Tillwe

Hello there Tillwe, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice work on the Germany/Green party-related articles. I WikiFormated some of them for you to serve as style examples. Cheers! --maveric149

Thank you for your work on gender identity disorder. I copy-edited your version, trying not to alter the meaning of what you wrote. --Ed Poor

I addded the link to positivism, because the name of Auguste Comte is often associated to it. He is even said to be the founder of this philosophical movement. A Google search "Auguste Comte positivism" returns more than 3,000 hits. For instance: http://www.erraticimpact.com/~19thcentury/html/comte.htm

This being said, I am not an expert, and would not be able to write anything interesting about this theory. I am not even sure if the Logical positivism to which positivism redirects at the moment is the same concept or if it has any connection with Comte's theory. Maybe there is a misuse in English of "positivism" instead of "positive philosophy", but his concept is definitely called "positivisme" in French.

So, to answer your question, I would believe that the word "positivism" has its place in an article about Comte, but I would leave the final answer to an expert. -olivier 13:46 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Please do not put back my deleted links to Finishing school because they are advertisements and do not belong here. Based on the number of hits, I suspect something is up with this site....DW

Thanks for slashing all that drivel out of sociology. The entry is much too short now, but at least it's not full of disinformation. Much better. Tannin 20:45 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Please date your entries on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention -- Tim Starling 23:58 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Tillwe, thanks for your contribution to the Iraq Body Count project and your thoughtful comments on the talk page. I'm not sure of my own objectivity, so I probably should stop editing the page for a while. You go ahead, please ^_^ --Uncle Ed 01:29 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

You keep changing links from "Bundestag" to "Bundestag of Germany". But that is a redirect to Bundestag. djmutex 21:48 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I know (and now it's only a redirect, before it was a redirect via Federal Assembly or something). I'm not sure if their are other german language parliaments called Bundestag (and I'm sure their are different Bundesräte), so I thought it would be better to give a more qualified link. -- till we *) 21:55 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Talk:Politics of Germany this week, after which we moved the "Federal Assembly/Council of Germany" stuff to Bundestag and Bundesrat (Germany), respectively. There are several Bundesrats (see the disambig at Bundesrat), but so far nobody has pointed out another Bundestag. Anyway, changing links to point to a redirect is not a good idea. djmutex 22:02 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I half-remembered that discussion and didn't check, wondered that Bundestag (Germany) didn't work, looked for possible ambiguation sites, found Bundestag of Germany, was happy and linked to that -- not a good move, as I see now. Sorry for that. -- till we *) 22:12 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I just figured I'd drop you a note before you changed all the 230 links. :-) djmutex

Hi there,

please merge informational society with the already existing information society. Thanks. --Eloquence 12:48 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm, but Castells speaks explicitly of informational society ... I'll try. till we *) 13:06 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"(del NPOV)" - don't you mean "del POV"? NPOV is a good thing. :) --mav 01:47 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the Jan Ullrich article. Rmhermen 17:10, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You act like formating isn't important. It is, the formating needs to be consistent. If you are going to remove line breaks in one section, you should remove them in all. Don't be biased in your formating. Second, I fixed 2 or 3 wiki-links, and rather than fixing them again, it should be your responsibility to fix them since you keep insisting on you POV order. I'll be away for the weekend. Don't get out of hand with you POV changes. ミハエル (MB) 22:16, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, you said "other than the paragraph breaks" so I assumed you meant the line breaks that were in each of the sections. As far as links go, you missed the link for Grange that I changed (it was linking to a non-existent article). Additionally, you said to another user that "I don't believe in solutions thru edit wars", and "wait for Kats new summarisation to continue the rational debate." Then, you went and changed the article back. This was very immature of you, and showed that you didn't even mean a word of you had just said. Therefore, I reverted. I'll be gone for the weekend, I'm leaving right now. Hopefully things will be calmed down when I get back. ミハエル (MB) 22:30, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

I really like your responses to the author on Talk:Islamofascism. Uyanga 13:05, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Me too. EofT

