Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:22, 4 January 2003

User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 1

Feel free to leave a message for me here! :-) Kim Bruning 09:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello again!

Feel free to censor to your little heart's content. That is what I will expect. ---Rednblu 22:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Creationism and macroevolution

Hello Kim. I have moved creationism and macroevolution to user talk:Kim Bruning/Creationism and macroevolution, and the talk page to user talk:Kim Bruning/Talk:Creationism and macroevolution per your request at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Creationism and macroevolution. I counted the votes as 11 delete, 5 keep (including one I judge a troll, User:Crevaner), and 1 neutral, so I moved the page and deleted the resulting redirect. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 03:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hacker

Usually in the phrase "so-and-so can't do X, let alone Y", Y is usually the more difficult talk. I rate writing code as harder than understanding how computers work. So I would think the modified wording was correct, not the one you rv'd. (I didn't write the new wording, BTW...) Noel 11:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, there are levels of understanding, both on the programming side, and the operation side. But I'd say you neeed a pretty deep level of operational understanding for a lot of these breakins - e.g. the ones that uses buffer overflows of buffers stored on the stack. But now that I think about it, if it's debatable, the correct action is not to debate which is harder, but change the wording.... :-) Noel 12:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changing room

Hi, Kim, I saw your comment on 65.49.77.82's work on Changing room. :-) Isn't that the wildest disambiguation page you've ever seen? I blame myself, because my friend Geogre created the page yesterday as a redirect to Dressing room, and I changed it into a modest disambig between "means Dressing room" and "is also a play by David Storey". I thought why not, the play is quite well-known, someone might actually come looking for it. But if I'd known it would stimulate someone's imagination to that extent, I might have thought twice. :-) Sheesh, I can't believe it. "Change room" is in danger of non-uniqueness because "the phrase 'change room' can also mean for a person to move from one room to another room, or to change a room booking (e.g. to change rooms at a hotel)"? And the play Hapgoood had better be disambiguated here, because that's real ambiguous!

There should be a special re-ambiguation template for this page: "This is a re-ambiguation page, for bringing together various pages that might otherwise never meet." Best regards, --Bishonen 18:02, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Erm, isn't you are utterly out of your mind a little bit harsh for a VFD nomination? Ambi 10:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This was wrt some vfds on slashdot related articles. I was rather surprised, but toned down my language later. Most of the articles in question were kept Kim Bruning 17:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Esoteric programming language

Hi. Just wanted to ensure you that I looked at every article on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Esoteric programming language related at least twice, and also voted to KEEP some of them, but most are in my opinion rubbish. That they were added all at once may be a bit overwhelming at first, but would you rather prefer me to add three articles a day to VfD for the next month? Again, my goal is to improve Misplaced Pages by keeping/improving the good and throwing out the bad. I am sure you have the same goals, and we just differ in what's good. That's what VfD is for. By the way, did you actually look at all articles before you voted KeepAll? Even O xml and TMMLPTEALPAITAFNFAL? Just curious -- Chris 73 Talk 16:09, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

talk:human

I reverted your edit 'cos you inadvertantly blanked the entire talk. It's ok... I did the same a few edits back. - UtherSRG 15:51, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like your creative definition of humans re: Turing machine. Very provocative. I read the NPOV doc and tutorial again, and now I'm not sure where to continue our discussion about the meaning of NPOV. I've no doubt it is of high importance, so I kinda think we ought to start (maybe move our seed comments to) a new main section at Talk:human where we can come to a better understanding. Tom - Talk 16:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tom - Talk 20:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for expending the time and effort to spell out your thoughts about NPOV on my talk page. The idea of content is an important one. And the idea of improving the formulation of our NPOV docs is also an important one. Currently, I am afraid our NPOV docs tend to be bloated (a continual problem of the wiki format). There's a high probability that imprecise and non-useful ideas get added into the docs. I noticed that the wp:NPOV tutorial and WP:npov examples are far from perfect. I am a little in doubt about the formulation of fact vs. opinion, and I think that could be improved along the lines of what you are proposing: A fact is knowledge about which there is no known dispute today by otherwise reasonable people. Tom - Talk 20:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the fundamental concern you are trying to address, and I support addressing it. NPOV needs to avoid producing non-encyclopedic articles. I have a few thoughts.

