User talk:Tazmaniacs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I Abdullah Geelah hence present you the Editor's Barnstar for editing sentences that may offend others and plus this is my first ever barnstar award to someone so your this is very special! Thanks Abdullah Geelah 15:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Tazmaniacs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Soothing R 17:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty-one Conditions

No offence intended. Was going to move your text, got lost in links to Spanish & French wikipedias (will now look at these!) and then the phone rang ... ... Next time I'll flag merge first Saga City 20:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Technocracy and Positivism

Tazmaniacs, Technocracy (the one in the article) is not related to Positivism, maybe the movements you are talking about are related to it, but not Technocracy Inc.

I didn't know about it before, but I have gotten confirmation of this from a Technocrat (i.e. an Official representative of Technocracy Inc.), and he has told me there is no Connection between the two.

Remember I told you to go ask the people at http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=index about, well you didn't do that so I asked them and here is the response they gave me.

Written by Kolzene:

"Technocracy never had any relations with any European movements (although it did have communication with one I've discovered, but not this one) and it derived none of it's ideas from them, or anyone. Howard Scott has made it abundantly clear that Technocracy was created by him and the T.A., and if they got any ideas from anywhere, it was from Willard Gibbs, the chemist. Technocracy is not a philosophy, and hence has no relation whatsoever to Positivism, or any other "-ism" for that matter. It is a purely technological solution to a purely technological problem first encountered in North America, and hence designed originally for that area. It's basic concepts can be adapted to other areas with the same problem. This guy claims that "... is that they all support science & they all believe that there is no need for politicians as scientifics & engineers are sufficient to lead society." This is still politics, for it seeks to "lead society". Instead, Technocracy is merely a method of "managing machines" for the maximum benefit of society. These "scientists" of theirs may be "replacing" politicians, but only to become politicians themselves, regardless of their methodology. It is foolhardy to think that you can be scientific about subjective matters. Technocracy is not a philosophy because it does not "value" science above politics. It is simply a fact that is acknowledged that you need to use science to manage machines (and the rest of the material universe), whereas politics is only useful, on occasion, in the subjective realm of the human mind. These guys, and their movements, do not appear to make this very important distinction."

This is pretty clear cut, there is no Connection between the two and thus no Links can be made between them.

--Hibernian 22:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] p.m.

P.m. means pro memory (to be added). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 14:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberalism and radicalism in France

Could you please see my questions/remarks at Talk:Liberalism and radicalism in France? I find the new intro very confusing. - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Far right leagues

Hi again. I agree with all your points, and have attempted to reduce inclusion in the category for fascist parties only to those who have claimed fascist heritage (I still have a problem with including La Cagoule in there, but perhaps it could be included both there and in the new category you created, or only in the latter). You see, at the time I was doing this, interest in categorizing appeared to be close to zero - so I had to create un-refined categories; the one you created is perfectly adequate. You may also want to consider renaming the new category "French far right leagues" - it seems and probably is tautological, but doing it would prevent non-French users from including leagues in their respective countries into that category (I can name two or three leagues that were created, partly from a French "template" in 1920s Romania - usually around a certain A. C. Cuza). Also, I would like to add another objective reason for distinguishing between "far right leagues" and "fascism" in the French context: most of the leagues never appeared to cite corporatism as their model. I think that the two movements which you cite as problematic can easily remain in both categories (a "Fascist leagues" category would, arguably, only include those two); sure, "league" and "party" differ in meaning, but the leading attribute for the second is "fascist" - so, the problem of inaccuracy is not that important (I have, for example, included the Iron Guard in Category:Romanian fascist parties, even though it was a party for only part of its existence).

About the Parti social: I had redirected it only because, at the time, the French version was only a sentence-long or so. Feel free to create the article. Click on Parti Social Français, and note the little blue link just under the title - (Redirected from Parti Social Français); click on the little link and edit the redirect page with the text of the article you want to add. After that, please use the little links to redirect Parti Social Francais and French Social Party to the new page, and perhaps add a link to the article among the other on the PSF page. You may already know this procedure already, but I thought I'd detail it just in case you did not. Thanks.

I don't think I will be reviewing the articles you created for the time being: not only do I trust that you wrote them with a good ammount of clarity, but I am currently involved in some major decisions on various Romania-related pages and I have just tapped into precious sources for expanding articles such as History of Bucharest. But do keep in touch and let me know if I can help in any way. Oh, and of course, keep up the good work. Dahn 16:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again

Would you have guessed it? Category:Far right politicians in France is, along with rest, nominated for deletion yet again. Note Intangible's sophistry when he blends France and America into one single deletion request. Dahn 22:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Intangible. See [here]. Please post any comments you desire to add. I think it makes much more sense for me to be the only other party at this stage, and and ask you for Comments only. You can consider other options later. Thanks for your support.--Cberlet 20:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, me again

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

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

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

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

Tony, you are obviously unaware of what's going on. An RFA has been filed here against Intangible by User:Cberlet, because we are a bunch of editors tired of having to revert Intangible's deletion of the term "far right" from far right articles. The problem is not in verifiability, if you would have taken the time to see the debate on the National Front talk page, you would have seen we have provided loads of references that prove that the FN is considered by all (including, by the way, Jean-Marie Le Pen, which Intangible doesn't seems to be aware of) a member of the far right. This is the second time you are threatening me, because of supposed "gaming" with Intangible. I don't think you can call "gaming" reversing vandalism (because deleting without any comment the term "far right" is certainly vandalism) and you shouldn't hide behind "Verifiability" policies of which I am well aware and have no trouble respecting. Should I add that my first blocking by you, Tony, has attracted attention to your talk page, and where I see that I am not the only editor questioning your arbitration moves? When you arbitrate in a case between two editors, maybe you should get familiar with the case first before taking decisions. In other words: please don't intervene on my talk page anymore without some valid motive, lest you want to attract more attention to your own behaviour. Thank you, best regards Tazmaniacs 16:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The threat of blocking is over edit warring. It doesn't matter which of you is right in that instance, if you both continue disrupting Wikipedia I may block you. The term "far right" is probably one that should be supported by references, and if it's removed you can restore it if you source it.

It would be very unwise to try to threaten me with attention drawn to my own behavior. I'm used to that and it's not a problem. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UMP

UMP is a conservative party, it is a member of the International Democrat Union, of which the Conservative Party of Canada, Republican Party (United States), and the Conservative Party (UK) are also a member of. Intangible 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to explain to me that the UMP is on the same political line than the Republicans? That's absurd. Tazmaniacs 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Formed in 1983, the IDU provides a forum in which Parties holding similar beliefs can come together and exchange views on matters of policy and organisational interest, so that they can learn from each other, act together, establish contacts and speak with one strong voice to promote democracy and centre-right policies around the globe. Founder Members of the IDU included Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, then Vice-President George Bush Sr, Jacques Chirac - now President of France, Chancellor Helmut Kohl and many other Party Leaders." Intangible 01:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't know you created a category Category:Liberal parties in France once. What were you thinking? Intangible 01:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I was following the classification established elsewhere. I noticed the problem when I saw the confusion brought by the difference in meanings between liberal in the US (which usually refers to a left-wing democrat, if I'm correct) and liberal in France (which refers to the right-wing which supports economic liberalism). Thus, non-liberal parties were included in this category and it was found to be much more easy to clearly distinguish parties according to the national criterias used, hence here left & right wing. Does that seems incredible to you? Tazmaniacs 01:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "liberal" in the US was hijacked by FDR in the 1930s. It now means pretty much the same in Europe and the USA though, since almost all liberals have become social liberals. Intangible 01:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The UMP doesn't follow the same policies as the Republicans, it is silly of you to think so, but you don't really, do you? Tazmaniacs 01:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy, no. Intangible 01:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drieu La Rochelle

Tucker is a fierce and sophisticated critic of fascism and fascists, so I am dubious. Let me see if I can get a copy of the article.--Cberlet 15:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note on my talk page

Thanks for your note on my talk page.

I posted the notice, because at that time I was under attack by 1652186. Luc Verhelst is my real name. If you google me, you'll quite fastly discover that I have (had) a web log, and I don't hide my political opinions. This is what 1652186 had done, and he used this information to undermine my position. For example, he created an article on me, because he was "of the opinion that third parties in our political discussions should be aware of professional backgrounds".

I tend to believe that if I ever get into heavy confrontational discussions again, my adversaries might very well take 165's course. Therefore, I've put it on my user page, so it can't pop up during discussions at inconvenient moments, obliging me to defend myself instead of the content I propose. This way, I can simply quote F. Mitterand : "Et alors ?". ;-) --LucVerhelst 15:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please trim your statement on Requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on Requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 11:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sacrilege to the sacrilege article :)

Well, I see a solution. The guy opposing you views on the basis that they single out the Ultra administration - whereas the electoral law would have been the same for gvts before and after (I assume it is true, since I don't have intimate knowledge). You want to stress that, at the time in question, the majority was artificially silent. In fact, the relevance in indicating the suffrage is: whereas the non-voting majority would have rendered the very topic moot, the voting minority fluctuated. That said, I think the best and equally pleasing formula would be "...unsuccessfully been presented before the Chambre des pairs (Peers' Chamber), which was elected under limited census suffrage in April 1824 etc." (italics stand for added text; btw, I think "Chamber of Peers" is better than "Peers' Chamber"). That way, the relevancy of who was voting is kept, without implication that only the Ultras were electud thusly; it would also not hurt you pointb that, obviously, the Ultras were instrumental in supporting and pushing this bill.

About your other query: Romania is pretty problematic these months if you want to avoid tourists, traffic, and discomfort. Much of the nice places are swarmed, but you can avoid that by not visiting them on weekends. I suggest avoiding the seaside altogether: it's packed, sweaty, loud, and dirty. However, you may want to inquire about the Danube Delta and what you can visit there in the time that you have for your visit (I myself have not been there, but I always wanted to). Also, see if you have time to visit Sibiu and probably places north and south of there - on both sides of the Carpathians; it's nice sightseeing. People recommend Sighişoara, but I find it to be a load of Bavarian kitsch. Dahn 16:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, and I believe you are right. An expanded phrase, on the lines of the one you last proposed, is the perfect version to chose (I guess both the vote and Charles' "the king is dead, here's Johnny" have had important consequences for the conjecture to occur). Tell me what I can do to help (as I undrstand it, the Mediation cabal thing does not rely on polls - I guess it too is a for of peerage :)). Btw, I wanted to ask: did you stop writing me in French because I have proven my use of French sucks? Dahn 17:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Je vais laisser mon "comment" sur la "talk page", mais je ne croit pas que j'ai le temps de le faire maintenant (j'ai un rendez-vous en une demi-heure). En tout cas, je te souhaite bonne chance, et, s'il te plait, reviens avec des requetes et des infos sur cet sujet - en tout cas, je vais garder la page sur ma (mon?) "watchlist".

Merci pour ta confiance, et pay no mind des accusations sur "l'analphabetisme"- j'ai eu ma dotte de celles-ci moi-meme, et j'envisage que mon Francais en prompterait des autres venat de toi ce fois-ci :) (note que je n'utilise pas de tout les accents, et crois-moi que je ne suis jamais sur comment les utiliser :)). Je dois dire ce c'est bien interessant que tu utilse a l'envers le "protectionisme" attribue au Francais par le cliche Anglo-Saxon ("ordinateur"/"computer"), et n'ecris qu'en Anglais sur wikipedia... (je plaisante).

Je dois reviser mes premieres sugestions, car ton ami visiterait ce pays en venant de l'ouest du pays. Je ne connait pas tres bien cette zone - j'ai juste passe par la il y a des annes. Si il vient (ou, bien, si vous venez) vers Bucarest, je meintient mon conseil sur le sud de la Transylvanie et le nord de la Wallachie, mais je ne croit pas que vous aurait le temps pour voir le Delta. Les chemins en general ne sont pas de bonne qualite, et je ne sait pas quoi dire sur l'idee de l'auto-stop (mais je crois que ca comprenne des risques qu'on ne trouve pas dans l'UE). Dahn 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Fateh

Hi, I noted that you nominated Al Fateh for deletion. I have fixed that nomination by completing steps two and three of the AfD process as the discussion was not appearing on the log page. I have posted you this message for your information and for your future deletion nominations. MLA 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC

[edit] Declonization of Africa Map

I asked a friend to tell me how to write the names of the African countries on the map and he will respond soon, as soon as he tells me, I will tell you! Abdullah Geelah 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of nationalism or politics or anything like that, it is just that I was watching a very interesting documentary about it and I was jotting some ideas from the program so one of the Moroccan presenters said that sentence and I thought it was a nice sentence to put it on the article. Sorry if I offended anyone Abdullah Geelah 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So have you read my articles on Somali culture and other stuff as well:

i feel that no-one is interested in them

You deserve it...

Aren't I getting an award for my tireless contributions on Somali and Food stubs? if you dont know how to do it go to Wikipedia:Barnstar, if you then fiqure how to do it you can post it on my userpage like the other award i got the WikiThanks image. Thanks

I asked the friend about the Decolnization of Africa map and he said

Hi. You can use any photo editing program to add the names to the map... but, it would be hard to fit them and make it legible. You'd likely need a larger source image. I'm not very good with image editing.

[edit] General Michel Naim Aoun is not a member of the Independant Media.

The heading is independant media. I can't think of why you could belive Lebanese politician General Michel Naim Aoun to be an independant. --Barberio 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Someone took out an article by him published in the Wall Street Journal claiming Wikipedia didn't accept fringe media. I reverted him. Tazmaniacs 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored content at Michael Leeden

Hi. I've assumed that you made this edit to restore the "Yellow cake forgery" (sic) section. Unfortunately, you wiped out all the other recent changes as well. I've cut-and-pasted the missing section into the article as it stood before your last edit, then made a few more changes. I hope you approve. Cheers, CWC(talk) 23:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War

There is currently a discussion on Talk regarding if/when to refer to this as a war. Until the point that we decide there, based on the media consensus or whatever other factors, we should not call it a war. If you have evidence that we should call it that, by all means present it on Talk. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Right now there are four straw polls on the matter. The best way to come to decision is to present detailed usage of all the possible descriptions (Hezbollah/Lebanon; War/Conflict) and then we can arrive at a clearer position. As it stands now, despite a few others agreeing, there are plenty who don't (evidenced by the numerous "opposes" on the polls). I suggest you move forward with Talk, but please don't act unilaterally on such a major issue until more than a few users agree with you. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

See relevant talk page. I'm not "acting unilaterally", but following Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz, the Lebanese government, the United Nations, the US, the EU, Russia, AP, Reuters, AFP... what else? Cheers! PS: the straw polls are more about the question Hizbollah/Lebanon, not the term "war" itself. Tazmaniacs 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Germany"

Please see Talk:Louis de Saint-Just#"Germany". Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lebanese Casualty range per Talk

The range of casualties has been discussed numerous times on Talk. As long as mainstream media report a wide range, and there are no definitive distinctions between civilians and others, that is the path we should take. If you disagree, please try to get consensus for a different arrangement on Talk (we have weighed several proposals, and this is the most acceptable to the differing POVs - please don't jeopardise that). Thanks, Tewfik^Talk 07:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And the same goes for "war" - please don't add it unilaterally while it is still undergoing extensive discussion. Tewfik^Talk 07:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your "consensus" is obviously not shared by everyone. See relevant talk page. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 07:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mon update et mes excuses

Salut. Excuse-moi pour n'avoir plus repondu sur les requetes precedentes. Si je vois bien, le conflit sur les sacrileges n'en est pas si "brulant" que jadis. Merci beaucoup pour ton attention envers le vandalisme sur mon page: c'est la consequence de ce que j'ai contribue pendant le hiatus :)... j'ai ose parler contre l'extreme droite roumaine (une sorte de multi-task). Est-ce que tu sais ou je peut trouver une liste de consuls et d'ambassadeurs Francais dans les Principautes Danubiennes est la Roumanie? Tout ce que j'y trouve sont des notices fragmentaires. Dahn 17:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Merci. Le site de l'Annuaire n'a pas donne grande chose - juste un link pour l'Embassade en Roumanie, qui, pour des raisons obscures, ne liste que les derniers deux embassadeurs, et ne considere comme "histoire des relations" que des choses comme "le voivode x ait introduit le Francais dans les ecoles"... ben... tout en repetant que les relations entre la France et la Roumanie restent "privilegies" (avec nous en Irak, je le doute). Mais, encore, merci pour ca. Dahn 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racial Policy of the Nazi's

I attached a note to your comment on the Racial policy of Nazi Germany talk page. Quite frankly the contention in question is of such a low intellectual status that it was probably best removed altogether, rather than relocated. White Guard 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croix-de-Feu

Can you please check out the newer edits in that article? Beisde being misspelled, they look apologetic to me (I want to know whether it is proper to correct them or remove them altogether). Dahn 10:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Je garde la page en question et encore d'autres sur ma watchlist, mais je n'ai pas vraiment intervenu sur les articles en relation avec la France depuis longtemps maintenat (j'ai recu l'appel de ma patrie sur wikipedia :)). C'est dommage que tu n'est pas aussi present que jadis, mais compte sur moi pour les urgences - dans la mesure ou les articles-probleme sont deja sur ma liste (j'estime que la pluspart y en sont deja, mais n'esite pas a me signaller d'autres, comme tu l'ait fait pour la loi des sacrileges - meme si je n'ais pas ose intervenir de plus sur celle-ci, ne suivant pas la mediation avec beaucoup d'attention). Salut. Dahn 16:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Sacrilege Act mediation

Hi, I’m the volunteer mediator working on this request for mediation. Please participate in the discussion so we can resolve this issue. There's also a new section for discussion on the article's talk page. If you need to reach me, leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, and have a great day! Tsetna 18:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progress Party (Norway)

Take a look at this article if you have the time. Intangible is up to his old games again, trying to stifle the opinions of reputable sources with his ridiculous arguments. There's also another far-right sympathizer who's doing the same. -- WGee 18:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vlaams Belang

Could you go and have a look at Talk:Vlaams Belang#state security ? Intangible is using a French language text to "prove" one of his points. Does the word 'viennent' in "Les mouvements satellites..., qui poursuivent leurs actions sans modifier en rien leur ancienne ligne politique, viennent confirmer cette thèse d'une "manœuvre de lifting"" indicate uncertainty ? Thanks.--83.182.255.32 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--83.182.230.22 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/z/User_talk%7ETazmaniacs_df69.html"

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.