You know that with your stated opinion on the countries as above (from invading Syria and Brasil to destabilzing France) it is highly inprobable that you will be able to make NPOV edits on relevante country entries? -- till we *) 18:29, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

You do not think that America ought to invade all those countries at the top of the list? Question: who was Neville Chamberlain? JoeM

Re the answer on my talk page: yes, I'm a pacifist, mostly, and for invading countries (off-list or on-list), at least there should exist an UN mandate (as it was the case with Afghanistan, and as it wasn't the case with Iraq). To think the USA should do unilateraly in world politics what it think it's right is an big mistake, in my opinion. World peace and global human development won't come to existance with unilateral self-nominated world police officers like Bush, only with multilateral international and transnational organizations. Oh, and re Neville Chamberlain -- yes, Wikipedia told me a lot about him, and especially about his politics re Nazi germany. Maybe you should read the Chamberlain entry, too, because maybe, just maybe, it won't fit in your opinions. (Nice from me to give you lot's of hints what you should try to edit, too, isn't it?). -- till we *) 18:42, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

If it we not for liberals like you who appease evil, then communism would not have been able to slaughter hundreds of millions, like it is doing right now in Red China. If you had your way, Saddam would still be digging those mass graves too. JoeM

Ok goodie! A political debate! I guess I'll barge in...

Why should a UN mandate be required for military action? The suggestion that the UN is some sort of moral arbiter is an absolute discrace. How is the disapproval of France, Russia and Red China somehow supposed to make US military intervention immoral and illegitimate? France, which last year sent thousands of paratroopers - without UN authorization - to the Ivory Coast to intervene in a civil war there was therefore being "immoral and illegitimate." Russia, which twice in the last decade invaded Chechnya, flattening the capital city Grozny and killing tens of thousands was therefore being "immoral and illegitimate." Red China, which is responsible for genocide in Tibet, and whose rulers are heirs to Mao?s empire built with the bones of 60 million dead Chinese was therefore being "immoral and illegitimate."

As it is, the UN simply serves the political agendas of its members. So was Kosovo wrong because Russia would have vetoed any resolution? And is invading Taiwan right because the PRC keeps blocking the ROC's membership? UN resolutions ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Why tie your own hands when other countries dont tie theirs?

--Jiang 20:16, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My goal is a peaceful world that is organized in a way to ensure peace, freedom and democracy. Thinking realpolitics, the UN suits this goal better (not really good, but better), than an unilateral U.S. superpower gone world policist. So, if you want to tie every hand, you should tie yours, too. UN resolutions aren't my utopia -- but they are the best we can get at the moment in global politics. And we should make the UN better, stronger, more democratic. That's my reasoning behind that argument. -- till we *) 20:53, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Reform first, give it authority after. It's not a good idea to allow 5 arbitary nations (and their allies) to be shielded from censure or rebuke just because they hold the veto. Until the UN is reformed, it should not be regarded as highly. Unfortunately, tying your hands will not persuade others to volunarily tie theirs. --Jiang 21:04, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Both at the same time, although leading to better and worse kinds of compromises. Tie one hand of yours and one of the other, play along a bit and let others play to. Seems to me not a very golden way, but the only one leading to something resembling progress in international matters (e.g., the International Court of Justice). -- till we *) 21:09, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Just one more point -- isn't it contradicting to say that one wants every country invaded that democratically elects someone more left than a Republican (e.g. Brazil), on the one hand, and to express anger and sadness about the loss of democratic rights in countries like China, on the other hand? I'm a bit confused about your political point -- is it freedom and democracy for everybody, with the help of a strong US military, or is it a mild dictatorship by the US military, unless they democratically elect whom the US likes? -- till we *) 18:59, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

No, there's a difference between some liberals like the Democrats in America (like Joe Liberman, who's okay) and watered-down communists like that trade unionist in Brazil, who is collaborating with that landless movement seizing private property (isn't that how all communist tyrannies start?) For instance, Tony Blair has a great sense of moral clarity, although I don't care for his domestic policies that would be considered ultra-liberal here in America. France, in contrast, has a leader who is a rightwinger on their spectrum who appeases evil like another conservative: Neville Chamberlain. Moral clarity is not a partisan matter. JoeM

George W. Bush actually met Lula da Silva (Brazilian President) and didn't seem angry about the fact that Lula da Silva expressed a different oppinion about the War in Iraq. Maybe you should learn with your own president.