• First, for controversial definitions there may be a need, even when using facts for the definition, to say that "Foo is P, Q, and R, but from some POVs, foo is defined more importantly in other ways." For the most controversial terms (not just controversial subjects), such disclaimers first may be necessary. Suppose that I represent a significant major POV when I say "A human is a child of God." Would it then be POV to say, "Human: 2 legs, builds buildings, etc." without saying, "but according to some POVs, more importantly defined in other ways."?
• You may have set up a little bit of a straw man in both of your worst NPOV examples, though this is probably simply hyperbolic liberty. Our policies don't encourage articles devoid of content. We all readily recognize such things as undesirable. In reality, an article that follows the current direction of the Human discussion to its conclusion need not lack content at all, though we would of course prefer to have some sort of definition (or definitions) right at the beginning. If definition is in the first paragraph, it is probably not a problem to have two or three competing definitions, I would think.
• Your ideal human example has content, but it is still from a humanist perspective and lacks the defining POV of a believer in God. We see in it an animal that happens to pray to God, not a child of God that happens to inhabit an animal body. It therefore falls short of presenting all human "knowledge".

  2 arms, 2 legs, breaths, possibly possesing a spirit, prays to God (where applicable) and paints paintings and builds buildings.

But again, I very much agree that NPOV content must be encouraged.

Admin

I just read Misplaced Pages:Administrators. I guess all experienced and trustworthy editors are supposed to be admins, and it is not supposed to be "a big deal". I am a little afraid it puts some users on edge, but I suppose the status can be held quietly most of the time. OK, it sounds good. I appreciate your nominating me. Tom - Talk 15:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again, Kim. I don't know what I did to deserve your delightsome words, but I am in your debt and I will remember it. Tom - Talk 16:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gee, Kim. I am touched and led to sober contemplation of the trust that has been extended. Call me a big crybaby (maybe I am getting old--at 38???), but my eyelids are puffy. I will read everything you suggest and grow into this slowly. Tom - Talk 18:47, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Tiny embarrassment. I didn't realize that sysop=administrator. 8-) Tom - Talk 19:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your support, and let you know once again what a pleasure you are to have here, and how much your genorosity and wisdom are appreciated. Please keep up the good work, and let me know of anything you would like my help with. Cheers, Sam 21:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Green Hill Zone

I appreciate your explanation, but I'm still not completely convinced. Is that decision tree listed here somewhere? By that model everyone could vote "merge and redirect" and since there's no "consensus to delete" the article would have to remain. By my count I have 8 keep-only votes out of 27 (discounting one "edit" vote, as edit is not a choice), the others are "keep or merge", "merge", "delete or merge" or "delete". So if any consensus exists it seems the consensus is to merge and redirect, which is what I did. Nothing was deleted. Also I believe anyone can do a merge and redirect without it being brought to VfD at all, making the VfD vote somewhat moot. -R. fiend 20:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My main point is that this isn't s delete, it's a simple merge and redirect. Information was moved, none was lost. I'll grant there may not have been a delete consensus, depending on how votes are counted. Our counts may differ because I'm counting a "keep" vote separate from a "keep or merge" vote. Since I merged the article a "keep or merge" vote is at least partially a vote in favor of my actions. Since this isn't a deletion I'm not sure how important the vote even is, but as I said, a majority did not vote keep. -R. fiend 01:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, when you say "continue as you were" do you mean I should go back to making GHZ a redirect, and when I catch hell for it from the Sonic fans (as I'm sure I will) you'll back me up on this? I've made it this far without ever having a real edit or revert war, and I don't necessarily want to start now. I guess its not too important, but I basically read from the VfD vote that a merge and redirect was a pretty good consensus, and a very good compromise, as the deletes outnumbered the keeps. I just sort of want to get this right, particularly since there's a decent chance that someone will take this as an example and start making unneccesary and redundnat articles for the other "zones" in the game, and I don't think VfD needs to be clogged with them. Thanks. -R. fiend 00:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

