User talk:WHEELER

This user is a Greek Wikipedian or is a Wikipedian living in Greece.

There are things particularly relevant to Greek-based Wikipedians at the Greek Wikipedians' notice board.

Please feel free to help us improve Greek related articles in Wikipedia!

Wikipedians in Greece[edit]

Hi, I understand that you are either Greek Wikipedian or a Wikipedian living in/with an interest in Greece.

The category page Wikipedians/Greece has been replaced with Category:Wikipedians in Greece but your name still appears on the old list. You might considering moving it. You might also consider adding adding Template:Greekwiki to your user page.

A Wikipedia:Greek Wikipedians' notice board has been in existence for some time but is terribly underutilised. It would certainly benefit from your involvement.--Damac 12:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I have added myself to the category and have put the template on my page thanks.WHEELER 00:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia[edit]

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[1]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 02:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Effeminacy, synoecism, and xenelasia[edit]

To be fair, SimonP was not the one who put the {{cleanup}} tag on Xenelasia. That was Pmanderson. And SimonP add the cleanup tag to Synoecism over month before he added it to Classical definition of effeminacy, so I don't think you can accuse him of wikistalking. However, it was IMO poor form of both Pmanderson and SimonP to add the cleanup tag to articles without explaining on the talk page what precisely was wrong with the article and what ought to change. I haven't read the three articles completely, and I know nothing about the subject, but from skimming them over, I would recommend that you cite the analyses of contemporary scholars. Your references sections in these articles are mostly to original texts or to 19th-century authors. The reference to Paul Rahe at Synoecism is a good start. What do other published contemporary scholars have to say about these issues? Presenting your own intepretation is original research, and is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. --Angr (t·c) 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it for meWHEELER 22:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascio[edit]

I've just tried cleaning up the referencing at Fascio, which had become quite a mess. Indeed, it was enough of a mess that I may not have gotten everything correctly attributed. Since much of this was yours, can I ask you to take a look and correct anything that is not now correctly cited? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Just to let the reader know, I am responding to SimonP on his talk page. I am catching on to how evil works--I notice that he puts links into the edit summary line to say that SimonP is playing by the rules but Wheeler is not. I know how this works at Wikipedia (a clique of legalisms and if you don't play by their game you get burned). So to know that I am responding to SimonP please go to his User page atUser_talk:SimonP#Hostility.
Please stop adding links to your own personal essays, they are original research of low quality and should not be linked to by Wikipedia. - SimonP 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have rather firm External links guidelines, one of those rules are that you should not link to any sites that "you own or maintain." The links you are adding are to pages that are entirely your own work, and are attempts to promote your own views. Also important is the rule that "pages that contain a substantial fraction of factually inaccurate material or which contain unverified original research should not be linked to." - SimonP 21:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is not just theories developed from one's own researches, it is also unique syntheses of existing sources. Your Crete/Sparta essay, for instance, is original research because no one else believes that "Doric Crete is the progenitor of much of the institutions found in Doric Sparta." You have simply strung together a number of ancient and modern sources that happen to mention the two societies in the same sentence. Also those essays are unquestionably your own, they were created by you, they are maintained by you, and you personally have a great interest in seeing other people read them. While you might not be gaining financially, these links still fall under the definition of spam. - SimonP 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SimonP is here: User_talk:SimonP#Hostility.

Myson of Chen[edit]

Myson of Chen has been proposed for deletion. Reasoning is on the talk page. I was tempted to pull off the notice myself, because the reasoning seemed awfully strange to me, but I thought I'd run it by you as the person who contributed the article and might understand the guy's reasoning better. NickelShoe 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information I found was through Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar, IIRC. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-4 17:37

Please, no spam[edit]

Regarding this edit: my talk page very specifically requests that people not spam me, especially with requests for votes regarding some subject of which I have no knowledge or interest. – Clockwork Soul 08:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain your post on the Joe Sobran page? - CDreamlings

Destra[edit]

Hi, I found an Italian copy of Doctrine of Fascism online:- "Ammesso che il sec. XIX sia stato il secolo del socialismo, del liberalismo, della democrazia, non è detto che anche il sec. XX debba essere il secolo del socialismo, del liberalismo, della democrazia. Le dottrine politiche passano, i popoli restano. Si può pensare che questo sia il secolo dell'autorità, un secolo di «destra», un secolo fascista; se il XIX fu il secolo dell'individuo (liberalismo significa individualismo), si può pensare che questo sia il secolo «collettivo» e quindi il secolo dello Stato." Thought you might be interested. Rich Farmbrough 22:39 8 June 2006 (UTC).