Here's an article for you with good ideas for US foreign policy:

The Case for American Empire The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role. by Max Boot http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/boot.htm

JoeM

I still see no morale point in agressive unilateral imperialism. But maybe you want to read American Empire and terrorism. -- till we *) 19:23, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

Discussing with this JoeM person is just a waste of time IMO. I mean, he is saying, that half of the world has to be invaded or destabilized. This is exactly the level of American ultra-nationalist arrogance, which I was so glad NOT to find on Wikipedia at all. I hope very much, that this person will be either banned from Wikipedia or leave the place voluntarily. Those extremists can never be made NPOV editors, and arguments are absolutely useless in their case. Just my 2 cents. -- Cordyph 22:02, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

JoeM is a classic American fascist - ignores all collaboration between the state and the corporations who produce the products he reveres. Fascists are quite common in both major parties, although the Democratic Party variety pretends to be nice while actually continuing to support the same policies as the Republicans. I would ignore him. We do however need better organization to deal with Wikipedia:troll war, which many such characters tend to bring on simply by being what they are. Rather than paying attention to User:JoeM it would be better to help us work out policies to deal with "invasions" by "legions" of them. EofT

Thank You for your contribution on the page i've been working on for the past 3 days. -- vertical12318 aug 03

Hello! Is it my browser or the software bug? My table is right below your table, and together it becomes a unreasonably long table!!! Do you know how I can start a new section under your table? wshun 00:25, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I know that this site is a bastion of far-left antiamericanism, so people call me extreme for favoring regime change in countries like China and Brazil. You seem reasonable, so let me give you a few articles laying out the case for regime change in Brazil. Right now, we have a terrorist-supporting, far-left, Communist Axis of Evil in America's own back yard. These nations constitute an Axis of Evil: Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, and Ecuador.

Responding to your comments, I don't care if Bush met with that fat Brazilian Marxist. Our commander in chief's foreign policy on Latin America frankly lacks the moral clarity of his Mid East foreign policy. This is not because he lacks moral clarity, but perhaps because his advisors are ill-informed. But some here in America know exactly what is going on and why it has to be stopped before its evil claims as many victims as Chinese Communism and Soviet Communism.

These articles lay out the case for a regime change in Brazil and pre-emptive action, supported especially the Cuban Americans, who have been subject to the evil horrors of Communism themselves in that giant gulag called Cuba. Read these three articles well and you will probably support regime change in Brazil. Though let me note, regime change doesn't have to be through an invasion. It can be like the regime change that saved Chile from Communist tyranny and gave them prosperity through trusting the market, which always works.

http://www.conservativetruth.org/archives/guest/dpyne-10-06-02.shtml http://www.mere-christianity.org/policy/Defense/MarsistII.htm http://www.canfnet.org/News/021213newsc.htm JoeM

Heh. Well, capitalism is fundamentally backward-looking like philosophy or economics, so any amount of fiddling in those fields will end up claiming that capitalism is rational and ideal. It justifies holding of property by those who were able to hold it and exploit it in the past. Socialism is fundamentally forward-looking like theology or sociology, and assumes optimistically that there is a better distribution of power to use capital (economics) than the historical allocation of it to rapists, thieves, killers "settlers" and such, who stole it successfully in the past. It usually takes a lot of abuse by capitalists before socialism becomes attractive, as it did in some of those countries. Most of this abuse includes not actually "trusting the market", but, altering its inputs, to claim/steal land that was in the public commons, achieve pollution credit, manipulate legal codes with a clique of expensive lawyers, and of course, get access to debt funding via their banker friends, and resist all accounting reform and monetary reform that might actually make their abuses "not profitable". One solution to this is a bloody revolution where all who own anything are slaughtered. This is inefficient. Much better to simply... well never mind. EofT 04:04, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, you cast a vote in the TEMP5 debate. The Temp5 proposal was voted down by 61.3% to 38.6%. We seem to be going around in circles on the whole issue of the main page. A new vote is now taking place to clarify what exactly we want, namely

1. Do we actually want to have a new page?
2. If so when (immediately, after a pause, timed to the press release, etc)?
3. What do people want on the front page and what do they want excluded?

