Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:55, 18 November 2006

   Discussion Conventions

• Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
• Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
• Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

This page is a free speech zone, although I would appreciate courtesy. Do not remove comments of other users, even if you think they could be personal attacks. If they are bad enough, I will take care of them myself.

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Telex 10:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey

Thanks for your edit in Conscription in Greece. What's the dispute about the financial repercussions? you put the tag in, but you didn't explain what your dispute is all about. Thanks :) Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 18:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Conscription in Greece

Ok, just to make a note: the

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction".

Legal

In the theory of law, a controversy differs from a legal case; while legal cases include all suits, criminal as well as civil, a controversy is a purely civil proceeding.

For example, the Case or Controversy Clause of Article Three of the United States Constitution (Section 2, Clause 1) states that "the judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party". This clause has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to cases that do not pose an actual controversy—that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties which is capable of being resolved by the . In addition to setting out the scope of the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, it also prohibits courts from issuing advisory opinions, or from hearing cases that are either unripe, meaning that the controversy has not arisen yet, or moot, meaning that the controversy has already been

Benford's law

Benford's law of controversy, as expressed by the astrophysicist and science fiction author Gregory Benford in 1980, states: Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. In other words, it claims that the less factual information is available on a topic, the more controversy can arise around that topic – and the more facts are available, the less controversy can arise. Thus, for example, controversies in physics would be limited to subject areas where experiments cannot be carried out yet, whereas controversies would be inherent to politics, where communities must frequently decide on courses of action based on insufficient information.

Psychological bases

Controversies are frequently thought to be a result of a lack of confidence on the part of the disputants – as implied by Benford's law of controversy, which only talks about lack of information ("passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available"). For example, in analyses of the political controversy over anthropogenic climate change, which is exceptionally virulent in the United States, it has been proposed that those who are opposed to the scientific consensus do so because they don't have enough information about the topic. A study of 1540 US adults found instead that levels of scientific literacy correlated with the strength of opinion on climate change, but not on which side of the debate that they stood.

The puzzling phenomenon of two individuals being able to reach different conclusions after being exposed to the same facts has been frequently explained (particularly by Daniel Kahneman) by reference to a 'bounded rationality' – in other words, that most judgments are made using fast acting heuristics that work well in every day situations, but are not amenable to decision-making about complex subjects such as climate change. Anchoring has been particularly identified as relevant in climate change controversies as individuals are found to be more positively inclined to believe in climate change if the outside temperature is higher, if they have been primed to think about heat, and if they are primed with higher temperatures when thinking about the future temperature increases from climate change.

In other controversies – such as that around the HPV vaccine, the same evidence seemed to license inference to radically different conclusions. Kahan et al. explained this by the cognitive biases of biased assimilation and a credibility heuristic.

Similar effects on reasoning are also seen in non-scientific controversies, for example in the gun control debate in the United States. As with other controversies, it has been suggested that exposure to empirical facts would be sufficient to resolve the debate once and for all. In computer simulations of cultural communities, beliefs were found to polarize within isolated sub-groups, based on the mistaken belief of the community's unhindered access to ground truth. Such confidence in the group to find the ground truth is explicable through the success of wisdom of the crowd based inferences. However, if there is no access to the ground truth, as there was not in this model, the method will fail.

Bayesian decision theory allows these failures of rationality to be described as part of a statistically optimized system for decision making. Experiments and computational models in multisensory integration have shown that sensory input from different senses is integrated in a statistically optimal way, in addition, it appears that the kind of inferences used to infer single sources for multiple sensory inputs uses a Bayesian inference about the causal origin of the sensory stimuli. As such, it appears neurobiologically plausible that the brain implements decision-making procedures that are close to optimal for Bayesian inference.

Brocas and Carrillo propose a model to make decisions based on noisy sensory inputs, beliefs about the state of the world are modified by Bayesian updating, and then decisions are made based on beliefs passing a threshold. They show that this model, when optimized for single-step decision making, produces belief anchoring and polarization of opinions – exactly as described in the global warming controversy context – in spite of identical evidence presented, the pre-existing beliefs (or evidence presented first) has an overwhelming effect on the beliefs formed. In addition, the preferences of the agent (the particular rewards that they value) also cause the beliefs formed to change – this explains the biased assimilation (also known as confirmation bias) shown above. This model allows the production of controversy to be seen as a consequence of a decision maker optimized for single-step decision making, rather than a result of limited reasoning in the bounded rationality of Daniel Kahneman.

See also

• Argument
• Bipartisanship
• Criticism
• Dialectic
• Misinformation
• ProCon.org
• Scandal
• Third rail (politics)