Wow, it's been, what, two or three years and WHEELER is still on about this? It was just a mistranslation into English, that's all - no conspiracy - either that or Conservatives in Britain or Hoover wanted to misdirect people to think fascism was left wing instead of right wing. The version of the Encyclopedia at my university with a 1932 copyright date says "destra" ie right so no, Mussolini did not change "left" to "right" in 1940. Homey 08:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians[edit]

To inform you, you've been added to the missing wikipedians. If you are not permenantly gone, you can remove your name from the list. --66.218.18.148 02:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinko Sakic[edit]

Why isnt Dinko Sakic in the list of Living Nazis?Just because of his natinality he is not mentioned,even though he was one of the worst nazi monsters during the war

YXYX 03:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats[edit]

Keep up the good work on Wikipedia. BTW your beard is cool. :P --Ysangkok 20:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Published[edit]

The journal you're citing does not seem to be a peer reviewed publication, but rather one mainly geared to publishing the work of hobbyists. The managing editor, according to the site, is "a fully qualified IT-Systemelectrician" and not a recognized scholar. Congratulations on getting your work published, and I suggest that journals such as that one are a far better venue for your reinterpretations of history than is Wikipedia. - SimonP 14:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're looking for more recent secondary sources. Perhaps you might consider searching some of the more prominent journals? A quick search gives an example list here: http://www.colorado.edu/Classics/clguides/periodicals.html - I can't vouch for all of them, but I know a lot of them are well respected and used. L'Année Philologique has a search engine which you might want to try, and I have heard that some people have derived a fair bit of use from a collection known as "JSTOR", though I've not used it myself. --Nema Fakei 00:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question on consensus and other policies[edit]

I think you've missed something here; perhaps I can explain. Wikipedia's policy of consensus does not override other policies, it's how those other policies work. It is through a consensus that phrasing is accepted as NPOV, it is by consensus that we judge whether references are relevant and useful where there is uncertainty. If we did not seek consensus, every single person would simply battle away with their own personal view of the One NPOV Truth, and we would be left with permanent edit wars and incoherent, contradictory articles. Hope this makes sense. --Nema Fakei 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the definition of NPOV when I started at Wikipedia. NPOV meant that ALL AND ANY information is included. I thought NPOV is about inclusion of both sides. I have a reference that says A. And another one that says B. Both are included.

See Nema Fakei, your answer sets me up for it says that User:Pmanderson can just disqualify any and all references I make. This is what he has done. He doesn't accept NOTHING. Your answer Nema Fakei backs up User Pmanderson to stall, obfuscate and DISCOUNT EACH and every reference I have. This is what consensus means is that a whole majority can sit there and deny and deny freely and by doing so censor opposing viewpoints. Your consensus nullifies any reference I make and so negates NPOV. This is how you get around NPOV. IT is called gaming the system and that is exactly what your friend Pmanderson is doing.WHEELER 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ALL AND ANY information is included" - not really. NPOV states that WP should not make overt value judgments on the veracity of controversial claims. Where there is controversy, WP should explain the arguments in that controversy as succinctly as is appropriate to the context. Anyway, WP cannot possibly contain every idea expressed by every academic (never mind anyone else) has had in the past two and a half millenia, which is why we have a number of other policies such those on notability. Your example "I have a reference that says A. And another one that says B. Both are included" is a better way of putting it, and it's an immediate consequence of the NPOV policy: the claims A and B should both be reported (assuming both references are notable and credible and assuming they are both found to make the claims they're being presented as making) in the most suitable place within the most relevant article (or in a new article if none is relevant and the claims are important enough to merit inclusion).

And yes, it is necessary to subject attributions to consensus so that, for example, we don't have to put up with contributors demanding that we include a claim that Ennius was deaf based on M. Crosby's article in Hesperia 1949, page 108. A consensus-based decision to reject this attribution ('censor' the claim, if you will) would be perfectly correct, as the article is in fact titled "An Athenian fruit measure", and has nothing to do with Ennius or his auditory faculties.

Now, while I agree with you that there is the potential for abuse, I'd argue that there's even more if we have no such policy, as an individual can disrupt wikipedia and overrule a majority of everyone but them. Even if you're not convinced by that, that's the way WP works, and the only way you're going to get it to change is to engage constructively with the processes. The alternative to give up and ignore WP remains, of course. But I'd rather not advocate that in your case, as I'm sure you have much to offer WP. Have you tried applying your knowledge to articles other than political/social commentary and the rather hairy definition issues that go with them? The Ancient Greece stubs and the Ancient Rome stubs categories are worth looking at: you're more likely to be able to make good, uncontested edits there which will improve understanding of the ancient world, whereas I fear much of the time you spend on the more controversial subjects will ultimately be fruitless. At least, until you find some references which more convincingly support the points you're trying to make. --Nema Fakei 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Thanks, and I do agree with you on the need of notability.

I am just here to correct the Republic area. I have done much work but it gets overwritten and deletted. The article I started Kalos Kagathos has been completely rewritten. Not only was it totally rewritten but the history page were I started it was erased. Not only was the History excised but the talk page was also reformatted.

And you seriously think that I am going to work on any other page on Wikipedia?