As of now, the whole issue seems surrounded by complete confusion. This way, finally and definitively, we will know what we want and when we want it. So do please express your opinions. The vote is on the same page as the previous votes. FearÉIREANN 20:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, any reason to change "fraction" to "faction" on Green Party faction (Bundestag)? I originally used "faction" myself, but was told that "fraction" is a translation that's used more often. -- Schnee 22:24, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The articles title was Green party faction (as the main article, IIRC), and so I thought it would be best if it's consistent throughout the entry. Maybe I'm a bit biased, but in political-science-texts I until now only have seen faction, not fraction. But either way, it should be the same for all occurences. What do you think? -- till we *) 10:36, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Either's fine with me - I was just wondering. :) -- Schnee 12:46, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

faction (politics) and tendency (politics) belong on the list of ethics topics. I think both were there last I checked. EofT

Thanks for helping take up the Kawohl fight: the text he's been posting, he's posted to numerous other boards around the Internet (according to a brief Google I did), frequently followed by people saying "what the heck is this OT garbage?" Jwrosenzweig 16:56, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good work on the many green politics articles by the way. I left some comments at Talk:list of Green party issues regarding a way to proceed. EofT

I'd like to suggest some other areas of Green-related chaos that need work. Political economy and political ecology need a closer relationship, that is, the latter should be mentioned on the former. Likewise, green economics could explain how value of life and value of Earth fit in - and for that matter simultaneous policy, consumerism, productivism. There are missing articles linked in urban economics including I think Fordism (another name for productivism?) which is used by both Alain Lipietz and Brian Milani, the latter possibly the foremost green micro-economist. And, there is a question of finding the right examples of real policies corresponding to the Ten Key Values, and, finding text that can be used to describe them that is both authentic and quotable without problems. I think a list of global policy issues could also be well timed about now. If you can't work on all these things, by all means, recruit others to help out. EofT 03:41, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You might also dig on http://disinfopedia.org and http://consumerium.org for topics of interest. There are some things better covered there than here, oddly.

Given your conversation with User:JoeM, you may be interested in helping to improve common sense conservative.

Hi,

I'm coming around to your view regarding section editing. I'll probably either alter the behavior or offer two options (maybe we can unclutter the [edit] links somewhat as well, perhaps by putting two small buttons under each headline instead).—Eloquence 14:49, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

--- Social Theory vs Critical theory

While critical theorists may be thought of as a subset of social theorists, I would not collapse the two. If that's correct, then the Frankfurt school probably does not belong as a "see also" to the section on social theory, but lord know that section needs some work.

Lunchboxhero

Hi, do you think that it is acceptable to link Breisgau from eg. the Faust article to Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald? Thanks, snoyes 20:06, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! --snoyes 21:11, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hello. Please note what you have done to the 'political parties by name' section of List of political parties - all of the links there now go to disambiguation pages, except for Green Party. I trust you plan to fix this somehow. Morwen 23:31, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Till. I've been trying to figure out what you merged into Worldwide green parties and what you took out, but it is rather confusing -- would you mind explaining/summarizing at Talk:Worldwide_green_parties? What's on the talk page isn't clear to me and doen't answer the question that someone posed. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I see you've done some useful editing on Sociology and associated pages. Someone has just put up pages on upper class, middle class and low class that are (a) sorry stubs and (b) drivel. They need replacing with something that gives a proper technical definition in sociological terms. I could have a go, but it isn't really my area of expertise - would you like to give it a shot? seglea 06:22, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

thanks for putting in the redirects. That is a good solution (and the social class article is not bad considering the difficulty of getting consensus in this area). seglea 07:06, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please see Talk:American twenty dollar bill. You get this invitation because your name appears in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (US vs American). Feel free to ignore if you are disinterested. - Optim 05:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are nominated. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. You have to go there to accept the nomination. -- Kaihsu 20:22, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