References

1. "EFF Quotes Collection 19.6". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2001-04-09. Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2016-12-04.
2. "Quotations: Computer Laws". SysProg. Archived from the original on 2008-08-22. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
3. Ungar, S. (2000). "Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole". Public Understanding of Science. 9 (3): 297–312. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/306. S2CID 7089937.
4. Pidgeon, N.; B. Fischhoff (2011). "The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks". Nature Climate Change. 1 (1): 35–41. Bibcode:2011NatCC...1...35P. doi:10.1038/nclimate1080. S2CID 85362091.
5. Kahan, Dan M.; Maggie Wittlin; Ellen Peters; Paul Slovic; Lisa Larrimore Ouellette; Donald Braman; Gregory N. Mandel (2011). "The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change". doi:10.2139/ssrn.1871503. hdl:1794/22097. S2CID 73649608. SSRN 1871503. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
6. Kahneman, Daniel (2003-12-01). "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics" (PDF). The American Economic Review. 93 (5): 1449–1475. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.194.6554. doi:10.1257/000282803322655392. ISSN 0002-8282. JSTOR 3132137. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-02-19. Retrieved 2017-10-24.
7. Tversky, A.; D. Kahneman (1974). "Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases". Science. 185 (4157): 1124–31. Bibcode:1974Sci...185.1124T. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. PMID 17835457. S2CID 143452957. Archived from the original on 2018-06-01. Retrieved 2017-08-30.
8. Joireman, Jeff; Heather Barnes Truelove; Blythe Duell (December 2010). "Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global warming". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30 (4): 358–367. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.004. ISSN 0272-4944.
9. Saul, Stephanie; Andrew Pollack (2007-02-17). "Furor on Rush to Require Cervical Cancer Vaccine". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2011-11-26.
10. Kahan, Dan M.; Donald Braman; Geoffrey L. Cohen; Paul Slovic; John Gastil (2008-07-15). "Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study of the Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition". Law and Human Behavior. SSRN 1160654.
11. Lord, Charles G.; Lee Ross; Mark R. Lepper (1979). "Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (11): 2098–2109. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.372.1743. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098. ISSN 0022-3514.
12. HOVLAND, CARL I.; WALTER WEISS (1951-12-21). "The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness". Public Opinion Quarterly. 15 (4): 635–650. doi:10.1086/266350.
13. ^ Braman, Donald; James Grimmelmann; Dan M. Kahan (20 July 2007). "Modeling Cultural Cognition". Social Justice Research. SSRN 1000449.
14. Fremling, G.M.; J.R. Lott Jr (2002). "Surprising Finding That Cultural Worldviews Don't Explain People's Views on Gun Control, The". U. Pa. L. Rev. 151 (4): 1341–1348. doi:10.2307/3312932. JSTOR 3312932.
15. Ayres, I.; J.J. Donohue III (2002). Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis. National Bureau of Economic Research.
16. Lee, M.D.; M. Steyvers; M. de Young; B.J. Miller. "A Model-Based Approach to Measuring Expertise in Ranking Tasks". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
17. Ernst, Marc O.; Martin S. Banks (2002-01-24). "Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion". Nature. 415 (6870): 429–433. Bibcode:2002Natur.415..429E. doi:10.1038/415429a. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 11807554. S2CID 47459.
18. Wozny, D.R.; U.R. Beierholm; L. Shams (2008). "Human trimodal perception follows optimal statistical inference". Journal of Vision. 8 (3): 24.1–11. doi:10.1167/8.3.24. PMID 18484830.
19. Brocas, Isabelle; Juan D. Carrillo (2012). "From perception to action: An economic model of brain processes". Games and Economic Behavior. 75: 81–103. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2011.10.001. ISSN 0899-8256.

External links

• Brian Martin, The Controversy Manual (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2014).
• Controversial topics based on machine learning on Misplaced Pages data
• Controversial Today tag is not a warning sign... you should really explain in the talk page what you disagree about. Thanks :) Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 11:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The State of prolonged public dispute or debate

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction".

Legal

In the theory of law, a controversy differs from a legal case; while legal cases include all suits, criminal as well as civil, a controversy is a purely civil proceeding.

For example, the Case or Controversy Clause of Article Three of the United States Constitution (Section 2, Clause 1) states that "the judicial Power shall extend ... to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party". This clause has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to cases that do not pose an actual controversy—that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties which is capable of being resolved by the . In addition to setting out the scope of the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, it also prohibits courts from issuing advisory opinions, or from hearing cases that are either unripe, meaning that the controversy has not arisen yet, or moot, meaning that the controversy has already been

Benford's law

Benford's law of controversy, as expressed by the astrophysicist and science fiction author Gregory Benford in 1980, states: Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. In other words, it claims that the less factual information is available on a topic, the more controversy can arise around that topic – and the more facts are available, the less controversy can arise. Thus, for example, controversies in physics would be limited to subject areas where experiments cannot be carried out yet, whereas controversies would be inherent to politics, where communities must frequently decide on courses of action based on insufficient information.

Psychological bases

Controversies are frequently thought to be a result of a lack of confidence on the part of the disputants – as implied by Benford's law of controversy, which only talks about lack of information ("passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available"). For example, in analyses of the political controversy over anthropogenic climate change, which is exceptionally virulent in the United States, it has been proposed that those who are opposed to the scientific consensus do so because they don't have enough information about the topic. A study of 1540 US adults found instead that levels of scientific literacy correlated with the strength of opinion on climate change, but not on which side of the debate that they stood.

The puzzling phenomenon of two individuals being able to reach different conclusions after being exposed to the same facts has been frequently explained (particularly by Daniel Kahneman) by reference to a 'bounded rationality' – in other words, that most judgments are made using fast acting heuristics that work well in every day situations, but are not amenable to decision-making about complex subjects such as climate change. Anchoring has been particularly identified as relevant in climate change controversies as individuals are found to be more positively inclined to believe in climate change if the outside temperature is higher, if they have been primed to think about heat, and if they are primed with higher temperatures when thinking about the future temperature increases from climate change.

In other controversies – such as that around the HPV vaccine, the same evidence seemed to license inference to radically different conclusions. Kahan et al. explained this by the cognitive biases of biased assimilation and a credibility heuristic.