I authored and did all the work for Early Nazi Timeline. The most important fact was the first section. When I checked it over time---Someone deleted the first section and IT REMAINED deleted for a very long time. Finally, under anonymity did I restore it.

I authored and did all the work for Nazi 25-point program. Where I got all that info is from Erik von Keunhelt-Leddihn. Everday, someone would come by and delete all his words.

I could go on and on and on. I am just here for republic on the grounds of the honor and glory of my ancestors. Other than that, I am back to Wikinfo. The childish games and the constant vandalism are an iritant. One works so hard---only to have it erased. On Wikinfo I can sign all my articles and have them protected.

Muller and Rahe are excellent material. They are only attacked because they are politically incorrect. That is the only basis. ThanksWHEELER 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity you feel that way, but I do have to say that I think WP is just not a place to be honouring or glorifying ancestors; as you mention, there's no protection, no permanence, and NPOV policy precludes value judgments. Do consider those stubs, though. Even if you can't win the big battles on esoteric political categorisation, fleshing out the more concrete details of the ancient world might at least do them some service. -Nema Fakei 02:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had reference upon reference that backed each other up and he deletes it. Pmanderson refers to I. M. Finley who calles Muller's research a "Thousand page fantasia". Now, Muller is critical of democracy and is a promoter of Aristocracy. I read his book--It is fantastic. Werner Jaeger, the German classicist who wrote the magesterial Paideia quotes him. I. M Finley is a Communist and a member of the Frankfurt School. Just because this Commie belittles a book, gives the right to User:Pmanderson to discount every reference from Mr. Muller. This is consensus. On references to Paul A. Rahe. User:Pmanderson says Rahe is an eccentric, so the Consensus says--we discount him. By attacking all my references, the clique in control, "This secret consensus", can discredit every single reference I have! This is now Wikipedia Policy! I have had enough of this BS.WHEELER 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried explaining this on the policy page a long time ago. What happened with the Classical definition of republic is that a whole bunch of British (modern) republicans ganged up and voted that off! FACT: over some 80% of all American faculty of colleges and universities ARE democrats and especially Socialists. Socialists do manipulate language and learning to further their ideology! That is a Fact. With a majority who are democrats and socialists teaching a majority of people----Me and people like me, Old School, traditionalists, Monarchists---are shit out of luck. With your """consensus""" you ensure that we are marginalized and censored. But that is the whole point of WHO CREATED THE Consensus Policy at Wikipedia!WHEELER 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP seems to have an article Classical republic - this looks like the right place for the information you have. --Nema Fakei 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes[edit]

WHEELER, please bear in mind that the Village Pump is not an appropriate place to resolve a dispute over article content. I have closed the discussion there, and I would appreciate it if you don't reopen it.

Step back, take a deep breath, and work through the steps of dispute resolution calmly and coolly. You're not going to persuade anyone that your perspective is correct – or even appropriate for inclusion – by referring to people you disagree with as Marxists, Socialists, cliques, or Commies. Put down your CAPS LOCK key and exclamation point. If you can't participate civilly, you will find yourself (and your opinions) marginalized. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is the point. Socialist methodology is to aggravate their opponents so that they have grounds to marginalize them! It is a tactic well-used here.WHEELER 02:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your strategy is to do exactly what these imagined Commie bastards want. Is that a sensible approach? Be civil and don't broadcast your disputes all over the wiki in future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many days must I put up with it? This has been going on for Ten days now. For nine of those days, I was calm. I provided references. I refuted all their arguments. They kept on moving the goalposts. It seems to me that someone is getting away with Murder and the ""Wikipedia Community"" sits on the sidelines and does nothing. There is no self Correction. You mean to tell me that everybody is clueless "to aggravate them to marginalize them"?

The Shit keeps on getting better and better around here. User:Pmanderson can write this BS:

For the archaizing meanings of the word republic, as the commonwealth, or as a translation of politeia or res publica, see those articles. These were in some respects broader than the present meaning of republic, and would include not only the republics of antiquity, as above, but, for example, the following monarchies:

Sparta the Roman Empire Elizabethan England the Ancien Régime in France

And he can get away with it. First he slants. It is obvious slanting. And then the total off-the-wall BS I have ever heard. It remains and noone and noone does anything. I mean this boggles the imagination! I quote from a Wikipedia Classical republic and User:Pmanderson reverts and says Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Now, if this guy is this flippant---and you do nothing, Means I have nowhere to go but to explode.WHEELER 02:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a phrase in the UK, I do not know if you are familiar with it: "rising to the bait". If you are worried that you are being encouraged to get angry, the simplest way to defeat the tactic is to be polite and patient - either your opponents will get bored and go away, or it will become very obvious to all what's going on. If, on the other hand you do "rise to the bait", i.e. you do what they want you to do: throw accusations around (including accusations that you're being goaded), and use caps and bold, etc. then you will soon appear to everyone around to be the aggressor. No matter whether you've waited nine days or ninety.