Hi,

It looks like you might be the ideal person (if you could remain objective ;-) ) to conduct a sociological study of how power is wielded in the Wikipedia domain. You might look at the struggles over Race and DNA. Sometimes it seems impossible to get anything done when one person wants to play the spoiler. Even when everybody is basically well intentioned, sometimes it seems to take forever to straighten out some kink in thinking on some issue. P0M 03:40, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations. You are now an admin. Please review the administrators' reading list and keep up the good work! Kingturtle 08:08, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey there, I changed your notice from vfd to delete during an edit conflict - hope that's ok ;) Mark Richards 20:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not fussed either way, they looked like nonsense to me, candidates for immediate deletion, but as long as someone noticed them and deals with them, I don't mind - just wanted to let you know what I'd done! Thanks, Mark Richards 20:41, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You expressed interest in the front page layout on Talk:Main page. Could you please vote in the poll there? Thanks, silsor 07:24, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest making anything longer than one line part of the article itself rather than a disambiguation header. The info should be incorporated into the first paragraph of the article. I read the disambig and get really confused. I can't really tell what it's aiming at. --Jiang 19:23, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've for long (a year, actually) been itched by the way Wikipedia-links are done with often sloppy distinctions between nationality, citizenship and ethnicity (with regard to persons) and also between nations and countries. This is particularly obvious in the case of people or entities that are denoted as German. A link to the Federal Republic of Germany is often outright unhistorical and wrong, but this has until now been the most usual.

That's why I'm considering an article on Germans, which I've started at the temporary location User:Ruhrjung/Germans. I would wish to avoid too much of edit wars after having started to link to the article. In particular, I would not wish to see the current disputes over German-Polish matters automatically extend also to this article, why I kindly ask you for comments now, in advance, in order to try to find wordings acceptable to as many as possible of concerned wikipedians.

I look forward to your comments at User talk:Ruhrjung/Germans.
--Ruhrjung 00:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls on meta. Thanks. Perl 20:38, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry for such a vague comment, it was made mainly out of annoyance which should have been directed towards trollkein but was instead directed towards you after you opposed his nomination of me. You inadvertently, I now suspect, participated in the vote called by Trollkein. I did not want to be listed there so please do not get the wrong impression (such as me being obsessed with becoming a developer) I already am an administrator on meta and wikibooks and I am sorry that I made you feel cheated in my attempts at gaining anonimity. I didn't know I would have that effect on peoeple but now that I do I will refrain from repeating my past mistakes. I am sorry that I made the comment that I did on your talkpage. This Trollkein is becoming a real problem on meta, however. I am also sorry that I got mad at you as I can understand why you opposed that nomination. (that is why I didn't want to be listed there). Perl 20:56, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tillwe,

I have not yet had the chance to get to know you more, but thank you nevertheless for the trust you gave me by giving me your vote for Steward. I feel very honored.

If you ever see me doing something you disagree, please let me know. I always want to learn, to improve.

Thanks a lot :-) Fantasy 20:02, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tillwe. Thanks for the steward support as well :-) I was warmed up :-) Yes, I know, I never made it to the green parties article :-( I just do not feel that way these days. Instead, I decided to quietly edit the biodiversity article till it is good :-) That is easier to me :-( SweetLittleFluffyThing

Yeah, the msg:PoliticsGermany is my attempt at copying Template:PoliticsUK. I did the same for Politics of the United States, and I have some disgruntled people there. - The Bundesadler is an official state symbol and probably not the worst thing on earth to have above a series on German politics. I can see that it messes the pages up a bit. I have a solution you might be more happy with (but I might need a day or two before I have time to implement it), which is to leave a top box on the main Politics of Germany page and to have boxes at the bottom of all the page linked to. That way we can avoid cluttering, and the Politics of xxx pages have something at the top, describing how the governmental systems are structured (which is good, because currently no Politics of xxx pages have pictures). I guess that means the box should perhaps be restructured according to branches of government, for the ideal overview.. What do you think? Pteron 17:50, 14 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. I know more about classical mythology then I do about modern religions...I think that since Brahman has an actual page, as opposed to a red link, it would be a better choice. However, I'd leave it to someone who knows to decide. PMC 00:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Did you used to be a poster on alt.fan.douglas-adams? --Ben Brockert 22:07, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

