Plz stop harrassing Helga. It was argued that her changes were POV by changing German ultimatum to German/Lithuana treaty --- it seems to me that Helga was making the article not only NPOV but also more informative, as ultimatum is a much more weighted word than treaty.
On Boleslaus I - the changes do not make me wish to ban Helga-it makes me wonder why, if Helga is wrong and Boleslaus managed to pass the crowd to successors, then why doesn't the page link to these successors?
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] lapollutionestsimauvaise@yahoo.com writes:
Helga was making the article not only NPOV but also more informative, as ultimatum is a much more weighted word than treaty.
Yes. But it wasn't a treaty and it *was* an ultimatum.
Von Ribbentrop told the Lithuanian minister "The situation in the Klaipëda Territory is such that any minute German blood may be spilled there, and if that happens the German army will march into Lithuania and nobody can predict where it may halt."
Thats not a treaty, thats an ultimatum, if not an outright threat. The only relevant treaty, that of 1927, said Klaipëda was a Lithuanian territory.
I know, don't feed the trolls, especially those with unresolved gender issues.
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
Plz stop harrassing Helga. It was argued that her changes were POV by changing German ultimatum to German/Lithuana treaty --- it seems to me that Helga was making the article not only NPOV but also more informative, as ultimatum is a much more weighted word than treaty.
On Boleslaus I - the changes do not make me wish to ban Helga-it makes me wonder why, if Helga is wrong and Boleslaus managed to pass the crowd to successors, then why doesn't the page link to these successors?
With all due respect, Lir, you will appreciate that your impaired credibility on Wikipedia means that your intervention on issues concerning Helga may be counterproductive to your apparent intentions.... or more crudely put: With friends like you she doesn't need enemies.
Eclecticology
Eclecticology wrote:
Lir wrote:
Plz stop harrassing Helga.
With all due respect, Lir, you will appreciate that your impaired credibility on Wikipedia means that your intervention on issues concerning Helga may be counterproductive to your apparent intentions.... or more crudely put: With friends like you she doesn't need enemies.
Ah, but perhaps this is Lir's plan all along!
See, Lir sees things in highly politicised terms, and is a leftist (an anarcosocial-communist, to be precise), while Helga's edits could easily be seen as rightwing (perhaps sympathetic to Nazis, and definitely antiCommunist). If Lir does see them that way, and thus identifies Helga as an enemy, the naturally this is just what she would do!
-- Toby
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:15:58AM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
See, Lir sees things in highly politicised terms, and is a leftist (an anarcosocial-communist, to be precise),
No. He adopts the rhetoric of libertian socialism, but is really a burn-and-smash nihilist. Not the same thing at all, and rather a discredit to freedom lovers everywhere.
while Helga's edits could easily be seen as rightwing (perhaps sympathetic to Nazis, and definitely antiCommunist).
Even libertarian socialists are firmly opposed to Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism. As for the Nazis, they were socialists too.
If Lir does see them that way, and thus identifies Helga as an enemy, the naturally this is just what she would do!
In which case we should deny Lir the impression that he is still able to manipulate or have an effect on the Wikipedia.
Helga does seem to have returned; I haven't seen a long string of edit wars like before; I hope she talks to Jimmy. When I saw her reply on her talk page, I assumed her account had actually been unblocked in the database itself.
Jonathan
Clutch wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
See, Lir sees things in highly politicised terms, and is a leftist (an anarcosocial-communist, to be precise),
No. He adopts the rhetoric of libertian socialism, but is really a burn-and-smash nihilist. Not the same thing at all, and rather a discredit to freedom lovers everywhere.
Goodness, I'm not claiming that Adam/Lir is an *intelligent* political thinker! Only that (s)he (under either name) identifies with the political left. (Just look at the list at [[m:anarcosocial-communism]].) That's enough for my theory -- he can still be a discredit.
while Helga's edits could easily be seen as rightwing (perhaps sympathetic to Nazis, and definitely antiCommunist).
Even libertarian socialists are firmly opposed to Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism. As for the Nazis, they were socialists too.
Sure, *real* anarchists oppose Marxism, but you just said that Lir is a faker. And even then, anarchists oppose Redbaiting, which Helga has tendencies toward. (I don't want to charge Helga with anything seriously along those lines; the only issue is what one might reasonably expect Lir to perceive.) Also, calling Hitler "socialist" is like, well, calling Stalin "socialist". (Or calling either "democratic", which both liars claimed to be as well.)
If Lir does see them that way, and thus identifies Helga as an enemy, the naturally this is just what she would do!
In which case we should deny Lir the impression that he is still able to manipulate or have an effect on the Wikipedia.
I only want Lir to get the impression that I made a joke out of the situation. And this is enough work to sustain that joke, I think.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
See, Lir sees things in highly politicised terms, and is a leftist (an anarcosocial-communist, to be precise),
I don't agree that Lir is a leftist. He's just immature, looking for a project where he can spend his energy. Why not give him a project? Perhaps he can learn to program PHP and fix Wikipedia's performance problems. Perhaps he can learn Serbian and translate the SH Wikipedia?
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org