Similar effects on reasoning are also seen in non-scientific controversies, for example in the gun control debate in the United States. As with other controversies, it has been suggested that exposure to empirical facts would be sufficient to resolve the debate once and for all. In computer simulations of cultural communities, beliefs were found to polarize within isolated sub-groups, based on the mistaken belief of the community's unhindered access to ground truth. Such confidence in the group to find the ground truth is explicable through the success of wisdom of the crowd based inferences. However, if there is no access to the ground truth, as there was not in this model, the method will fail.

Bayesian decision theory allows these failures of rationality to be described as part of a statistically optimized system for decision making. Experiments and computational models in multisensory integration have shown that sensory input from different senses is integrated in a statistically optimal way, in addition, it appears that the kind of inferences used to infer single sources for multiple sensory inputs uses a Bayesian inference about the causal origin of the sensory stimuli. As such, it appears neurobiologically plausible that the brain implements decision-making procedures that are close to optimal for Bayesian inference.

Brocas and Carrillo propose a model to make decisions based on noisy sensory inputs, beliefs about the state of the world are modified by Bayesian updating, and then decisions are made based on beliefs passing a threshold. They show that this model, when optimized for single-step decision making, produces belief anchoring and polarization of opinions – exactly as described in the global warming controversy context – in spite of identical evidence presented, the pre-existing beliefs (or evidence presented first) has an overwhelming effect on the beliefs formed. In addition, the preferences of the agent (the particular rewards that they value) also cause the beliefs formed to change – this explains the biased assimilation (also known as confirmation bias) shown above. This model allows the production of controversy to be seen as a consequence of a decision maker optimized for single-step decision making, rather than a result of limited reasoning in the bounded rationality of Daniel Kahneman.

See also

• Argument
• Bipartisanship
• Criticism
• Dialectic
• Misinformation
• ProCon.org
• Scandal
• Third rail (politics)

References

1. "EFF Quotes Collection 19.6". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2001-04-09. Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2016-12-04.
2. "Quotations: Computer Laws". SysProg. Archived from the original on 2008-08-22. Retrieved 2007-03-10.
3. Ungar, S. (2000). "Knowledge, ignorance and the popular culture: climate change versus the ozone hole". Public Understanding of Science. 9 (3): 297–312. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/306. S2CID 7089937.
4. Pidgeon, N.; B. Fischhoff (2011). "The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks". Nature Climate Change. 1 (1): 35–41. Bibcode:2011NatCC...1...35P. doi:10.1038/nclimate1080. S2CID 85362091.
5. Kahan, Dan M.; Maggie Wittlin; Ellen Peters; Paul Slovic; Lisa Larrimore Ouellette; Donald Braman; Gregory N. Mandel (2011). "The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change". doi:10.2139/ssrn.1871503. hdl:1794/22097. S2CID 73649608. SSRN 1871503. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
6. Kahneman, Daniel (2003-12-01). "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics" (PDF). The American Economic Review. 93 (5): 1449–1475. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.194.6554. doi:10.1257/000282803322655392. ISSN 0002-8282. JSTOR 3132137. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-02-19. Retrieved 2017-10-24.
7. Tversky, A.; D. Kahneman (1974). "Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases". Science. 185 (4157): 1124–31. Bibcode:1974Sci...185.1124T. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. PMID 17835457. S2CID 143452957. Archived from the original on 2018-06-01. Retrieved 2017-08-30.
8. Joireman, Jeff; Heather Barnes Truelove; Blythe Duell (December 2010). "Effect of outdoor temperature, heat primes and anchoring on belief in global warming". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30 (4): 358–367. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.004. ISSN 0272-4944.
9. Saul, Stephanie; Andrew Pollack (2007-02-17). "Furor on Rush to Require Cervical Cancer Vaccine". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2011-11-26.
10. Kahan, Dan M.; Donald Braman; Geoffrey L. Cohen; Paul Slovic; John Gastil (2008-07-15). "Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study of the Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition". Law and Human Behavior. SSRN 1160654.
11. Lord, Charles G.; Lee Ross; Mark R. Lepper (1979). "Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (11): 2098–2109. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.372.1743. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098. ISSN 0022-3514.
12. HOVLAND, CARL I.; WALTER WEISS (1951-12-21). "The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness". Public Opinion Quarterly. 15 (4): 635–650. doi:10.1086/266350.
13. ^ Braman, Donald; James Grimmelmann; Dan M. Kahan (20 July 2007). "Modeling Cultural Cognition". Social Justice Research. SSRN 1000449.
14. Fremling, G.M.; J.R. Lott Jr (2002). "Surprising Finding That Cultural Worldviews Don't Explain People's Views on Gun Control, The". U. Pa. L. Rev. 151 (4): 1341–1348. doi:10.2307/3312932. JSTOR 3312932.
15. Ayres, I.; J.J. Donohue III (2002). Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis. National Bureau of Economic Research.
16. Lee, M.D.; M. Steyvers; M. de Young; B.J. Miller. "A Model-Based Approach to Measuring Expertise in Ranking Tasks". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
17. Ernst, Marc O.; Martin S. Banks (2002-01-24). "Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion". Nature. 415 (6870): 429–433. Bibcode:2002Natur.415..429E. doi:10.1038/415429a. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 11807554. S2CID 47459.
18. Wozny, D.R.; U.R. Beierholm; L. Shams (2008). "Human trimodal perception follows optimal statistical inference". Journal of Vision. 8 (3): 24.1–11. doi:10.1167/8.3.24. PMID 18484830.
19. Brocas, Isabelle; Juan D. Carrillo (2012). "From perception to action: An economic model of brain processes". Games and Economic Behavior. 75: 81–103. doi:10.1016/j.geb.2011.10.001. ISSN 0899-8256.