I still am, why do you ask? -- till we *) 22:20, 18 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Ah, recognized the name. I'm Ben Brockert, aka Wikkit, ex-owner of douglas-adams.com and ex-keeper of the afdaFAQ. Good to see you about. --Ben Brockert 22:37, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

ah, Wikkit rings a bell ;-) -- till we *) 23:36, 18 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Stop deleting relevant content from Freiherr, and stop readding the nonsense about the "von". The article is dealing with the title of Freiherr, and not the predicate "von". Which "the von" are you talking about, in any event? Many Freiherren/herrinnen/frauen doesn't even have a "von" in their name. The use of the "von" can be dealt with in the relevant article, von or in the general article related to German nobility.

I saw your comment about the user toolbar and how you wanted it in a sidebox. It bothered me too, so I hacked out a solution. See m:User styles#Make_the_user_toolbar_a_sidebox. It's ugly, and I've only tested it in Camino, so your milage may vary. Just tried it in Safari and it doesn't work. Dang -- Cyrius|✎ 22:32, 29 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Just hacked in a fix for Safari. Don't know if that affects you or not. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:39, 29 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm want to talk about this with you before reverting to G. again. Until I found Wikipedia's article, I had never seen G. Spencer-Brown's first name in print. His first name well may be George, but he published under the name G. I think this is equivalent to H. Rap Brown, J. Edgar Hoover, or F. Scott Fitzgerald. You'll notice that none of those abreviations redirect to the full name, nor should they, because this is the name they are known by. Likewise, G. Spencer-Brown is what George is known by. I'm willing to be convinced by argument that I am wrong, but if not convinced, I think it should revert, once again to G. Spencer-Brown. Also, you reverted to an old version, not the one posted at G. Spencer-Brown. --Samuel Wantman 23:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

I just did some research, and found: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). So you are incorrect, there is no policy to use full names. On the contrary the policy is to use the common name. So the only question is is the more common name G. or George. He published under the name G. and that is what he is known by, so that is his common name. Please put everything back the way it was. --Samuel Wantman 23:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

His book Laws of Form lists his name as G. Spencer-Brown with a hyphen. I take that to mean that a Spencer married a Brown and combined their names. --Samuel Wantman 06:51, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There has been no comment as of yet. I still think it should revert back to G. Spencer-Brown. --Samuel Wantman 02:59, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Need support on an undelete. Talk:Nazism/Seperate-National Socialism I would like your support to undelete this and restore as a proper standing article. Some content was moved to the Nazism article and has been made a redirect. The Nazi article is too long. *National Socialism* was not created by either Mussolini nor Hitler and the history of its development needs to have a seperate article upon it. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.WHEELER 18:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd love to add more, but I know little more than the fact that they exist... Krupo 18:34, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Go to the User:213.140.6.103 (I'm almost sure Bushit is the same) and look at the contributions. The section you have question is typical from that user; unfounded, inaccurate.... and presented as fact. Mark 15:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

hy, yeah that ip was mine but I have some kind of trouble for firefox under Windows and my system freeze trying to login(bah!) so I can do it only under linux, next, the informations I wrote under the historical section were founded on an old review changing randomly some word here and there... expecting that some other user (maybe german) could contribute in their accuracy; while the other sections are 99% mine (I am a regular reader of LeMonde), especially if you look at the algerian infos are very very breaking news!

but really, feel absolutely free to contribute but for unfounded infos claimed by mark I'll like so much to debate with him about... ;-) for example make care on the USA page, the data about GDP are old and not according to the linked GDP page with the last value reported on that page... I Tried many times to change it but other users reverts my edits to OLDER 2002 infos (maybe because higher? maybe NPOV) so if that is to be inaccurate I am very glad to be as. Greetings!