It's not my place to debate the rights and wrongs between you and PMAnderson - not on this page, at any rate: I'm considering carefully what I can say on the talk page and what I can do with the article to try and resolve the issues. But do bear in mind that accusations of flippancy in response to a content submission you disagree with is bound to look disproportionate, and if anything is only going to ensure that "he can get away with it". --Nema Fakei 02:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.WHEELER 02:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh and by the way User:Work Permit @ List of republics just returned Pmanderson's edits of "archaizing", Sparta is a Monarchy and by inference saying the other meaning of the term "republic" is Monarchy and the Roman Empire is a Republic. You people deal with that. I am not. It is YOUR name "Wikipedia" that is going to be on that NOT mine! Let that stay and you will be assured to the be the laughingstock of some departments. Someone needs to talk with User Pmanderson because he may not have all his circuits wired correctly.WHEELER 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censored speech that other Wikipedians are not supposed to read[edit]

The following was deleted off the Wikipedia Policy page on June 18, 2007. Can't let the cat out of the bag.

(NB: it's not been deleted, it's just the discussion is closed, as the discussion belongs elsewhere. You can still view it here by clicking "show"--Nema Fakei 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

YOUR NPOV policy vs consensus[edit]

Hi, I, User:WHEELER was one of the early editors at Wikipedia. I was chased off awhile back. I came back on just to add Sparta as a republic at List of republics. I am constantly reverted. I have a ton of evidence! I posted all of it. But the last time I was one the biggest policy was NPOV but now I have come across another even greater policy "PER CONSENSUS". You state that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy---But in the bowells of Wikipedia--there is Clique that I must pass muster and no matter how much evidence-----------I am reverted! Consensus? How does a Monarchist, a traditionalist as myself, have "consensus" with Marxists? I can't edit the republic article because I am constantly reverted! I had my articleThe Spartan Republic published at Sparta a Journal. Yet, I post this, and the Clique will NOT allow Sparta on the list of republics. Why is that?

Furthermore, how can you have NPOV when a Consensus must approve of my edit? that is Illogical! What happened to verifiability and NPOV? You can't have NPOV AND consensus at the same time---that is illogical. I am glad I am at Wikinfo. I don't have to satisfy a clique of Marxists!!! WHEELER 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV? My ass! Consensus destroys NPOV.WHEELER 19:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONLY the POV of the clique is allowedWHEELER 19:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've posted this message at three locations already. The proper location to hold this discussion was at the article's talk page (where you did happen to post this also). I have replied there. Again, you are part of the consensus building process. There is no sense of consensus having to "approve" your edits, but that you must participate in a consensus building process if there are disagreements regarding a certain edit. Sancho 19:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I completely agree. Sometimes a cabal gets hold of an article and area and special interests can manipulate consensus evaluations. I'm not sure that there is a simple solution, but I'm glad that Wheeler shared the concern in the light of day. No easy answer. --Kevin Murray 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote another editor, this is systematic POV-pushing by a known purveyor of Original Research. Sparta was a monarchy; in fact, it had two kings at a time. This is a single-purpose account, pushing an obsolete definition of "republic" he found in a book published in 1824; it is being given due weight as the view of a tiny minority. I thank Kevin Murray for his care and his courteous retraction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT original research at all. I quoted Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. I quoted Paul A. Rahe who wrote a three volume study on Republics, Ancient and Modern. There are TWO definitions of republic Modern and Classical. There was a modus operandi, a consensus, many moons ago at Wikipedia between Kim Bruning and myself. The Moderns had their Republic article and I had Classical definition of republic. The link was in the inro to the Republic article. I was fine with this arrangement. Later on, Classical definiton of republic was voted off. And SimonP created like three different articles out of that Mixed government, Classical republics, Classical republicanism. Classical republics should be conjoined with mixed government or vice a versa.

I have not posted my opinions on republics but only from Rahe and Terence Ball. That is NOT original research. And according to original research, my paper, The Spartan Republic did get accepted to a Journal in England and is online. There is an academic advisor on board. And they did accept it.WHEELER 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHEELER's quotation from Ball says nothing about Sparta; I cannot comment further without a copy of the book in front of me. Rahe is a Carolina eccentric who believes, like John C. Calhoun, that the Constitutional Convention was a mistake. His views are, perhaps fortunately, still those of a tiny minority. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said yourself, "still those of a tiny minority" that means NPOV kicks in. The definition of a republic by Ball says, "A republic is mixed". That is what it says. It doesn't say anything about Sparta. I have classical reference books that state Sparta is a republic. And Cicero, who is a Roman Lawyer, said Sparta is a republic due to it being MIXED. You can't mistake that.WHEELER 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two things wrong with this quotation:

It is incomplete: What Ball actually says is that the Roman Republic was a mixed government, and that "A republic, then, was a form of popular government, but it was not meant to be a democracy."
It is out of context. Ball is summarizing the views of Polybius and Aristotle. He is not stating his own.