External links

• Brian Martin, The Controversy Manual (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2014).
• Controversial topics based on machine learning on Misplaced Pages data
• Controversial Today tag is only a warning to the user that that there's an active discussion about the topic in the talk page and that s/he should look there for further enlightenment on the point of disagreement. on the other hand, Template:TrollWarning *is* a warning label, like this: TrollWarning

Even if it would be a warning sign, you *still* have to elaborate your point in the talk page, instead of requiring the user to divine the origin of the dispute. Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 14:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, don't tell me, tell the visitors of the page, as in "start a new section and elaborate on your point of view". Thanks :) Project2501a 11:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image at Greeks

There was a problem with the image. It was a derivative work of some image with unknown copyright status. Jkelly 17:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it did make the article better. We can't just pretend that copyright problems don't exist, though. If I get a chance I'll try coming up with a replacement myself. Jkelly 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Aromanians

Με δουλεύεις; Έχεις αλλάξει όλο το άρθρο και μου ζητάς 'a source'; Find sources (in plural) yourself before u revert again... Gosh! --Hectorian 18:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Greek far right

Hi. Saw your message on my talk page. I'm afraid I'm not an expert at all in Greek far right parties; I just have an interest in elections and politics in general. I think I've seen the name Nikolaos Michaloliakos somewhere before, but I don't know anything about him. You speak Greek, so why not write it yourself? --Damac 13:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if your English isn't so good. You could write what you know about Michaloliakos in English, and I could copyedit it. That's no problem. --Damac 15:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Σμύρνη

Hi, don't misunderstand me I have no problems with Smyrna or Σμύρνη or the Greek heritage of the city but I think the modern name should be used in that article since the city became İzmir almost 5 centuries before the event.--Hattusili 17:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Χρυσή Αυγή

Γεια. Τα λινκς που εβαλες στο talk page μου, θα ηταν καλυτερα να τα προσθεσεις στο ιδιο το αρθρο. Αντι να σβησεις το κομματι οπως εκανες ειναι καλυτερα να παρουσιασεις την αποψη της Χρυσης Αυγης για το θεμα (την οποια οντως παρελειψα). Το κομματι το επανεφερα γιατι νομιζω οτι εχει ολα τα χαρακτηριστηκα που χρειαζεται (WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABLE, WP:VERIFY) με την ελλειψη σαφως της αποψης της ΧΑ. Νομιζω οτι το σωστο θα ηταν αντι να το σβησεις εξ'αιτιας αυτης της ελλειψης, να το συμπληρωσεις. Τα λεω και στο talk page του αρθρου (στα αγγλικα για να καταλαβαινουν και οι μη ελληνοφωνοι). Φιλικα. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Και κατι αλλο. Βλεπω οτι χρησιμοποιεις πολυ το σαιτ του ENF σαν πηγη. Προσπαθησε οσο μπορεις να χρησιμοποιεις "ουδετερα" ΜΜΕ σαν πηγες. Αν ειδες και εγω εχω χρησιμοποιησει σαν πηγη το (μη ουδετερο) A-infos (των αναρχικων) πλην ομως το εκανα μονο και μονο για να πω οτι "Οι αντιφασιστες λενε οτι...". Τα λεμε --Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Και κατι ακομα!! :) Σαν παρατηρηση και μονο, ειδες ποσο εχει αλλαξει το αρθρο απο χτες, ε? Εβγαλες το κομματι για τη συναγωγη στη Θεσσαλονικη, το ξαναβαλα με ρεφς, εβγαλες το κομματι για την αστυνομια το ξαναβαλα και εβαλες τα κομματια Activities και Attacks. Η διαφωνια κανει καλο στη wikipedia!!! Χεχε... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Τοτε, θα πρεπει να φαινεται και στο αρθρο οτι το ταδε το λεει οχι πχ το ΒΒC αλλα το ΕΝF (οπως εγω εβαλα οτι το ταδε το λενε οι αντιφασιστες). --Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Εννούσα αυτό--Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Φωτογραφιες

Γεια ξανα. Φιλε εισαι σιγουρος οτι αυτες οι φωτογραφιες μπορουν να χρησιμοποιηθουν στη wikipedia? Εδω στη wikipedia ειναι πολυ αυστηροι με τα copyrights. Ενδεικτικα η φορμα με την οποια κανεις κανει upload εικονες λεει ενα σωρο πραγματα για αυτο το θεμα: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Upload (στη φορμα αυτη μπορεις να πας και με το λινκ στο toolbox αριστερα κατω απο το search που λεει "Upload file"). Το βασικο ειναι οτι αν οι φωτογραφιες ανηκουν σε καποια εταιρεια (πχ ΑΠΕ, Reuters κτλ) δεν μπορουν να χρησιμοποιηθουν στη wikipedia λογω των copyrights. Αν παλι δεν ειναι ετσι τα πραγματα και εχεις για παραδειγμα ο ιδιος τραβηξει τη φωτογραφια (ή καποιος φιλος σου) μπορεις να την ανεβασεις και να την χρησιμοποιησουμε, με την προυποθεση οτι θα την ανεβασεις με ενα free licence (πχ GFDL ή CC) (αν ειναι του υποτιθεμενου φιλου σου θα πρεπει να συμφωνει και εκεινος). Περισσοτερα για το θεμα εδω: WP:IUP. Και εδω: Misplaced Pages:Uploading images