PS: the worste thing happens about Iraq but this is another history... ;-) User:Bushit 20 July 2004 CET

Hey Tillwe, great work. Perhaps my "unfounded" allegation above isn't as wide of the mark as Bushit suggests! Mark 23:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on Joschka Fischer on my talk page. I'll look at it again. I don't know much about him, but I saw the edit and it was poorly written and seemed POV. BTW, do you think the original version of that paragraph, before either me or the anon edited it, is suitably NPOV? --Golbez 21:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fulfill your inclusionist duty by voting to undelete Ceqli on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Yes, the Ceqli language really is up for undeletion! 24.4.127.164 02:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hallo Tillwe, do you have any idea of the importance of Franz Oppenheimer, did you ever questioned why you have never heard of him? There might be some reason...

• may be this is because of our friend Tillwe is german. and since the Nazis burned all the important books in 1933 the german are still blind. and our fellow oppenheimer was a jew. hm, strage that german don't know their people. /henry

Hi anonymous one(s), I'm a sociologist, and so I know pretty well that Franz Oppenheimer isn't discussed as a "founding father of sociology" in sociology. This is no statement about how important he was or not was, but only about the consensus in sociology today. If you could show me an academic introduction into sociology which puts Oppenheimer in one league with Marx, Durkheim and Weber, I would be happy to see him prominently featured in our sociology-article. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleted! shadows of a reality, gray symbols dragging their bellies across the dead page, suffocated signs full of muffled sound and faded glory, signifying absolutely nothing. /babelfish+media-control

Sorry 217.188.227.41, I just don't understand what you are trying to say using this grotesque metaphors. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 21:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay -- there is a guru behind it. But what does it mean in this context? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 00:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not a Guru, but a Pandit.

It's fascinating to learn about lots of new words, worldviews and persons: but could you answer a bit less peripheral? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 22:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just started this and am looking to get some people involved. I noticed you've done some work on the subject, and your involvement would certainly be appreciated. Thanks! [[User:Sarge Baldy|Sarge Baldy]] 06:14, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

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

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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

Hi, would you please add an Image copyright tag to the logo on your user page to identify the terms of its use? Thanks, -Lommer 03:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi!

Interesting you use the word paradigm to describe the GT method. Actually this is what Glaser does in his coming book on theoretical codes, TCs. I wish you could get a feel for GT according to Glaser. You say it's too intuitive and maybe you would say based on impressionism but if you really apply the method according to the books from 67, 78, 92 and 98 it is very rigorous and creativity inducing to the max. It also produces theories that fit and work with concepts that are "saftig" (as Strauss mentioned in the interview from 1994). Glaser says "juicy" (fun to get the yiddish origin to this colloquial expression).

I've sent you an e-mail with quotes from dr Glasers coming book on theoretical codes in which he discusses the method as a paradigm. Thulesius 07:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'll give a longer answer per e-mail later (thanks for the quotes), but only for the record: I'm describing Grounded Theory as paradigm (in sensu Thomas Kuhn), because after working with GT (Strauss) for some time -- and comparing it to other QDA "methods", it became clear to me that GT is more than just a method. It's a way of working (or researching), it's a way of thinking (see the Strauss interview), and it comes with it's own social theory, if one looks deep enough (rooted in interactionism and pragmatism). All this fits for seeing GT as a paradigm rather than a method or methodology. It also fits with the view of sociology as a multiparadigmatic science (I recently found a book arguing that way). And finally, it is not really possible to do good GT work embedded in the wrong "paradigmatic" environment (at least, that is my experience). So I think it is possible to argue for GT as paradigm (not knowing about Glaser coming book). -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 10:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Glaser would say "it is only a method", a way of conceptualizing what is going on. But in fact it reaches further than that. I am soon going to San Francisco to celebrate Barneys 75th birthday and at the same time join a GT conference. It will be fun. It is fun to work with GT and to read other peoples work. It gives meaning and understanding and while working with a GT study it empowers with a powerful creative spark. Check out the GT review home page at www.groundedtheoryreview.com - there is soon a new issue. --Thulesius 23:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just accidentally recreated Gabbi reeder trying to list it for CSD... My apologies. Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 21:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The party has red as its colour and I think that's clearly what should be used in results tables and diagrams. There are plenty of shades of red that can be used to distinguish it from the SPD. See Livingston by-election, 2005 for an example of how Wiki usually handles this with regards to the UK's various multipleleft-wing parties (in that case, Labour, SPGB and SSP).