I see no profit to discussion with any editor who abuses his sources so badly, as WHEELER has always done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson expresses a majority viewpoint because academia, who are majority democrats and a lot of them socialists, do not speak or tell the truth. WHEELER 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is our policy to follow the consensus view, not WHEELER's claim of the Truth. Hire a blog. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said I was open to negotiation at the Talk:Republic page. I am very open to negotiation. I placed my references. They were deleted.

I ask with references being deleted why verifiability? Everything I post is with references. That doesn't seem to matter at all.WHEELER 21:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting a little more PISSED OFF[edit]

You talk of consensus. I am on Talk:List of republics. I have refuted every argument, and placed copious amounts of references. Just now, I go back and User:Pmanderson has just reverted and added his own stuff. I have the quotes. Paul A. Rahe said Sparta IS a republic. Where is the discussion? THERE IS NO discussion on the talk page. Pmanderson refuses to acknowledge references! I am not leaving. Sparta is a republic and IT WILL BE PLACED on that page! NPOV is the WP policy! Who is going to enforce NPOV over the clique that guards those articles.! He even deleted the references. Sparta and Crete had the only references on that page---and User:Pmanderson erases it all. What's up Wikipedia? What is going on Wikipedia?WHEELER 21:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the negotiation?WHEELER 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, there hasn't been any discussion. I will ask Pmanderson to join discussion at the article's talk page. Sancho 21:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was happening above... sorry. I got confused. I started a section in the article's talk page that you two can hopefully use together to come to an agreement. Sancho 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. Sancho for starting negotiations. I am at Talk:Republic.WHEELER 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question on consensus and other policies[edit]

This was transferred from my user talk page.

I think you've missed something here; perhaps I can explain. Wikipedia's policy of consensus does not override other policies, it's how those other policies work. It is through a consensus that phrasing is accepted as NPOV, it is by consensus that we judge whether references are relevant and useful where there is uncertainty. If we did not seek consensus, every single person would simply battle away with their own personal view of the One NPOV Truth, and we would be left with permanent edit wars and incoherent, contradictory articles. Hope this makes sense. --Nema Fakei 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the definition of NPOV when I started at Wikipedia. NPOV meant that ALL AND ANY information is included. I thought NPOV is about inclusion of both sides. I have a reference that says A. And another one that says B. Both are included.

See Nema Fakei, your answer sets me up for it says that User:Pmanderson can just disqualify any and all references I make. This is what he has done. He doesn't accept NOTHING. Your answer Nema Fakei backs up User Pmanderson to stall, obfuscate and DISCOUNT EACH and every reference I have. This is what consensus means is that a whole majority can sit there and deny and deny freely and by doing so censor opposing viewpoints. Your consensus nullifies any reference I make and so negates NPOV. This is how you get around NPOV. IT is called gaming the system and that is exactly what your friend Pmanderson is doing.WHEELER 01:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had reference upon reference that backed each other up and he deletes it. Pmanderson refers to I. M. Finley who calles Muller's research a "Thousand page fantasia". Now, Muller is critical of democracy and is a promoter of Aristocracy. I read his book--It is fantastic. Werner Jaeger, the German classicist who wrote the magesterial Paideia quotes him. I. M Finley is a Communist and a member of the Frankfurt School. Just because this Commie belittles a book, gives the right to User:Pmanderson to discount every reference from Mr. Muller. This is consensus. On references to Paul A. Rahe. User:Pmanderson says Rahe is an eccentric, so the Consensus says--we discount him. By attacking all my references, the clique in control, "This secret consensus", can discredit every single reference I have! This is now Wikipedia Policy! I have had enough of this BS.WHEELER 01:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried explaining this on the policy page a long time ago. What happened with the Classical definition of republic is that a whole bunch of British (modern) republicans ganged up and voted that off! FACT: over some 80% of all American faculty of colleges and universities ARE democrats and especially Socialists. Socialists do manipulate language and learning to further their ideology! That is a Fact. With a majority who are democrats and socialists teaching a majority of people----Me and people like me, Old School, traditionalists, Monarchists---are shit out of luck. With your """consensus""" you ensure that we are marginalized and censored. But that is the whole point of WHO CREATED THE Consensus Policy at Wikipedia!WHEELER 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of how "Consensus" regarding References is concerned, Please check out Talk:List of republics where every source I referenced was pooh-hooed, degraded, attacked and villified. Muller wrote a "thousand Page fantasia". (each page has anywhere from 1 to eight references. Greek words that exist in NO other scholarly book and Muller wrote a Thousand page fantasia). Next, Paul A. Rahe, is an eccentric. (Massive footnoting, Three Volumes and the man is an eccentric).

The Consensus Policy At Wikipedia is forced upon "reference" and "sources". So that if you are a conservative and a traditionalist your references---are NO good.

Here I have Reference A that says.... WP: That is NO good he is a rightwing nutjob--don't accept source.

I have here reference B that backs up Reference A.... WP: That is no good either--he's eccentric

I have source C that says.... WP: Again, he is off in left field, That source is disqualified.

What "Consensus for Sources" does is nip off NPOV at the start! You can't get off the ground. Consensus for sources and references let's the majority negate and silence the minority right off the bat. No Thank you. In all my history at Wikipedia Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn was constantly attacked and if I placed him anywhere, it was soon erased. That is consensus for you.WHEELER 00:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Sorry if I didn't make it clear at the Republic talk page that I was only giving you suggestions to help you make your discussion more likely to attract the help of admins. I didn't mean for it to come across as an ass chewing as you put it. I even included language that the other party used as one of the reasons that I didn't want to participate further in that discussion. I also didn't like when you said "all of you should be ridiculed". I took that as a personal attack. It makes me feel like my efforts have not been appreciated. It is also another example of the language that will chase away otherwise helpful administrators. I would have continued to be helpful had the tone of your edits not taken such a surprising turn. Sancho 06:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Civility Warning[edit]

This is a warning. After re-reading your post at the Republic talk page, it does seem necessary to warn you that continuing in this manner will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia for violation of Wikipedia:Civility. You say, "I am not amongst men of virtue NOR am I among men who love truth"... remember also to assume good faith. You also talk about the desire to be amongst men... Wikipedia does allow women to edit and you should expect to deal with both genders. Your characterization of effeminate men as requiring ridicule is also unacceptable. My apology above stands, since it might have been my ineffective communication that led you feel that you were being attacked, but regardless, your reply was not appropriate. Sancho 06:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Res divina[edit]

Hello. Thought I'd let you know that Res divina has been prodded as a dicdef. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that. Do you have any information on the subject. I am going to do research on it by internet and see if I can't drudge something up. Maybe it is valid. Maybe it is not. But I have always been taught that "Res Divina" was part of the Roman constitution.WHEELER 04:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of it, but I ran it thru JSTOR. J. Den Boeft. "Some Etymologies in Augustine's De Civitate Dei X" Vigiliae Christianae 1979 p. 249-250 talks about it, but it's not my field, so I'm having trouble understanding the significance and context. Other J-STOR hits were Latin text (I don't read Latin). NickelShoe (Talk) 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Latin either. But awhile back in my high school days. I read an article about the Rome and the Roman Consitution. From what I remember, it said that Roman Law was divided between res divina and res publica. Roman officials had to do religious ceremonies, sacrifices, conduct and lead festivals; it was all about state functions that concerned religion.WHEELER 22:00, 26 June 2007 (UT

TC)

Interlibrary loan[edit]

Try it; it's a wonderful thing, and relatively cheap. I would expect most of Theodor Mommsen's work to be on the web, also, and there are worse places to begin. Michael Grant's innumerable works are a reasonable place to begin; your public library may already have them, and he usually has bibliographies. Paul Cartledge's The Spartans is a good book, and current.

On a different level, the Cambridge Ancient History approaches the current consensus; you will want vols. 4-6 on Greece, and 9 and 10 on Rome, of the third edition. [2]POIqD_H&SEQ=20070627122913&SID=8 catalog listing]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, I will certianly look them up and do some reading. Thanks for the direction.WHEELER 22:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I don't edit on WP anymore[edit]

You know Nema Fakei, you asked why I don't contribute at Wikipedia---I'll tell you why. I created the article res divina, then it goes up for immediate deletion by Pmanderson. Then when only ONE link shows up I go around and place it in other articles where it belongs. And this from Pmanderson:

(cur) (last) 02:00, 2 July 2007 Pmanderson (Talk | contribs) (28,729 bytes) (remove tendentious irrelevance) (cur) (last) 21:02, 1 July 2007 WHEELER (Talk | contribs) (28,992 bytes) (added res divina)

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE STUPID GAMES AT WIKIPEDIA WHERE THIS GUY GOES AROUND AND WHERE I EDIT HE DELETES! I am sick of the BS here at Wikipedia and there is your f#&%&# evidence why I don't contribute to this piece of crap called Wikipedia!!!! He goes to my contrib list and then undoes everything I do. WHEELER 01:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't so much asking you why you weren't making edits about constitutional politics (which can be a rather controversial) as why you didn't seem to be interested in improving the more verifiable and objective factual content on WP. At the moment, you appear to have quite a difficult battle to fight, from which you stand to gain little - at best you'll succeed in making an esoteric political point. It seems more logical to fight the more demonstrable holes in WP - if you can take a stub (preferably avoiding a tricky sociological one), give it shape and content (not all of it has to be referenced to begin with, other people who have references to hand can furnish citations once the article gets rolling), then not only will you improve WP and it's treatment of the ancient Greek/Roman world, not only will others look upon you with less suspicion, but your edits are more likely to stay (they'll be built on, of course, but they hopefully won't be reverted). It seems that battle is easier to win, and provides richer rewards.