Απο εκει και περα, αν ολα πανε καλα, μπορεις και εσυ μια χαρα να προσθεσεις τις φωτογραφιες στο κειμενο. Μπορεις να δεις πως εχουν μπει οι ηδη υπαρχουσες 3 εικονες στο αρθρο και να αντιγραψεις το wikisyntax ή μπορεις να διαβασεις και λιγο παραπανω: WP:IMAGE, WP:PIC.--Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Χεχε, ειναι πολυ απλο... Σωζεις την εικονα απο στο πισι σου και μετα την κανεις upload απο το πισι σου. Σου ξαναλεω ομως προσεχε τα copyrights. Και βασικο ειναι, αφου τα ανεβασεις να τους βαλεις σωστο copyright tag αποκατω. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Φιλε, ειναι πραγματικα πολυ απλο, πνιγεσαι σε μια κουταλια νερο... Πας στη φορμα upload file. Εκει που λεει Source filename εχει διπλα ενα κουμπι που λεει Browse. Πατας αυτο και σου βγαζει ενα κλασικο παραθυρο του λειτουργικου σου (πχ στα windows, του explorer) οπου πας και επιλεγεις απο τον υπολογιστη σου το αρχειο που θες. Το επιλεγεις και αυτοματα γεμιζει και το πεδιο Destination filename. Στο summary βαζεις το source (το antepithesh.net εν προκειμενω) και οτι αλλη πληροφορια για την εικονα θες. Μετα, απο το roll down μενου αποκατω που λεει Licensing, πας και επιλεγεις το καταλληλο tag. Μετα κανεις upload και εισαι ετοιμος. Btw, δεν το ανεβαζω εγω για πολυ συγκεκριμενο λογο: εφοσον δεν ξερω το copyright status της εικονας, σε περιπτωση που καποιος admin αποφασισει να την σβησει θα ερθει σε εμενα να με ρωτησει αν ειναι κατω απο free licence ή οχι και με ποιο rationale. Εφοσον λοιπον, δεν εχω ιδεα γιατι οι εικονες του antepithesh.net μπορουν να θεωρηθουν free δεν θελω να μπλεξω σε καποια τετοια ιστορια. Οι αλλες δυο εικονες που ανεβασα απο το σαιτ της ΧΑ, ηξερα ακριβως ποιο ειναι το copyright status τους και τι tags επρεπε να χρησιμοποιησω και για ποιο λογο η χρηση του ειναι fair use και γιαυτο το εκανα. Σορι αν ακουγομαι λιγο παρανοικος με το θεμα του copyright αλλα εχει μου τυχει αρκετες φορες να σβηστουν εικονες που εχω ανεβασει και μετα να γεμιζει το talk page μου με warnings απο admins. Πχ δες αυτό. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Δες και εδω: Misplaced Pages:Uploading images και εδω Commons:First steps/Upload form --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Α και κατι αλλο. Στο αρθρο εχεις φτιαξει την παραγραφο Ιdeology και σαν πηγη για οσα εχεις γραψει, αναφερεις το παλιο σαιτ της ΧΑ. Καλο και αγιο αυτο, αλλα που το βρηκες το παλιο σαιτ? Υπαρχουν τα κειμενα του πουθενα στο ιντερνετ? Υπαρχουν πουθενα δημοσιευμενα? Παντα οταν αναφερομαστε σε κατι πρεπει αυτο το κατι ο οποιοσδηποτε να μπορει να το ελεγξει μονος του. Ενα λινκ, ή κατι το οποιο εχει δημοσιευτει (βιβλιο, αρθρο εφημεριδας/περιοδικου, φυλλαδιο κτλ) συνηθως κανουν. Θα μπορουσε καποιος κακοπιστος να ισχυριστει οτι αφου αναφερεσαι σε σαιτ που δεν υπαρχει και δεν δινεις κανενα λινκ, αυτα που λες τα βγαζεις απο το κεφαλι σου. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Great Fire of Smyrna

The article has the tag for a reason. See this, this, and this. His edits have not been reverted, so the tag should stay. —Khoikhoi 22:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it's kinda messed up to rollback on someone's edits when it appeared they worked long and hard to fill the article with bias and POV. That's what I did to him on ASALA, but it's not something I enjoy doing often. —Khoikhoi 22:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Article you might be interested in

I thought, since you are a proud Greek, that you might like to contribute to the article Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. Something has to be said to argue against the contents of the article.4.245.121.122 07:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Imia06 2.jpg

Hi, you uploaded the above image, and it says that it's taken from a website. Did you create the image, or simply download it? Thanks for any clarification. --Storkk 17:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject History of Greece

Καλησπέρα! Βλέπω το ενδιαφέρον σου για άρθρα της νεότερης και σύγχρονης ελληνικής ιστορίας. Γι' αυτό σκέφτηκε ότι ίσως θα επιθυμούσες να συμμετάσχεις και να συνεισφέρεις στο WikiProject History of Greece; που μόλις δημιουργήθηκε. Θα χαρώ να σε δω εκεί!--Yannismarou 17:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Προσθέτοντας το όνομά σου στα member και, ακολούθως, συνεισφέροντας όπου κρίνεις σκόπιμο και κάνοντας και τις δικές σου προτάσεις.--Yannismarou 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Mitsara

Ekana thn arxh. Apanthste eseis twra, alla monon me phges kai kamia epixeirhmatologia. Ok? •NikoSilver• 09:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

You must cease immediately from editing disruptively, or you will be blocked from editing. Remakrs such as "It's not a minority and nationalist position it's a historical fact. The Pontian Genocide did happen and you 'll better admit it", are not acceptable. Please adhere to policy. El_C 08:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You've been blocked from editing for 24 hrs due to the removal of the tags; I already told you that, at this stage, it counts as vandalism. El_C 13:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for 72 hours for removing the tags again. El_C 22:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaaax Mhtso

Re Mhtso? Ti selida htan ayth pou eixes? Ayto htan mia kalh arxh, alla fobamai oti h zhmia pou exei proklh8ei einai anepanor8wth (panta yparxei h istoria ths selidas sou). Lypamai pou sou to lew, alla akomh ki an eixa tis pepoi8hseis aytes, 8a frontiza toulaxiston na tis krataw kryfes edw! Kaneis perissoterh zhmia apo kalo. Pistepse me, tous exw faei me to koutali edw. To an exoun dikio h' oxi einai mia allh istoria. •NikoSilver• 10:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Exeis dikio. Den eprepe na krinw tis apopseis sou dhmosia. Afairesa kai twn dyo mas ta sxolia, ka8oti monon kalo den kanoun sth syzhthsh. Gia to 8ema ths selidas sou 8a syzhthsoume idiaiterws argotera. Den afora tous Pontious, alla dystyxws xrhsimopoih8hke ekei apo 2 xrhstes. Gi ayto sou eipa oti den boh8aei h selida sou. An 8es, steile mou mail. •NikoSilver• 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Western Thrace

Dear Mitsos,

It is very hard to understand your logic. "If you dont know anything about something then these things coulndnot take place". Please investigate Near History of Greece also.Greece was first country that recognized that state. Please take look references of that article, I am sure that some of your friends knows Turkish. Whenever I find English references, I will place them also. Regards. Mustafa Akalp 20:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Greece Newsletter - Issue I - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the WikiProject History of Greece 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.--Yannismarou 07:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Homosexuality in ancient Greece

Mitsos, I'm not sure how closely you've been following the dicussion at Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece, but your edit to this article removed some text that was the result of extensive discussion, and replaced it with a version pushed by a banned user. I have reverted your edits, but if you feel that the article is unsatisfactory, you would be welcome to discuss changes at the article's talk page. Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Καταστροφή της Σμύρνης

That's what I was trying to explain to you, but I gave up because you were so fixed on removing the dispute tag. So, I let you have it your way. —Khoikhoi 20:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Allied War Crimes

Hello, and thanks for your note. Please see the section headed 'Crimes and Acts of War' on the Allied war crimes during World War II talk page for my original point on this question. Move it down to your new section, if you wish. My essential point is that this whole argument verges on the edge of a moral abyss, where there is no objective difference between genocide and genuine acts of war. I do not accept the reliability or objectivity of those sources who seek to confuse this issue; and therefore the disputed tag should remain. White Guard 22:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontian greek genocide

Colleague, this page not the only one with an acute clash of opinions. Take Israel-Palestine for an example. Only community can resolve disagreements. Unilateral actions of admins are not the way of solving conflicts. What makes you believe that Turkish position is 100% wrong and Greek position is 100% right? May be Greeks are right only for 85%? Please take a look into Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. `'mikka (t) 16:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

Mitso, this is bad wikiquette. For one, you should use edit summaries, especially when you revert: flat reverts, especially when some debate has taken place is a really rude thing to do. Other wikipedians give their reasons for doing the edits they do and then you come in, as a deus ex machina and do a flat revert, as if you had the ultimate authority, the ultimate truth or something. Apart from that, and regarding the actual issue of the revert, there is really no point in talking about the "Turkish view", unless you can back it with some evidence. Are you talking about the Turkish government? About some Turkish historian? What is it that makes it the "Turkish view"? If you think that to say that greeks used a scorched earth policy paints greeks in a bad light, that does not make it a turkish view. Moreover, the whole thing is attributed to a specific person, a brit m'lud historian. Readers do have minds of their own and can determine weather a guy who has written a hagiography for Kemal is biased against the greeks or not. In short, the wiki is not a war, treat other wikipedians with common courtesy. And remember something else: "Εθνικόν το Αληθές". --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

just stopping to say hello

Hello, I just wanted to say I like your user page and the general attitude it conveys. Subversive element 09:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page for a lengthy reply. Subversive element 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

and again... Subversive element 14:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

and again... Subversive element 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-14_Personal_attacks. I felt like a Nazi, but it had to be done. Subversive 21:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ρε Μήτσο!

Σε παρακαλώ, σταμάτα τα ρατσιστικά σχόλια! Δεν έχουν απήχηση και κάνουν κακό. Κράτα σε παρακαλώ τις αντιλήψεις σου για τον εαυτό σου! Θέλεις να φας μπλόκ? Θέλεις να λένε οτι όλοι οι Έλληνες είναι ρατσιστές? Θέλεις να χάσουμε όλες τις ψηφοφορίες και όλα τα θέματα? Αφού το βλέπεις, όλοι αντιδρούν σε αυτά που λες, γιατί το ξανακάνεις? Ενεργοποίησε το μειλ σου στις προτιμήσεις αν δεν το έχεις κάνει, θέλω να σου μιλήσω ιδιαιτέρως. •NikoSilver• 14:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Δεν πειράζει εσένα, αλλά πειράζει εμένα. Θέλω να σου μιλήσω ιδιαιτέρως. Αν έχεις την καλοσύνη, δήλωσε ενα μειλ στα πρεφερενς. Αν σκέφτεσαι οτι μπορεί να χρησιμοποιήσω το μειλ για οποιοδήποτε άλλο λόγο, κάνεις λάθος. Παρ'όλα αυτά, μπορείς να δημιουργήσεις εντελώς ανώνυμες διευθύνσεις, που να μη συνδέονται καθόλου μαζί σου. Ενδεικτικά δες το www.1net.gr . •NikoSilver• 13:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Κανένα μπινελίκι, το αντίθετο μάλιστα. Και να το διαγράψεις, μένει στην ιστορία. Στη γουικιπίντια τίποτα δεν σβήνεται! Καλά, τί σε πειράζει να γράψεις το μειλ σου, αφού δεν μπορεί να το δει κανένας, εκτός από αυτούς στους οποίους στέλνεις? Ειδικά όταν αυτό θα είναι και ανώνυμο και ασύνδετο με σένα? •NikoSilver• 14:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

We (me, you, all) are from 1% to 99% racist in some way or another. We've all mocked, not hired, not dated or whatever a fat, a silly, a slow, an old, a bold, an ugly, a thin, a whatever person. We even mock, judge, discriminate against racists, nationalists, communists, capitalists, socialists and radicals in our private conversations. And then, we categorize ourselves with those who are against racism. Just because we have the ability to hide those discriminating thoughts even from ourselves. Guess what: Mitsos doesn't. I respect that. I disagree (because I have to?) but I respect it. Now go do your business all of you, and let the man think openly what he wants (and face what society reserves for those who do it). •NikoSilver• 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ΗΡΕΜΗΣΤΕ ΡΕ!!! ΕΛΕΟΣ!! Επεσε ολοκληρο το ελληνικο λομπι πανω μου!!!!! Σε αυτον να πατε να κανετε κηρυγμα! Αμαν πια! Νικο οτι θες να μου πεις πεσ'το εδω ελευθερα. Mitsos 09:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Μα σου απάντησα οτι δεν θέλω να πω δημοσίως πράγματα που αφορούν εμένα.•NikoSilver• 10:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Δεν θέλω να δω τι κάνουν οι άλλοι. Εγώ, δεν μιλάω για τα προσωπικά μου στη γουίκι. Δες το 1νετ, και πάτα Subscribe now σε αυτή τη σελίδα: http://www.1net.gr/1netmail.shtml . Οκ? •NikoSilver• 10:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mitso, pigene edo. Den hriazete na valis ta alithina su stihia (vale os onoma "Mistos Mitsaras" px) ;-) --Tekleni 10:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Exw mail sto yahoo me ta kanonika stoixeia. Tha ftiaksw sto allo kai tha sto dosw. Mitsos 10:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sto word verification nomizw grafeis ekeinh thn epithdes sygkexymenh le3h pou fainetai sthn eikona. To e-mail pou 8a ftia3eis mhn to 'dwseis' se kanena. Apla, otan 8a to egkatasthseis sta preference, 8a mporeis kai esy na stelneis (kai oi alloi na sou stelnoun) xwris pote kaneis na dei th diey8.e-mail sou, an den tou apanthseis! •NikoSilver• 13:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mitso den to leei to panepisthmio! Kapoio mirror sto site tou panepisthmiou einai. Asto se parakalw... •NikoSilver• 20:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re. that picture caption: I argued with Niko and the others over that previously; since you didn't have access to that discussion, here's it again for you:

Attributing the picture "to the University of Western Thrace" is a cheap trick of using "university" to give the picture an aura of pseudo-authority. But the source doesn't have such an authority, at all.

That site it's taken from is apparently *hosted* (maybe just mirrored) by a web server of the university. That doesn't mean the university is the author of its contents or even that it endorses it.

Even if it was, a university (as an abstract institution) isn't a reliable and authoritative source to quote about history. A notable named academic historian *working for* a university is a reliable source. The university itself has no business having opinions about history. In academic life, only people have academic credentials, institutions don't. It's like the pope making a pronouncement about tomorrow's weather, we're not going to quote that either.

The website is a blatant propaganda site, anonymous, has no author attribution, nothing. It's the very model of what is *not* a reliable source.

And even if we knew its author, and even if he was trustworthy, he couldn't possibly be a reliable source about what the picture is showing. He has himself no way of knowing, since he can't have been present when it was taken. The only way for this to acquire a reliable meaning is if we are given photographer, date, place, and reference to its original publication. The fact that the website doesn't give such a source is a very bad sign. Until we have such information, the only thing we know is it shows dead people.

Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Earle_Martin RfA

This is the RfA of user:Earle_Martin. I believe he would make a good and unconventional admin. Subversive 12:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'm doing something stupid now, but I believe it is necessary for the better of Misplaced Pages: I'm going to appeal to your political position. As a White Supremacist, you are against circumcision, right? I suggest you take a closer look at that articles talk page, and after that a comparing glance at that RfA's opposing side. Then you'll understand why I am so strongly in favour of Earle_Martin. WP, at least our vision of it, needs people like him. I'm posting on sensible people's talk pages all over to support his RfA, and it would be great if as many others as possible did this as well. It may sound pathetic, but it's sadly true: There's an actual wikiwar going on and we must not lose sight of who the true enemy is. Subversive 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for disturbing you again. You placed your support into the neutral column, where it won't be counted as support. Subversive 14:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ios

Γεια σου μητσο. Βασικα δεν εχω πολυ χρονο τωρα οποτε θα ειμαι συντομος: βασιστηκα αρκετα στον Ιο της Ελευθεροτυπιας γιατι ηταν η μονη πηγη στην οποια μπορουσα να βρω ευκολα πληροφοριες. Δεν υπαρχουν δα και ακαδημαικες μελετες για τη ΧΑ. Στο google (που ηταν το κυριο εργαλειο μου οταν εγραφα το αρθρο) οι περισσοτερες αναφορες στη ΧΑ ηταν απο τον Ιο. Γνωριζω πολυ καλα οτι ο Ιος εχει σαφη πολιτικη κατευθυνση. Απο την αλλη κατα τη γνωμη μου ειναι αρκετα ακριβης οσον αφορα τις ερευνες του. Προσωπικη γνωμη αυτο, δεν θα προσπαθησω να σε πεισω. Επισης νομιζω οτι οι συγκρισεις που κανεις με τους αναρχικους ειναι χωρις νοημα. Δεν κανουμε κοντρα αναρχικων-χρυσαυγιτων εδω, προσπαθουμε να περιγραψουμε τη ΧΑ. Οσα αναφερεις για τον αναρχικο χωρο εχουν τη θεση τους στο αντιστοιχο αρθρο που ειχε παρει το ματι μου καπου (κατι σαν "Anarchism in Greece" ή κατι παρομοιο). Απο εκει και περα, το προβλημα ειναι οτι αν αφαιρεθουν οσα ειναι sourced απο τον Ιο, το αρθρο θα μεινει μισο, μην πω λιγοτερο απο μισο.

Θα συμφωνουσες να το αφηναμε οπως ειναι, με την προυποθεση οτι θα αναφερουμε μεσα στο αρθρο οτι μεγαλο μερος απο τις πληροφοριες προερχερχεται απο τον Ιο, ο οποιος ειναι γνωστος για τις πολιτικες του θεσεις?--Michalis Famelis (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Norman Lowell

I though perhaps you'd be interested in contributing to the wikipedia article of Maltese White Nationalist Norman Lowell. Drew88 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Regarding this edit: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Luna Santin 11:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I will if they keep bothering you; I've already warned them. Feel free to either contact me or post to WP:PAIN in the event that occurs. Luna Santin 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Luna Santin 19:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos, it seems to me you are on Misplaced Pages to push a far-right, racist POV and you are willing to throw abuse at anyone you encounter. Stop or you will be banned. I have remained silent about the abuse you left on my talk page, but I note three others have independently express concern about it. That should tell you a lot about how seriously people here take the rules (and thanks to the users who did express concern - I appreciated it). Your views themselves aren't the problem - but your editing style and breach of guidelines such an "no personal attacks" most certainly are. --SandyDancer 23:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of essays from your userpage

I have removed the essays from your userpage, which are a violation of copyright. Moreover, your userpage is not the place to publish political polemics, particularly racist ones, regardless of their copyright status. Please read Misplaced Pages:Userpage and do not continue to use Misplaced Pages to promote political causes. --Sam Blanning 03:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You said the essays on my userpage are a violation of copyright. Isn't his userpage a violation of copypight??? He has the banner of a website in his userpage, and he has a large quote by Malcom X! Why am I not allowed to quote David Lane????? There is no freedom of speech in Misplaced Pages... Mitsos 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Those quotes are probably fair use in that context, vastly different to the extent to which you have copied essays. The image you refer to is released under the GFDL. You're quite right; there is no freedom of speech here. This is an encyclopaedia, not an experiment in anarchy. If you continue to violate copyright and userpage policy, you will be blocked. --Sam Blanning 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So, the Malcom X quote is "fair use". Why isn't the David Lane quote "fair use"? What is that "vast difference"? Can you explain me? He is advertising a site, why can't I advertise a site against Turkey in Europe?? I have only kept those essays. Mitsos 21:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please keep this conversation in one place by replying on this page.

Well, for a start, he follows up the quote with some discussion of it. For another, the quote and the context is in isn't overtly offensive to most people. We are not having a discussion where you try to justify hosting Neo-Nazi essays as a legitimate use of the userpage Wikimedia provides to you, end of story. --Sam Blanning 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So, the problem with "my" essays is that they are not "politically correct" right? What else is wrong with "neo-nazi essays"? "the quote and the context is in isn't overtly offensive to most people." It is "overtly offensive" to me. Anyway, since many other Wikipedians have essays in their userpage, you don't have the right to remove the essays from my userpage just because you don't agree with them. Mitsos 21:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I already told you that this is not a forum for unregulated free speech, so trotting out tediously over-used political insults like "politically correct" isn't going to make any impression on me. The non-negotiable part is copyright. The fact that they're offensive to most of the community you're part of is secondary. --Sam Blanning 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I 've already asked: why the David Lane quote can't be considered "fair use"? About "No to Turkey" section, I 'm advertising a site just like he does, so I don't think there is a problem. Mitsos 21:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not interested in defending his userpage. If you like you can ask on WP:ANI and see whether they consider it acceptable, but I'm not going to remove stuff from that userpage just to make you happy. --Sam Blanning 22:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Read this: Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page. Ch(b)eers. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Controversies
• English words