Tillwe, thank you for your message on the Portal talk page. I presume you're refering to colours that represent certain political parties and movements, and whether it's appropriate to have such colours on a neutral Portal. I chose those colours more or less arbitrarily and think they look ok, although I did originally have purple, as it's perceived to be completely politically neutral. In the end, the red, white and blue I've chosen aren't the same shades as they appear on the US or UK flag - I don't want the Portal to be Anglo/American-centric. Most of the Portal is blue, I suppose, which is often associated with conservatism, but not always - blue is liberal in America, for example. Let me know if you think that the colours are inappropriate, and by all means suggest alternatives! Thanks, --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)} 09:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Europe page as living in or being associated with Europe. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Europe for instructions.--Rmky87 04:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Something about the way you rearranged the images all on the right makes the "edit" tags for the section headings behave oddly (at least for me using Mozilla Firefox). Instead of being to the right of their respective headers, six edit tags appear side-by-side somewhere in the middle of the article's text, to the left of one of the images. Unfortunately, I don't think I know enough to be able to locate & fix the problem myself. -- IslandGyrl 20:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

{{User green}} – Kaihsu 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello! You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany page as living in or being associated with Germany. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, or one of the Bundesland-based subcategories, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Germany for instructions. --Angr (tɔk) 15:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi -- this is an article on a sociologist that seems like a fairly accomplished one, but I'm not in the field and know nothing about it so it's hard for me to help fix up the article, which says very little about him. I just thought I'd ask if you can help since you mention Sociology as a topic you're interested in. Mangojuice 00:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

It does indeed look overwhelming that the consensus is to "keep" and I expect that's what will be done when an administrator closes it. On the other hand, as the guidelines for discussion of Tfd's state, saying "keep" isn't enough, and the substantive discussions seem to point to some kind of change that allows it to stay, without the fear of future deletion attempts. Also, it has to remain tagged to "give due notice" to the Tfd discussion. One more thing: you've taken some AWESOME nature photographs! Do you have any close-ups of sunflowers that could be used in the template? ;-) - Nhprman ^List 18:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. Make sure this is defeated! --Ephilei 04:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will join Albert-Ludwigs University as a PhD student from October, 2006. I have few questions. If you are interested in helping me then please send me an email at studentresearcher@gmail.com . Thank you. --- Faisal 08:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm currently working on some major edits in the Worldwide green parties and Green movement articles. I noticed that the content of both basically follows the plan you posed back in 2003. As they were written, however, the articles seemed confusing and poorly maintained. Very few people seem to even be monitoring the talk pages. Therefore, I'm about to boldly move lots of content from the "Parties" page to the "movement" page and make other major changes, following good examples set by pages like feminist movement. If you disagree, feel free to talk to me, whether through my own talk or through the article talk pages. Vielen dank, Fishal 19:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 

Thanks for uploading Image:Greens-Logo ne4.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ilse@ 10:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added a fair use rationale. Can you maybe help me with the providing the source? – Ilse@ 11:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! -- Noetic Sage 19:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The October 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! Noetic Sage 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The January 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

 

A tag has been placed on Viridian design movement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Lemmey talk 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for uploading Image:Greens-Logo ne4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The April 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 21:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

  Thanks for uploading Image:Unisiegel.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I thought you might be interested in editing the Schwäbisch Hall as an editor living in the same state as Schwäbisch Hall and the fact that you are currently tied with User:Wikiuser100 and an IP address for the second most edits in the article's history. I've done 55 edits which is mainly adding to the article and sourcing. Most of the sources and information is mainly from the city's website. Kingjeff (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

(delivered by mabdul 23:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC))Reply

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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Czech legislative election, 2006 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply