as an opportunity for improvement, but I certainly don't endorse the view that his complaint was in bad faith, fraudulent or a personal attack, and I would probably not react well if such a complaint was brought to the noticeboard, at least under present circumstances. Thatcher131 02:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not about Arbitration Enforcement, but about these two edits Cberlet made just before: and . Intangible 08:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Stalking
I've noticed that for the past couple of weeks you and User:Vision Thing have been following me around erasing my input. If you have a problem with me, you need to address me directly instead of edit-stalking me. This borders on harrassment and it needs to stop before I report it. I have been keeping a record of your edit-stalking of me and others associated with me in case you didn't know. Full Shunyata 07:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ??? Intangible 08:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

cfds
Any reason for your mass cfds? Intangible 09:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See: Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 16 for discussion. - jc37 09:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that such a CFD request, deleting these cats without any discussion about this at all before nomination is a gross misuse of the CFD process. Intangible 09:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been discussions about this recently on CfD. (And it's not as if they are being speedied.) But besides that, this is Categories for Discussion, after all. Feel free to comment there : ) - jc37 09:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to just remove your nomination. I doubt others will be happy about it. Intangible 10:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion, but for now, I think I'll wait it out to see what the consensus is. - jc37 10:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote percentages
Hi Intangible, you deleted vote percentages I inserted in Template:Netherlands general election, 2006. Did you really think I made them up? Why? Silly kind of vandalism, I'd think.

Please find the percentages at on page 440 (type this number in the search box). Would you be so kind to insert them again?

Thanks. 85.144.128.34 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Raes
Raes is a Holocaust Denier, for our purposes, if there are reliable sources which say he is. The Guardian says "he cast doubt on the scale and the extent of the Holocaust" (a fairly mealy-mouthed version of "Ik twijfel aan de systematiek van de uitroeing van de joden en ik twijfel ook aan het aantal doden ..."). Ergo, Category:Holocaust denial. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think not. And if you feel that Dhr. Raes is not a Holocaust denier, why are you not removing the word negationist ? That's only a supercategory of holocaust denier, and Raes is not obviously not denying Communist crimes.


 * Now, if you feel that the evidence for categorising Raes as a holocaust denier is too thin, how about we follow Kwiet and Matthaus (Contemporary Responses to the Holocaust (Praeger Series on Jewish and Israeli Studies, pp. 143–144) and have Category:Anti-Semitic people instead, always assuming that's not deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you like the compromise version. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion that the article should represent Raes as he would wish to be seen (I'm not sure if Raes would agree with such a labeling) is not in line with WP:NPOV. Many of the living people in Category:Murderers or Category:Fraudsters would not agree with those categorisations either. The context is a quotation of Raes's comments followed by a characterisation of them as being typical of anti-Semitism, &c, in extreme Right circles. I will expand the footnote. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Armenian genocide
Technically you can be prosecuted for saying all Smurfs should be killed. Whether a judge will actually find Smurfs applicable to the anti-discrimination laws is an entirely different issue, and the one pressing charges will likely end up paying for the costs of the trial. Given that people have been prosecuted for Holocaust denial in the Netherlands, and have been found guilty, it's reasonable to say one might end up being prosecuted for denial of the Armenian genocide. So far nobody bothered pressing charges which makes the entire issue a bit of a shady issue. Feel free to remove the part about the prosecution if you still disagree, I mainly object to the removal of the quote from Wouter Bos. --Zero g 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Far right
Could you give a brief but concise explanation of what your problems are with this article? You might want to open a new section in the talk page and clearly spell out what's wrong. Otherwise people might continue to remove the POV tags. Taxico 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Banned from Far right for one week
Your editing on Far right has become disruptive. Following discussion on the notice board and under terms of your probation, I am banning you from the article for one week. Tom Harrison Talk 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)