User talk:Esperant/2005 Archive

Wikipedia:Peer review/Michel Foucault/archive1

Firstly: I see we have a fellow-Sydney-sider here :-) Excellent! Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that the article you submitted to Wikipedia:Peer review is quite excellent, it just needs a references section. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. I've commented on the peer review page. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill Admits that He is a Lying SOB

Ward Churchill admitted in front of dozens of reporters and in front of TV cameras, last night, February 22, 2005, that he is NOT in fact an Indian. He has been lying about his heritage for many, many years and people like me, who live and work in Indian Country everyday, have known for years that he was out and out lying about his heritage. I repeat: Ward Churchill during his speech at the University of Hawaii admitted that he is NOT an Indian. The comment, word for word, was published in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Vol. 10, Issue 54--Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Churchill attacks essay’s critics by Craig Gima. [1] I'm going to attempt to be gracious but I have to say that you and Fred Bauder missed the boat on this one. I'm not going to do it tonight because I do need sleep, but there is going to be huge re-write of the article tomorrow because the article is just flat out wrong now. These "allegations" of "fabrications" have been provable facts of fabrications. It calls into questions so many other things about the guy. What other things is he out and out lying about??? But more importantly the way that the section on his fake Indian heritage needs to be completely re-written. Considering the arrogant and sanctimous way that he has treated people like me in Indian Country who dared to question his Indian heritage claims over the years, I think that Indian heritage section needs to play a more centralized role in the article and tomorrow that role is coming. So many people--who do NOT even live in Indian Country, who do NOT work in Indian Country--made the claim that to dare question the great Ward Churchill's fake Indian heritage was a "cheap shot." We have been hearing that from non-Indians for many, many years and now Churchill has admitted that he lied about it for over 20 years. He claims that it merely a misunderstanding created by some sloppy reporters. That is a damn lie too. He has been claiming Indian heritage for over 20 years. It is written on either the front cover or back cover of his numerous books. He refers to the fake Indian scam in newspaper article after newspaper article. He committed fraud when he applied to the University of Colorado. The Denver Post has published his employment application and on that application he claimed that he is Indian for affirmation action purposes. That is a damned lie. There is going to be re-write and Jodi Rave's comments are going back in and all the rest. Your attempts to stifle the topic has ended by Churchill himself.-----Keetoowah 04:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Ward Churchill is looking to become an activist judge: http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2005/06/more_leftist_ac.html :) Voyager640 06:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glebe

G'day, nice to have you around - your contribution of Universal Student Unionism is particularly appreciated.

Just on Glebe, I've left a note at the talk page there.

It may interest you to know that Glebe Point Road is currently appearing on Votes for Deletion.

Cheers, Lacrimosus 01:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carlton and United Breweries

I have reformatted you request on WP:RM please check that it still says what you meant it to say.. I have also put in the move template and my modified version of your request on to Talk:Carlton and United Breweries, so others can support or oppose the move. Again please check it out and make sure I have not misrepresented you. If I have in any way made a mistake I apologise in advance an look forward to seeing a correction in the text Philip Baird Shearer 01:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deniliquin

Actually, I did enter into discussion. Naming conventions aren't established on a per article basis - they're established on the basis of a class of articles. Much discussion occurred on this topic late last year, and it was finally agreed upon by a majority of the Australian Wikipedians that we would use the format [[Town, State]] for all towns and suburbs, and that only the capitals would remain at [[City]]. If you wish to change the convention, you're welcome to start another discussion on the topic, but I'm simply cleaning up the naming of a whole bunch of articles that were only categorised recently, and thus were missed in earlier sweeps. Ambi 06:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't enter such discussion about the Deniliquin move, because it's not necessary (nor desirable) to have a discussion on every single article about whether to apply the naming conventions that are supposed to apply to every article in that field anyway. The decision was made somewhere in the archives of WP:AWNB. The archives are marked by date, so it'll be one of the ones late last year. Ambi 09:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's understandable that you mightn't have known about the naming conventions - but now you do. If you want to change them, go propose a change. Otherwise, tough. Ambi 20:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agamben

Hi! I'm new to Wiki and looking around - and found you'd worked a little on Agamben but most of the contributions are by people (presumably) with 'numbers' - which is particularly ironic for him. There is no discussion page yet. I suppose the answer to my (unspoken) question is that I could put a comment there in order to make contact with anyone who is seriously involved with his work. I suppose my interest in Wikipedia is as much about the 'community' or even individuals who are sufficiently concerned to post and develop a major entry and what it is that they are learning by devoting themselves to such thinking. (I have a personal interest in Hannah Arendt and need to read more by and of Foucault. Please excuse this uninvited visit. Jeffrey Newman 02:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. You might like to have a look at [[2]] if you've not seen it recently. What is the answer about the numbers? It's a serious question. I do`not understand why some people/contributions show up as, e.g. 24:35:68:114 Jeffrey Newman 03:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Focault

See the discussion at the bottom of WP:FAC. --brian0918  9 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)

As for the minor edit, all my edits are minor by default, and I'm lazy by default. --brian0918  9 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

I try my best. --brian0918  9 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)

Anti-war wiki project

Back in Febuary you expressed an interest in my idea for an anit-war wikiproject. Just to let you know that I have now had a few more people express an interest and have thus set the project up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war. I thus invite you to come and join the project.--JK the unwise 12:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault?

I noticed you've been doing a lot of work on Michel Foucault. I've been doing some research on Foucault for a project of mine and would be interested in talking offline if you're up for it. Voyager640 06:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it; I know how hectic things can be in the academic world. Voyager640 07:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism

From your entry While this phrase is around now, it certainly wasn't used in Stalin's Soviet Union, nor by many Stalinists - Stalin simply did not do theory, so made no theoretical contributions which could amount to an Stalinist theory.--05:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Don't agree. I have done quite a lot of reading on Marxism, including Marx Engels Lenin and Trotsky, but unlike most who read Trotsky, I've also read Stalin. I have his collected works - there's 13 volumes, and granted, a large part of them are just speeches, short pamphlets and summaries of theory covered in more detail by Marx and Lenin, but there are also some more substantial pieces, such as his work on "Anarchism or Socialism", "Marxism and the National Question" etc. You may be surprised, but Stalin actually wrote some quite trenchant work on the problem of bureaucratism, and there's his criticisms of "Trotskyism", which, although I don't agree with them, and they contain diostortions and sometimes plain lies, I can understand why many socialists where swayed by them. In my opinion, Trotsky completely underestimated Stalin. He was by no means the semi-literate primitive that Trotsky often makes out. And I can understand why many socialists and communists where drawn to Stalin - his works are very practical, which Trotskyists despise as simplistic, but working class socialists often admire writers who can write in a simple way. Have you actually taken the time to read any of Stalin's works? Oh, and it's wrong to say that the phrase "Stalinism" was not used in Stalin's time. I could find the sources for this, but I'll leave it for now. CPMcE 09:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Yellow badge

Hi. I have reverted your comment there because it looked kind of inflammatory. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Perhaps you wanted to start a discussion at Talk. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 06:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]