SEO

What was your basis for reverting that link today on Search engine optimization? Offhand, it looked kosher and useful to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:50, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, this one didn't look offhand like it was advertising anything, and seemed to have about 10 legitimate pointers on ethical means of improving one's search rankings. As you probably know, I'm another one of the people who often defends this article against linkspam, but this one didn't look to me like linkspam. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose so, I just tune that out & read the content. On that basis, though, what about all our links to IMDB? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:22, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Red and FM

Well, I appreciate it nonetheless. I will be answering your mail and adding some closing comments on Red's page, then it's up to them, I guess. Tom - Talk 14:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection of SkyOS

Would you be able to protect SkyOS, theres a mad edit war going on at the moment

Kiand 22:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Silly technical question re: user contributions

How do you find out how many contributions user has made? Tom - Talk 19:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I discovered a simple trick. Fiddle with limit= and offset= in the contributions URL. Thanks. Kate's script is a little intimidating to me. Tom - Talk 20:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evolutionism

Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Evolutionism

(put here by User:CheeseDreams, according to page history)

How about something like this for Evolutionism:

Evolutionism can be

• Social evolutionism, an interpretation of anthropology;
• Belief in or advocacy of biological evolution

I think it's been established in the VfD discussions that the term is not solely the work of creationists. Gazpacho 09:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we are still unable to reach a consensus.

• Having grown up Southern Baptist in the US, I am quite familiar with creationism;
• Having quit church at 14 and pursued a scientific career, I am quite familiar with the basic concepts of evolution;
• Having grown up in the state where the Scopes trial took place, I am familiar with the controversy between the two

and it seems to me that you are taking a needlessly complex approach to a simple question of how to use a keyword to guide people to a topic of interest, and to avoid article overlap. Gazpacho 01:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi again!

I was waiting to archive my TalkPage--to give Mr. Monk plenty of time to decide where he wanted to memorialize our little tête à tête.  :) Is there a system problem with the TalkPage? Alternatively, we could talk on your TalkPage. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

SkyOS

Any chance you could remove the protection on the page? The edit war seems to have been sorted out, with an agreement to what should be changed in the article. Talk has been inactive for a couple of days now, so I assume that all objections that are going to be raised already have. Thanks! Shane King 10:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, hopefully things will stay civil there this time. Shane King 11:46, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation help

Before going higher in the steps, Milnea Tudoreanu seems intent on deleting "Occurences of the word "Ochlocracy" from the article Ochlocracy. I have taken two examples from the OED and found other historical examples on the way it has been used. Tudoreanu deletes the lot of them. I think it would be NPOV if he found his own references of the word and added them also but he deletes them all. This is not right. He doesn't seem to acknowledge history but wants to change history to suit himself. I quoted from Mr. Muller, a very famous classical scholar of ancient Greece. Do you not think that this man is quite capable of knowing what the word means. I also quoted from Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn who uses the same term in the same way as Mr. Muller does 100 years later. Isn't that being pretty good evidence of the meaning of the term? I need help here to resolve this issue.WHEELER 18:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any comment on the Evolutionism proposal above? Gazpacho 06:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have left several messages on Mr. Tudoreanu's Talk page. I have left several messages on the Talk:Ochlocracy which he as never responded to. Two different people have restored the occurences of the word and yet Mr. Tudoreanu still deletes the section without talking on the discussion page. I did everything so far I can think of the man is not dialoging. Can you talk to him?WHEELER 01:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk

I observed your communication with this user, and sympathize. After alot of unhelpful dialogue, I decided to write him an email (perhaps the one you read? ;) and cease communications. Unfortunately there are a number of difficult users I have come across recently, enough that the thought of removing myself from the[REDACTED] entirely has crossed my mind. I should hope it doesn't cross yours, you are the Creme de la Creme here on the wiki, have no doubt. Sam 21:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, all your email to me consisted of was calling me a number vulgar four-letter names. As much as I want to I can't even post it's content here- it's so foul I'd likely be banned. Do you think using the[REDACTED] email system to send other editors vulgar insults is appropriate? I think it's highly inappropriate and I'll be pursuing this further.--FeloniousMonk 21:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Email is outside of the Misplaced Pages Jurisdiction. Take it up w my email provider, or system administrator. I could help you w contact info if need be. Sam 21:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you are just cynically manipulating a policy loophole to harrass another editor? Your deleting of my warning to you to cease this from your Talk page would indicate that indeed you are. Your vulgar, insulting email was inappropriate, not in the spirit of wikipedia, and not very christian.--FeloniousMonk 22:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Kim. :-) Sorry I didn't reply earlier about the advice matter -- I got distracted the day I saw your note and then (alas) I forgot about it. I hope you'll forgive my tardiness in replying. Since your note, FM has contacted me via email about Sam....so now I'm involved in another end of this dispute. I don't know how to advise you -- I've just seen FM's talk page, and I would tend to agree with you that I don't think he's engaging in the most productive dialogue with you. I'd encourage you to stay cool, though -- write a new article or two to burn off energy and give yourself time to think. I'd say your comments, while not uncivil, are certainly far more curt and confrontational than is your usual style. Personally, I'd suggest simply noting that Misplaced Pages:Accountability is not policy (despite FM's impression of it) but rather a guideline suggested by a few people that has never been either repudiated or accepted (honestly, it's a policy few ever seem to have referred to, judging by the traffiic on that page and its talk). I'd also suggest, very politely, that since there was a little confusion about this one document (and its status as policy), the user would be wise to be careful in making assertions in the future. And since you obviously feel this user has an habitual problem with biting newbies (which I don't know because I haven't seen it), I think you are right to say that you'll be watching them more closely, and you hope they'll take "don't bite the newbies" to heart as policy (which it certainly is). I would say, though, that there's no need to emphasize the seriousness of your warning -- if you warn someone and they laugh it off, I don't think there's anything gained by trying to impress upon them that you are serious. All it leads to is frustration for you, I think. Instead, merely do what you said you would -- keep an eye out. Ask for advice and help from other admins (obviously I'm not so reliable in this area -- sorry! -- but maybe leaving a note to several will get one or two responses). And ultimately, if the person doesn't take you seriously, then someone else (the AC, Jimbo, etc.) will make them wake up. But you don't have to feel responsible for waking them up unilaterally. Does this help at all? I hope it does. If you have other things you want to talk about, or if I did a poor job giving advice and missed things I should be considering, please let me know. My best to you, Jwrosenzweig 22:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate Jwrosenzweig's involvement here, and I agree with his advice and will take it to heart. I hope the other parties will as well. I believe that I have not violated any policies in a way significant enough to warrant a warning from an admin. If I have, I not been shown any proof of it. Again, if someone would show me exactly what, how and where I violated specific policies, I can then avoid repeating the same mistake, and will drop any protest over the warning I recieved from Kim.--FeloniousMonk 00:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kim, I have asked you several times to stop constantly badgering me. Jwrosenzweig has also spoken to you here about it as well. Absent any specific official determinations that I have indeed been wrong, much less any credible allegations from anyone other than you, I consider your missive to [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#FeloniousMonk |Jimbo]] to be badgering of the worst, most despicable sort. I must insist again that you stop it now or I will be compelled to seek whatever recourse[REDACTED] provides me to protect my good name against your onslaught.--FeloniousMonk 21:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tit for Tat

cheers for the re-write, i had left my book with the stuff about it at home. (this message from Michaledwardmarks)

Stephen Bronner

Regarding your request at Talk:Stephen_Bronner, I'll get some ISBNs up there this weekend sometime. ExplorerCDT 22:37, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I finally finished getting the ISBN numbers on the Stephen Bronner page. That is, all except for one book on which I could not locate the information. Lastly, the article will be expanded over the next week to include discussion of his theoretical contributions, etc. Just wanted to follow up with you on that topic. --ExplorerCDT 05:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry to see you enduring so much harassment, on Jimbo's talk page no less! It's hard to think of someone less deserving of such abuse than yourself... I feel at least partially responsible, since he is probably more angry with me than with you (afaik all you did was politely warn him not to misrepresent policy to nube's?) and I assume you are playing the role of scapegoat, since I have been avoiding him like the plague ;). I have found in my life that there are some people who just don't like me, and who I don't get along w, and they are best avoided. On the positive side, a name like yours won't be able to be tarnished, no matter how many times someone tries to pull it thru the med. Thanks for being you, Sam 16:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kim, don't worry, I'm not upset with you. I'm only slightly upset at Sam for his comments to FM (but I've managed to figure out how badly Sam was provoked into his comments). I'm quite upset with myself for taking a lot of what FM said at face value -- I think I landed too harshly on both you and Sam when I talked to you at FM's urging. Now, of course, that I have come to the defense of you and Sam, FM is apparently accusing me of impropriety. My remarks on Jimbo's page were expressing frustration with FM (who was using my name like a stick in several places) and not with you. Best wishes, as always, and keep smiling, Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have not accused you of impropriety. I'm saying you're mistaken over whether I've mislead you, and that your treatment of a friend's misbehavior has been excessively sympathetic while what you've expected of me has been unreasonable, i.e.; a double standard.

And just so we're clear and you don't accuse me of stalking you here, I'm just here to clarifying details that are material to the issues regarding the behavior of all those who are present here in this conversation.--FeloniousMonk 03:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ANSI Graphics?

• Hello, Why is ANSI (graphics) misleading? I don't understand -- while it's certainly not the most advanced graphics, it is, in a sense, graphics, in that it has primitives which are used to compose a screen. I do know there's another sense of graphics here, as in graphics versus text, but I would suggest that ANSI really blurs that distinction, if not eliminates it. --Improv 14:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What happened on VfD?

Confused. What's going on? Is someone making alterations that are causing problems? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I wasn't sure what you meant on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hi Kim - I just wanted to let you know that I'm running for bureaucratship, and I would like to ask for your vote, be it good or bad. I'm sending this message to a few users I respect who have interacted with me recently. Thanks, Andre (talk) 00:30, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the supportive bureaucratship vote. Sorry I let you know about it so late in the nomination - I'll be running again though, and I'll let you know earlier. :) Andre (talk) 15:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

The grid

Thanks for your help and information on this, Kim - much appreciated. I had, in fact, already found one of the CERN sites conected with this, at - guess I should have looked harder in the first place! Bruce, aka Agendum | Talk 12:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikinews demo up and running

Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later.

You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles.

If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence* 02:00, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern

I really appreciate your concern over the Endorsement thing, as it comes from someone who didn't already vote on the adminship. I know you've stood up for Sam on occasion too, and so I respect you greatly for being willing to take an unpopular view in public. However, I'd really rather let the matter rest at this point in time. The Arb Comm needs to get things together and become effective, and that probably means as little controversy as possible for the time being. Shane King 00:59, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

TFD

Easily fixed. What probably happened is that Ta bu shi da yu was removing other sections, and your section edit conflicted. -- Netoholic @ 15:31, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Endorsements page

Sorry to bother/spam you, but I thought you might be interested in weighing in on the state of the endorsements page on its talk page. --Michael Snow 01:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

About your removing my comments from a Talk page

I consider your removal of my comments from the Endorsements Talk page to be highly inappropriate and unacceptable. It is particularly inappropriate when my comments were in response to your suggesting that I should leave wikipedia, which BTW, is implicit in the gravamen of my allegations against you in our upcoming mediation. My comments were appropriate, polite and explained your behavior to another editor who was questioning it. Please consider your actions before you remove my comments again.--FeloniousMonk 02:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have your cake and eat it too?

Hi Kim,

Although I originally shared FeloniousMonk's desire for a "central square", in which I thought an examination of the candidates and their platforms could take place, I admit that I was either naive, misinformed, or overly optimistic to expect such a result given the size of this wiki. Jimbo's pronouncements as one of the founder's the site sealed it's fate.

I now support deleting any pages containing endorsements or opposition to the candidates, primarily because Jimbo, one of the founders of this site, has made it crystal clear that he discourages the activity on such pages. I've got to respect that. I also listed a few other reasons to get rid of both pages in the Straw Poll that tried to build a consensus to either combine the endorsement and opposition pages into one page, or leave them split. (I added a third option - Delete both pages.) If you have a moment, I hope you'll read my comments underneath that poll.

But that is neither here nor there.

At a meta-level, I've seen a couple of editors, including yourself, repeat the assertion that we are not here to simulate online governance, we're here to make an encyclopedia.

Your recent comments took it one more step, when you stated, "We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to do experiments in online governance or anarchy."

Well, I'll assert that you must have online governance, or you'll have anarchy.

The Arbitrators aren't really governors, and Jimbo, Angela, (and a third person whose name escapes me) are the only real legislator's that Jimbo acknowledges at the moment. (The Administrators are surely not legislators nor governors - many think they are "janitors with a mop".)

So, unless Jimbo wishes to enforce his benevolent dictatorship using stronger methods, Misplaced Pages is doomed to see exactly this type of tension, between complete anarchy and the vague rule of the few legislators who run this site, largely in absentia (they can only be on a small number of pages at a time, so they are largely absent) - hence my call for more legislators, or "governors", to spread the load when it comes to making policy. Otherwise you get deadlock when no consensus is reached on policy issues, such as the one you are arguing about on the Endorsements page.

The "foundation issues" are supposedly non-negotiable. If that is the case, why aren't they more strongly enforced?

By the way, I can't seem to find the link to where the foundation issues are listed (despite frequent references to them) - can you please provide a link to them? I think there are five of 'em, but it would be nice to see them in writing all gathered in one spot.

Regards,

--DV 07:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More Confirmation

New information!!!

Cicero titled the Spartan Government a Republic.

In The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Muller quotes Cicero on Vol II, pg 190.

In Republica II. 23., Cicero writes "respublica Lacedaemoniorum". That means that the Latin word "Republic" is same/similar to the Greek word "politea".

This is great news!!!

Sparta is a republic. This is great confirmation! WHEELER 23:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Kim. Please can you see my message at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation#User:FeloniousMonk_and_User:Kim_Bruning. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 17:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

note

I've responded to your comment on my user page. – Ram-Man ] 01:50, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Licensing comment

You asked me some questions on licensing on my talk page which I answered. You can check them out there. This weekend I attended the NYC WikiMeetup where Jimbo was. I had a chance to talk with him about my multi-licensing project. I had to explain a little bit about what I was about, but he is perfectly fine with multi-licensing so that we can share with other projects. He understands the catch-22 with copyleft licenses: There is no true copyleft because there is no way to copyleft to any open/free license. In any case, I am not trying to change Misplaced Pages's license, just allow the articles to be used elsewhere for other free/open licenses. Jimbo is striving to get an improved GFDL 2.0, which appears to have a decent chance to see the light of day in a fashion that is pro-Misplaced Pages. Jimbo and his traveling crew had just discussed the project before the WikiMeetup. They had discussed slightly the issue of Watchlist pollution, but didn't seem to think this was more than a minor annoyance, of course that isn't to say it isn't more annoying for you, and I do apologize for any inconvenience. This probably goes without saying, but the 90% acceptance figure was "as of the writing of this message", and it changes as people choose to accept or not accept multi-licensing. It does not include those users who do not respond, for whatever reason. Hopefully I've helped to answer some of your questions or concerns. If not, feel free to ask more questions. – Ram-Man ] 01:32, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

GNAA

Thanks, Kim. I really appreciate you making the effort to understand what I thought I was doing when I listed that article the other day. I walked into a big mess but most people have, like you, been pretty understanding once they figured out I wasn't just stalking around knowingly trying to do what four other VfDs had failed to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Time to move

New information!!!

Cicero titled the Spartan Government a Republic.

In The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Karl Otfried Muller quotes Cicero on Vol II, pg 190.

In Republica II. 23., Cicero writes "respublica Lacedaemoniorum". That means that the Latin word "Republic" is same/similar to the Greek word "politea".

This is great news!!!

Sparta is a republic. This is great confirmation!

It is now time to move "Classical definition" into the Republic Article. Both Cicero and Sir Thomas use the word "Republic" for governments with monarchies. There is no basis whatsoever for Republic meaning "Government without a monarch". This is just the result of sloppy 19th century scholarship. Even if you read the Oxford Classical dictionary, the meaning of republic is simple the state. A monarch is head of a state. The republic article definition is pure nonsense. WHEELER 16:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On Modern Scholarship

You and others many times told me that we need "modern scholarship" on this subject of republics. You told me to read Montesquieu.

John Adams on Montesquieu: "That therefore the domocracies of Monesquieu....are all mere fragments of his brain, and delusive imaginations. (Menace of the Herd, von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, pg 6) It looks like John Adams did not have a favorable attitude towards Montesquieu.

Von Kuehnelt further writes: "The decline of classical education in favor of progressive "self-realization" has favored the increased use of wrong labels. (pg 7) "Confusion of words and meanings leads to the confusion of minds, and the confusion of minds breeds upheavals and revolution, as a well-known American once righty pointed out. (pg 10).

That's it in a nutshell. Just plain old confusion reigns.WHEELER 18:38, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need comment

I have been added huge content onto Classical definition of republic and I would like your criticism and/or suggestions. I don't know, without some oversight, what looks good or not, and I would enjoy some constructive criticism, suggestions, ideas. I am still working on it and I need some feedback. Strange, that nobody has gone in and changed anything. Can I get some help please.WHEELER 14:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo

Rienzo is still editing under further sockpuppets User:65.161.65.104, User:MahBoys, and User:Sandor, and User:130.236.84.134.

This is in violation of a 3 month ban from the arbitration comittee - Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

I would appreciate an immediate block of these accounts. CheeseDreams 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Thanks

No problem- I tidied it up as much for everyone else as for myself; I wouldn't be able to sleep comfortably knowing there was a such a hideous and unreadable page out there. If you know of any others that need cleaning drop me a line. -- Maru Dubshinki

Come to think of it, this page could use some cleaning, but it's not my place to do so. -- Maru Dubshinki 11:35 PM March 8

Arbitration Committee case opening

Hi, I see you are back on. And I am having trouble with classical works and definitions. It seems that User:Snowspinner is out to get me and destroy all classical articles that I have written.

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the request for arbitration against you. Please bring evidence to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:19, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Can I get your help in this regard?WHEELER 14:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support. Have you seen the article on the classical definition of republic where John Aylmer finds that his govenment is just like Sparta! Isn't there a deep connection between the ancient Greeks and the English. Look at the Bibliography of the classical republic on Misplaced Pages Wikinfo at the end and I think you will be pleasantly suprised and the connection between England and Greece. On the other note: I guess on the "Evidence" page, please explain the importance of Classical studies and the need that Old terms don't have the same meaning today. And that for Classical studies, meanings must be preserved for classical culture. There is a seperation and a need for dual articles, one on modern meanings and one for classical meanings and the two should not be mixed. And that I am not a bad guy but am a stickler for the defense of old meanings against being rewritten for the modern age.WHEELER 15:19, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)