If you don't like PMAnderson's edits, going through the dispute resolution process is going to get you a heck of a lot further than angrily denouncing him on talk pages (which is more likely to get you banned than him, but we've had this discussion before).--Nema Fakei 02:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I place links of res divina on the proper pages in hopes that some other Wikipedian with a Classical Roman knowledge could see it and then work on it!!! With Pmanderson running around deleting everything I do, the article will NOT be seen, nor worked on. But maybe that is why Pmanderson deleted it! More Childishness!WHEELER 11:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, seriously, you're doing yourself no favours by shouting your head off here. It's not been deleted at all, he prodded it and the prod notice is now gone. --Nema Fakei 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, Seriously, the article Synoecism was created by me. It is central to understanding the creation of democracy. Six months ago, I checked to were it was linked to----nothing but talk pages. I put it on the Athenian democracy, it gets deleted. It took me several tries before it stuck and now I look it is completely deleted again! It only is linked to two articles when I think it should be linked in 10 or more articles! I know what goes on around here, everything is Pro-democracy and anything deragatory gets Dynamic silenced around here. I try to put links in other articles for res divina and it gets the same treatment as synoecism. I know what goes on around here and Truth ain't one of them!WHEELER 23:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... Synoecism was created by this anon user: [3] (was that you?), and still exists. PMA's one edit to the thing was here: [4]. In Athenian Democracy, you were reverted, but not initially by him. He then tried to incorporate synoecism into the text with a compromise edit [5], but despite this, you then tried to insist on adding the link in twice for some reason, suggesting (incorrectly) the link had been removed in your edit summary [6]. PMA reverted this edit, as it was superflous. If there are few links to Synoecism, that's certainly not the fault of PMAnderson.

WHEELER, making accusations that are demonstrably false from the diffs - and, bear in mind I'm assuming you're still just misunderstanding and misremembering rather than making it up - doesn't exactly inspire confidence in you as a source of Truth (or a good user of sources!). Have a look back over those diffs, and perhaps you'll understand why PMA may feel frustrated by this point. Perhaps you should refrain from making any more careless claims before you've thoroughly researched your material, it seems to be a recurring problem for you. --Nema Fakei 00:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration[edit]

Hello, I've decided it's time to ask the Arbitration Committee to help out with the problems around articles such as List of republics, which you've been involved in editing or discussing. There's an opportunity for you to add your comment on whether the case should be heard by the ArbCom, and they'll decide if they want to take it up. --Nema Fakei 23:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

WHEELER, Do you believe the ArbCom has grounds to act against any of myself, PMAnderson, SimonP, or others? If so, I suggest you put forward under the "Findings of fact" a proposal about our conduct (NB: remember the ArbCom doesn't rule on content). I've tried to do one for you - but I'd very much appreciate it if you'd tell me if it's among the things you're trying to say. Then, once we get to that stage, you'll want to propose some remedies that you think will solve the problems you have highlighted. If you want to persuade anyone - the ArbCom in particular - of anything, your time would be best spent engaging constructively with the process. --Nema Fakei 19:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. My argument is content. consensus kills NPOV. or the consensus they think that it is kills NPOV.WHEELER 01:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we have been claiming consensus abusively, which I don't think we have, ArbCom will listen to evidence of it; but it is Wikipedia's practice that consensus decides how policy applies to a given set of facts. You could propose a change to that practice, probably at WP:CONSENSUS, or you could appeal to a wider consensus to defeat the three of us (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; but ArbCom is unlikely to enforce your argument. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could perhaps start by mentioning consensus or NPOV in a proposal. At the moment, the only proposals (bar your most receny) you have are criticisms of article contents and demands for restructuring them according to your wishes: you surely know that an ArbCom case is the wrong place to make suggestions like these - you're giving them no choice but to refuse. I also see you're now essentially asking for a ban. Well, if that's how you feel, it's not my place to stop you. But if any of this is bluff or bluster, if you actually do want to be able to edit WP articles, I suggest you change your tack, make some sensible, relevant proposals that the ArbCom has some chance of saying yes to, and maybe providing a bit of evidence while you're at it would be good. And even then, I can't guarantee you'll convince ArbCom you're seriously interested and able to improve Wikipedia. But it's up to you. --Nema Fakei 01:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles vs Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Hi WHEELER, I noticed that you seem to have confused these two sections in multiple places on the workshop page, so rather than mentioning this to you there at every instance, I thought it would be better to just talk to you here. The section on "Proposed principles" are just statements of principle that we can discuss and that the Arbitration Committee will either vote "for" or "against". They are separate from findings of fact that anyone has violated these principles, so it doesn't really make sense to make a defense for yourself in the "Proposed principles" section. If you agree or disagree with a principle, that would be the place to say so. This is very different from the "Proposed findings of fact" section that does get very specific regarding which editor did what. That would be the place to make your disagreement with statements specific to you. It might actually help the workshop if you moved your comments that are in the "wrong section" (proposed principles) into an appropriate subsection in the "proposed findings of fact" section. Sancho 07:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics[edit]

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. WHEELER is banned for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are now unbanned[edit]

Universal Cereal Bus ♫♪ 16:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I've removed you from the list of banned users. - Face 21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sure has! Welcome back. Are you going to continue contributing? - Face 18:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am doing very little editing at Wikinfo and that is because I don't have much time. Work is all time consuming. Second, I am afraid that the same thing will happen to me if I edit here--bull baiting. They will pester and pester until they break me so they can ban me and and then delete my user page en toto. I don't think I can control my anger with the bias going on here.WHEELER (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you realise that you have difficulties controlling your anger on Wikipedia, already sounds pretty mature to me. Well, whatever you are going to do, I wish you luck. Cheers, Face 23:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done wheeler, I'm surprised that anyone would have had the patience to wait out the whole year o edit again. PXK ^T /_C 19:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. WHEELER (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gehlen[edit]

nice job

Advice[edit]

You may be right about many things, but you shouldn't express your emotions. Also, you must write by using correct spelling and grammar. Wikipedia is mostly populated by juveniles who were raised on television, video games, and action movies. You can't convince them. Best wishes.Lestrade (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Effeminacy.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Effeminacy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Kelly ^hi! 20:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kadmi Cohen[edit]

The article Kadmi Cohen has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kamkek (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be joking, right? Kadmi Cohen is not a living person as far as I can tell! Aren't the books that he has written sufficient evidence of an historical person. (Oh, god, how I hate wikipedia).WHEELER (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WHEELER. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Problem at Talk Sparta.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joel Barlow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmopolitan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, changed it.WHEELER (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining[edit]

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Novalis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

He was a [[freemason]].<ref>Önnerfors, Andreas (2008) "[https://www.academia.edu/199283/The_Cosmopolitan_Foundations_of_Freemasonry The Cosmopolitan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmot Robertson[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wilmot Robertson, and it appears to include material copied directly from en.metapedia.org/wiki/Wilmot_Robertson.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article b/c it is a copyright infringement. Metapedia does not set forth a reliable copyright policy so their works can't be copied here. In addition, the article had other issues with notability and reliable sources info which likely would have also caused its deletion. --SouthernNights (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, WHEELER. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, WHEELER. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Malakia for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Malakia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malakia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malakia. No one else but me (the nominator) has... :-) — Iadmc ♫^talk 21:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of former Nazi Party members for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of former Nazi Party members is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Nazi Party members until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, WHEELER. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, WHEELER. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GirthSummit _(blether) 17:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your self-published research is not the sort of reliable source that could support any content on any Wikipedia article. Please don't add links to it on talk pages. Please also refrain from attempting to get around edit filters. You may wish to read our policy on original research. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Nothing like censorship. So if our Marxist Journals don't accept any new information contrary to Groupthink and Marxist agitprop---it's not allowed. So, Mr. Girth--how does one change information around here. I'm publishing samizdat. It's not original research. It is what Jewish Messianism teaches. How is that "original"?WHEELER (talk)

Wikipedia is such a welcoming place. Talk pages Immediately reverted--then bullied by Wikipedia admin. Wow what a great place. WHEELER (talk)

Girth Summit reverted it before I could. I paused to look at your user page before I did, as I noticed that you have been around here longer than I have and a mere tempating would be inappropriate.

I noticed on your user page (before Girth deleted it) that you identify as a race realist, which is a redirect to scientific racism. How do you square those beliefs with the essay Wikipedia:No Nazis? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, I've blocked WHEELER upon more detailed review of their recent contributions, which for several years have almost all been accretions to their userpage, which seemed to be a collection of self-publicity and anti-semitic WP:POLEMIC. I do not believe that they are compatible with this project. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, I agree. I was thinking about taking him to AN/I, but from a closer inspection I agree that wasn't necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of User:WHEELER[edit]

The page User:WHEELER has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WHEELER (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"""I'm not here to build an encyclopaedia----everytime I try to edit something it is automatically reverted. So what am I supposed to do? I edited a page on the University Ann Arbor page about the Platsis symposium ---it was immediately reverted. Why edit anything. Today, I did NOT edit an article but went to the Talk Page to Talk of about changing the Representative Steven King's page that "white genocide is not a conspiracy theory". It is not. It is happening now. it is called Ethnic Dilution---that is going on here in America. That's true. I posted research on it. It was done in the Soviet Union. And to have that reverted on a talk page? Really. This is NONSENSE. And I'm a Catholic Monarchist speaking on 2500 years of Western Culture---and so tell me Western Culture and 2000 years of Catholic teaching is Now Nazi???? Please unblock me and restore my page. Wheeler

Decline reason:

Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy of racial supremacy. You were blocked for a year 14 years ago for the same thing. Until now you've remained under the radar - no longer. Acroterion (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Category:Virtue has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Virtue has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]