Please see my comment at Talk:History of Thailand. And it would be nice if you would use the "Edit summary" field, at least for such big changes like converting a complete article into a redirect. andy 16:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although your work on communism-related subjects is often neutral (your article on Leonid Brezhnev, e.g., is particularly good), this article read at times like a Cold Warrior tract. (The tone of Cold Warrior tracts differs from the tone of encyclopedic entries.) I decided to NPOV the article (noting some of Everyking's comments on the talk page), although I knew that this opened me up to outlandish charges that my motivation for toning down one set of biases was the opposite set of biases. But this did not concern me. Everything that I added to the article is within the realm of well-established fact and reasonable discourse of the subject at hand, and I'm sure that this will be evident to the other editors of the article. 172 20:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adam, re INSINUATION, see my comments at my user talk page. Cheers JackofOz 23:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From [1] as well as Public Eye - and I just googled Janice Larouche. It is interesting that his first wife was a "pioneering feminist" given LaRouche's hatred of feminism as it's interesting that his obsession with impotence beings after his second wife leaves the then middle aged LaRouche for a younger man ;) AndyL 05:01, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm also curious whether his anti-Semitism has anything to do with his first or second wife (either of whom may have been Jewish judging by their last names). Both his anti-Semitic comments and his anti-feminist comments begin shortly after Carol left him. AndyL 05:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and make whatever changes you deem necessary on People's Republic of Poland. I've had a change of heart after reading the asinine arbitration committee "ruling" chastising you for being the "the more impolite of the two" while not banning Krusty from editing the LaRouche article. The ruling sends a message that crackpots and cranks will determine the editorial direction of select articles if they can muster more time and persistence than a professional historian. So, I've come to the conclusion that adding balance to an article about an overall repugnant regime (responding to some of the mild criticisms regarding neutrality on Talk:People's Republic of Poland) is unhelpful if it deepens a wedge between legitimate contributors who should instead focus attention on vandals like Krusty. Since you have been bearing the brunt of Krusty's attack on Wikipedia, I don't want to burden you with yet another dispute. 172 12:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No matter how civilly you phased the question, you're begging the question and the innuendo smacks of McCarthyism. But even though I dislike the way you're framing the question, I'll go ahead and answer it. As a method I oppose analyzing politics and international affairs in a moralistic framework, while you argue vigorously that even encyclopedias exist in a moral universe. As evidence of our diverging perspectives with respect to the articles on which we clashed, I opposed the Iraq War and the Bush administration's stance on the DPRK. I hope that you are reasonable enough to realize that these aren't uniquely "Stalinist" positions. 172 13:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Back in June you wrote: "...Danny, I assume you are familiar with this piece by Jon Petrie (http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/). ... If he is right then I will have to modify some of the views I expressed above about the history of the word's usage. (Adam 14:12, 19 Jun 2004)"

The D.C. Holocaust Museum has accepted that I am right and reversed their position -- see on their web site: http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/right.htm#word (copied below). Also the Israeli Holocaust Museum cites me on their web site re the word "H/holocaust".

I am not too swift with computers: my attempts to change the Wikipedia article titled "Holocaust" re the explication/history of the "H/holocaust" word were unsuccesful. [Wikpedia: "The word Holocaust (Greek for "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering") was introduced in the late 20th century to refer to the attempt of Nazi-ruled Germany to exterminate those groups of people it found "undesirable"... Shoa in particular is used by many Jews and a growing number of Christians due to theological discomfort with the literal meaning of the word Holocaust. These groups believe it is theologically offensive to imply that the European Jews were a sacrifice to God. It is nonetheless recognized that most people who use the term Holocaust do not intend such a meaning."]

Perhaps you can pass this message on to the main writer of the "Holocaust" article.

Jon Petrie jon_petrie@yahoo.com

FROM THE DC HOLOCAUST MUSEUM CITED WEB PAGE: >>>FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS... What is the origin of the word "Holocaust"?

The word holocaust comes from the ancient Greek, olos meaning "whole" and kaustos or kautos meaning "burnt." Appearing as early as the fifth century B.C.E., the term can mean a sacrifice wholly consumed by fire or a great destruction of life, especially by fire.

While the word holocaust, with a meaning of a burnt sacrificial offering, does not have a specifically religious connotation, it appeared widely in religious writings through the centuries, particularly for descriptions of "pagan" rituals involving burnt sacrifices. In secular writings, holocaust most commonly came to mean "a complete or wholesale destruction," a connotation particularly dominant from the late nineteenth century through the nuclear arms race of the mid-twentieth century. During this time, the word was applied to a variety of disastrous events ranging from pogroms against Jews in Russia, to the persecution and murder of Armenians by Turks during World War I, to the attack by Japan on Chinese cities, to large-scale fires where hundreds were killed.

Early references to the Nazi murder of the Jews of Europe continued this usage. As early as 1941, writers occasionally employed the term holocaust with regard to the Nazi crimes against the Jews, but in these early cases, they did not ascribe exclusivity to the term. Instead of "the holocaust," writers referred to "a holocaust," one of many through the centuries. Even when employed by Jewish writers, the term was not reserved to a single horrific event but retained its broader meaning of large-scale destruction. For example:

You are meeting at a time of great tragedy for our people. In our ... deep sense of mourning for those who have fallen ... we must steel our hearts to go on with our work ... that perhaps a better day will come for those who will survive this holocaust. (Chaim Weizmann, letter to Israel Goldstein, December 24, 1942)

What sheer folly to attempt to rebuild any kind of Jewish life [in Europe] after the holocaust of the last twelve years! (Zachariah Shuster, Commentary, December 1945, p.10)

By the late 1940s, [I think late 1950s] however, a shift was underway. Holocaust (with either a lowercase or capital H) became a more specific term due to its use in Israeli translations of the word sho'ah. This Hebrew word had been used throughout Jewish history to refer to assaults upon Jews [NOT TRUE], but by the 1940s it was frequently being applied to the Nazis' murder of the Jews of Europe. (Yiddish-speaking Jews used the term churbn, a Yiddish translation of sho'ah.) The equation of holocaust with sho'ah was seen most prominently in the official English translation of the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948, in the translated publications of Yad Vashem throughout the 1950s, and in the journalistic coverage of the Adolf Eichmann trial in Israel in 1961.

Such usage strongly influenced the adoption of holocaust as the primary English-language referent to the Nazi slaughter of European Jewry, but the word's connection to the "Final Solution" did not firmly take hold for another two decades. The April 1978 broadcast of the TV movie, Holocaust, based on Gerald Green's book of the same name, and the very prominent use of the term in President Carter's creation of the President's Commission on the Holocaust later that same year, cemented its meaning in the English-speaking world. These events, coupled with the development and creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum through the 1980s and 1990s, established the term Holocaust (with a capital H) as the standard referent to the systematic annihilation of European Jewry by Germany's Nazi regime.

Sources: Jon Petrie, "The Secular Word 'HOLOCAUST': Scholarly Myths, History, and Twentieth Century Meanings," Journal of Genocide Research 2, no. 1 (2000): 31-63.

[The writer of the Museum piece above clearly relied on the web article http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/ and not the earlier and less rich journal article he/she cites.]

Zhukov

Dear sir, I'm the user NicoRay from the french Wikipedia. I saw the french article on Zhukov and I copied your photo to add it to the article. For the source, I said it came from the english wikipedia, but it seems not to be enough. Could you give me more inforamtions following the french link of Zhukov or sending me an e-mail at mail_at_nicolasraymond.linux-fan.com ?

Best regards,

Nicolas

The LaRouchians aren't anti-capitalists. They're program is completely removed from Marxism. They share some methods with the Healyites and Spartacists but the ideology is quite different. If they are Trotskyists they are crypto-Trotskyist and the accusation is highly speculative unless there is evidence of internal documents that only senior cadre are privy to that spill the beans and no such evidence has come to light even though there are former members who would have access to such info if it existed.AndyL 11:19, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, "maintaining attitudes and habits of thought from their Trot days" is somewhat different from saying "he is in fact still a Trotskyist, and that his ideology is a combination of Trotskyism and LaRouche's own paranoid delusions and fantasies". I agree that they are obviously greatly influenced by the methods and forms of Healyism (for instance) but they aren't ideological Trotskyists in that they completely reject most if not all of Trotsky's ideas - oddly, they still retain a bit of an interest in Rosa Luxemburg though - but I think any "Trotskyism" died out when LaRouche started recruiting people from the PL. As for fascism, they seemed to be headed in that direction in the mid 1970s and with some of their rhetoric in the early 1980s and not having a racial theory does not preclude them from being fascists - Mussolini and the Italian fascists did not have a racial theory either and were not anti-Semitic, at least not until late in the game when what was left of Mussolini's Italy became a satellite of Nazi Germany. King, however, seems to get the fascist label from Newman who was engaging in hyperbole and is not exactly a sound theorist. I do think LaRouche is more of the right because of his capitalism, identification with elites rather than with workers and the "masses" etc. The particulars of his program are, however, a grab-bag - whether his idolisation of FDR and New Deal economics is cynical or genuine I am unclear about but his economic program is centrist, even slightly left of centre. His social program, which is not explicitly stated but is hinted at when you examine LaRouchian views on sex, women, gays, "the counterculture" etc seems to be on the right.

You should try to get a hold of "On the edge: Political Cults Left and Right" by Tim Wohlforth. From what I've seen from the book it seems to have the most incisive analysis of LaRouche. AndyL 16:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it is rather unreasonable of you to remove my material "The legacy of Whitlam". It was not eulogistic and I am right about the legislation (check your facts!!!). What I offered was interpretive, yes, but certainly was a fair evaluation of his three years in office and the consequences since. It would have been nice of you to discuss this with me before the deletion. I certainly didn't intrude on the main body of the article.

Edcreely 03:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Korean Romanizations

I've seen you've dealt with some Korean romanizations. This is very much appreciated. However, User:Sewing is currently using Name Tables which make much cleaner reading. Have a look here, so you can do two jobs in one... Have a nice day! Kokiri 13:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Query about Richard Butler (diplomat) image

You have a cool user page :-) Anyway, could I ask what the source of your Richard Butler image is? Image:Ac.richardbutler.jpg We need to add this, and also the copyright status of it. Great article on Butler though. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I added the Korean romanization tables that Kokiri was talking about to both the Kim Jong-il and Kim-il Sung articles. I know you might object to that table, but don't get mad at me :) - See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). If you oppose the tables to either of these articles, do NOT revert. Make your case on the policy talk page. WhisperToMe 21:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You uploaded this photo of QEII and her Corgi. I'm trying to clean up the dog photo inventory and this has no source or copyright or licensing info; could you add that info so that we know it's (e.g.) public domain or GFDL or whatever? Thanks! Elf | Talk 04:36, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bummer you don't remember the source; I think we're going to have to take it out of the QEII article as well as the Welsh Corgi article I just put it into. Sigh. "Dog photo inventory"--sure! See Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs and Wikipedia talk:List of images/Nature/Animals/Dogs. (I don't know what else to call that collection concisely--) Elf | Talk 20:14, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You might be perfectly right about the Who Cares status of most photos. I also suspect that photos fairly obviously taken by individuals of their own dogs & stuffed onto wikip w/out copyright fall into the category of "wow one of my photos is in the encyclopedia!" I suppose the motivation for winnowing things out is to avoid the one case where some sensitive type decides to sue for some imagined harm or loss of income... It's a shame that the definition is narrowing, because there are sure an awful lot of good photos uploaded, incl. by pro photogs, who prefer a different or noncommercial license, which makes a lot of sense to me. But I don't know enough about copyright law to know what waters the WP is wading into. I'm leaving things in the articles until an outcry arises or it becomes obvious it's a copyvio. Meanwhile, I like having an organized photo repository. Elf | Talk 00:52, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Marathon

I like your more authoritative note on the myth of the Marathon run, but thought I should point out that although, as you say, "there is no evidence that any such event took place", there is also no way to know with certainty that the event, or some similar event, did not ever take place. Cheers, Chinasaur

Adminship

Hi, Adam: I read somewhere that you have been nominated twice for adminship, and you turned it down both times. David Cannon has been kind enough to nominate me to be a sysop, and with only 1 objection (which is now a vote of support) so far, I am 18 hours away from becoming one. I would like to hear the arguments for not becoming an admin from one who has thought it through.... -Sewing (山道子) - talk 14:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, Adam:

I'm glad I could pass myself off as Korean, but actually I'm just a boring, 3rd-generation Anglo-/Russo-Canadian! I learned several months ago to spare myself the stress and avoid getting into heated debates (like the endless revert war that transpired at Kim Jong-il that you were apparently referring to)...although as an admin, I may end up back in the limelight (though hopefully as a referee rather than as a protagonist).

In reference to contributors, if by "anonymous" you mean "not logged in," I couldn't agree more. <rant>Unfortunately, even if we ignore the usual POV issues, some of the most attrocious and inexplicable edits are made by people from anonymous IP addreses. Twice in 2 days now, I have had to make extensive fixes to 2 of "my" pet articles (Vancouver SkyTrain and Rulers of Korea) that were mangled by people who hooked up from anonymous IPs and inserted inexplicable typos, unresearched half facts, and the like. The more new contributors the better, I say, but it's really sometimes exasperating.</rant> (If, however, by "anonymous" you mean "not using one's real name," then you may be in a small minority among Wikipedians these days!)

One more issue: I know User:WhisperToMe has been raising your (and others') ire—I've seen the evidence on various talk pages. I think he's improving. As for the business of having so many variant romanizations, etc., on various articles, yes, it was out of hand. I introduced tables into various Korea-related articles to move all the variant spellings in different scripts out of the article body, so that each article does not start off with a long, unreadable first sentence. <rant>Hopefully, the tables will discourage people from adding yet more almost invariably incorrect romanized spellings for articles, since each table preemptively lists the authoritative spelling of the term in the 2 official romanization systems (along with whatever idiosyncratic spelling the article's title actually uses), so someone can't come along and add yet another spelling and claim it's legit. I have at least convinced Whisper to stop using Yale Romanization, a third romanization system and horrible abomination that only linguists perversely insist on using.</rant>

Well, I'm sorry for venting my spleen like this, but I gather you have somewhat similar views on these issues, and I do admire your iconoclasm. Until we talk again, Yours, 山道子 (Sewing) - talk 03:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: Sorry if my post is a bit rambling: I'm suffering from a touch of the flu tonight, so I may be a bit delirious.... Or is it the first stage of being drunk with power from becoming an admin!? -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 03:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adminship (cont'd)

I think many contributors don't realize that a quick search on Google for practically any subject will turn up dozens of Wikipedia-cloned pages. The mistruths, lies, typos, lazy grammar—and of course sometimes much worse—that gets entered on our servers is getting propagated around the world at an alarming rate. Geez, the more I think about it, the more it bothers me! On the other hand, the more that new contributors get involved in the project, the more the overall quality and breadth of Wikipedia will increase (hopefully). -山道子 (Sewing) - talk 03:44, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Party names

I tried to do the same, but I got a lot of reactions when I gave some parties the english names (look for example the Quebec Liberal Party. There is no naming convention for parties, I am sorry, so though I generally agree, there are exceptions. I am sorry, but I did the Ducth election results with the Dutch party names. I hope you don't mind if i do not change that. Gangulf 09:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

==

Holocaust

I've put some comments on your Holocaust version at User talk:Adam Carr/Drafts. john k 18:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Karski

Yes, it was Belzec that he may have visited. I don't think the revisionist attack should be mentioned, but I will look up the Jerusalem Post article mentioned in the revisionist article (Interview by Emie Meyer, Jerusalem Post, week ending June 28, 1986, p.9) to see what is really there. It will take a few days. Here's my guess: Bauer's suggestion about the labor camp was made to solve the problem of matching Karsk's observation of "Belzec" to the facts otherwise known about it. Btw, did you see my note at User talk:Adam Carr/Drafts2? --Zero 07:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could you add Image:Ac.larouche.jpg's source to its image description page? Guan aco 19:20, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear Adam: I have seen your new draft for the Holocaust article at User:Adam Carr/Drafts and I want to congratulate you on your sincere hard efforts with the magnificent result/s. You can count on my vote of support for it if it's needed. Sincerely, IZAK 11:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Konstanty Rokossowski

The only pic I could find on the web is located here. The page it's no is copyrighted, but I doubt the picture is as most probably it is from some Polish government publication from early fifties. Anyway, I asked Paweł Rudzki, the mayor of this museum and he replied that all materials on his site can be used freely with the link to his site provided. Too bad I couldn't find any bigger pic. That's probably because Rokossowski in Poland served as a so-called C/o Pole (Pełniący obowiązki Polaka in Polish), which ment that he felt more of a Soviet officer than a Pole and he used mostly his Soviet uniform. The funny thing is that he (together with hundreds of other Soviet officers transferred to the Polish Army) was forced to wear Polish unifor which he tried to avoid. That's why even newspapers mostly published his pics in full gala - meaning the Soviet uniform with a christmas tree of orders and medals... [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 12:40, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Caption on John Howard picture

Hi, I've put back my caption as it's more in line with Wikipedia:Captions. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Polish Corridor

I will not engage in a revert war you are apparently trying to start. Instead let's settle the issue on Talk:Polish Corridor. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 10:24, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Your image uploads

Latest one has no source nor licensing info. Please go to Image:Ac.geoffbuckland.jpg and fill them in! A list of image licensing tags is at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. And please also do the same for all your previous image uploads. Lupo 12:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You answered: Images from the Australian parliament are not copyright. And so what? Did I say that it was copyrighted? If you'd give the source and mark them as {{PD}}, you could avoid questions. Doing so is easy, you could, fgor instance, add both the source and the tag in your upload comment. (BTW, do you have an external source backing up your claim? If so, i'd like to see that for myself.) Lupo 12:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, the image seems to be from [2], which has a clearly visible © notice at the bottom, and their copyright statement at [3] is pretty clear. The image is curtesy of AUSPIC, the government picture service. Can you show me where AUSPIC states that their images are not copyrighted? Lupo 13:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know whether you could make a fair use claim under U.S. copyright law (since WP is hosted in the U.S.) for a non-U.S. item such as this image. Can you make a fair dealing claim? Lupo 13:09, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, your commentary is welcome on the issue of tables in the Australian federal election, 2004 page. Please comment here. Thanks, Aaron Hill 03:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Adam,

I tried to consider which parties are liberal parties. Most liberals in Europe wouldn't consider the Liberal Party of Australia as a liberal party, but see it as a conservative party, like the UK conservatives. I know it is the result of the orginal liberal current in Australia combined with others. On what issues outside the economy the LPA can be considered liberal? Gay rights?, position towards immigrants etc. I see that confirmed by the adherence of the LPA to the International Democratic Union, the co-operation of conservative parties world wide. On the other had I still see a difference between social democrats and liberals. See the discussion in the article liberalism, the paragraph on Liberalism and social democracy. As far as I can see the Australian Democrats come quit cloese to the left wing of European liberalism. Considering the Progressives I might have been to fast, but if it is a party between the Democrats and the LPA, it might be a right label. Gangulf 16:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed, but Mark Latham is up for Featured Article status. So far, only a couple of concerns have been raised - the lead section and references. I've tried to expand the lead section somewhat, but it could do with some improvement, and I figure you're probably the best person to go to as far as finding references. Ambi 00:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whenever you upload an image, please cite its source. It will be a pity if the images you took yourself (e.g. Image:Ac.marklatham.jpg) end up being deleted because they're unverified. People will go to the image description page for copyright info, not the page history of the page at which the image is located. If you took the image yourself please say so and tag it with {{GFDL}} (the former being more important than the latter)...if you stole it from somewhere else, please tag it as {{fairuse}} and maybe provide the url from where you stole it. Otherwise, the copyright police will eventually go around tagging these images as copyvios to have them deleted. Cheers, Jia ng 00:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've colour and contrast balanced your image, Image:Ac.marklatham.jpg. Sorry about the undue adding to the revision history, but I accidentally pressed the wrong button while working on it. BTW, what license is the photo under? --d 07:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I might have different views and sometimes I might even be wrong. But that doesn't make a nationalist out of me. If you simply can't live without personal attacks then perhaps you could find some other target for your bias and hatred. I did not deserve to be called a nationalist and I hope you won't repeat that. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 09:26, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I just finished reading through your proposed Holocaust article and I'm really impressed at the thorough job you've done. Let me know if/when you need help pushing it through. Mackensen 04:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your image uploads, again

Adam, I see that you keep uploading images without providing sources or licensing informations, or even bothering to make fair use claims. I consider this behavior very rude, for it creates a lot of work for others, who have to clean up after you and research these informations that you could supply very easily. Please do provide sources for the images you upload, and tag them appropriately.

I'm still waiting for a source for your statement that "Images from the Australian parliament are not copyright." Lupo 07:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adam, as one of the main contributors to the Australian politics section here, I was wondering if you could take a look at my stab at Sir Thomas Playford and the Liberal and Country League and see what you think (if you can track down Playford's date of death as well, that would be a bonus). Thanks --Roisterer 06:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article Quality

Hi Adam, can you tell me where the page is that you did the article quality check a while ago? Thanks! Fuzheado | Talk 04:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No worries, I've found it in meta. Thanks! Fuzheado | Talk 09:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikiholiday

Hi again, Adam: If you see me editing in, say, the next 3 days (let's say until Monday morning UTC), please revert my changes, send me a message, or give me a swift nudge in the ribs. Yours, Sewing - talk 15:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi yet again, Adam: Okay, I made some minor edits today...but now you can enforce my Wikibreak.... ;) Thanks for everything. -Sewing - talk 01:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, please don't delete article without agreement. Thanks. Markalexander100 05:40, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I for one certainly disagree with deleting the articles on Sukhothai and Ayutthaya. These are totally different periods and as such warrant their own articles. The respective kingdoms also comprised parts of other countries and cultures. What is nect you are going to delete Haripunchai and Lannathai as well? Thailand has a very complex history more complex than lets say .... Australia I do not see all off Australia's history scooped up in one article! To put it all in one article is very bad. Waerth 07:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adam, just like we have: History_of_Tasmania History of Victoria History of Canberra and so on we should have a seperate entrie on Ayutthaya kingdom, Sukhothai Kingdom, Nan Kingdom and the many other kingdoms and principalities of Thailand that cropped up during the ages. We do it for many other countries, so why is Thailand less and should it have all of it's history written in two articles? I think the current setup is right. A history of Thailand page which leads to a short narrative history that you wrote. And then seperate more specialistic articles about Ayutthaya and so on. I totally disagree that we should put it all in one place. Ayutthaya, Sukhothai, Lopburi, Haripunchai, Nakhon Sri Thammarat and many others were kingdoms/principalities in the territory of what we call Thailand today. Not even all of these principalities and kingdoms were Thai. Many were Thai, but you have Mon kingdoms, Malay kingdoms, Northern Thai kingdoms (the Thai themselves consider them seperate) and Khmer kingdoms. Waerth

They were an integral part of Siamese history and should be treated as such I do not contest this. Otherwise I would have contested their entry in the history of Thailand article. I didn't do that! I think both Mark and Andy will not contest that either. What we do contest though is that the histories of these periods are "rich" enough to be written about extensively in seperate articles. Instead of just a short entry in the History of Thailand articles. So much more happened. For instance the powerplay between the Burmese kingdoms, Lannathai, Lan Xang and Ayutthaya. This alone warrants it own articles. These are important episodes which shaped Thailand into what it is today. Waerth 09:02, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And as said before - this not an history book, but an encyclopedia, and as an online encyclopedia one which finds many reads with a short attention span. So someone interested in the history of Thailand might first read the very short section in Thailand, then the more detailled overview in History of Thailand. And then eventually plunge into one of the very detailled articles on on of the main periods of history, or one of the local kingdoms, or on one of the important historical events. For example the Paknam incident (which I want to write about once I can get the book covering it in detail) warrants a detailled article on its own, but of course also needs to be mentioned shortly in History of Thailand and a bit more detailled in History of Thailand after 1786. You cannot force a topic which has enough noteworthy details that warrant a whole book about it into one article without either loose details or scare of those who want the overview. So most of the text you added IMHO belongs into the detailled articles like Ayutthaya kingdom, instead of converting those to redirects. andy 11:12, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Adam, if you get a chance could you have a look at the Sparta article? I was tempted to revert the recent edits by 195.70.48.242 but am holding off--for all I know there might be something of value there, just POV and badly written. I thought I should seek out a specialist on Ancient Greece (should you ever need a specialist on Renaissance music, let me know, LOL). Thanks, and happy editing! Antandrus 19:31, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Adam. You might want to update your election archive. The ALP candidate for Kalgoorlie, Kevin Richards, died. - Mark 11:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know that the LaRoucheys are difficult to deal with, but please try to avoid totally writing off their points. At least in the political views article, there are some serious NPOV problems that could use cleanup. And, in the absence of a hard arbcom ruling, which we are clearly in the absence of, there's not really any way to deal with this article beyond compromise. I'll do what I can to mediate the dispute on the talk pages. Also, Hersh was not banned from editing any articles, looking at the arbcom ruling. Snowspinner 04:07, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

You have, in my opinion at least, a much stronger case on the biography page, but on the political views one, Herschel is right - it's a POV mess. And insisting on reverting to it is not helping your cause. Perhaps if you were to try introducing a paragraph of criticisms to each of the sections of Herschel's preferred version? Snowspinner 15:31, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hello Adam. You upload a lot of images, but seldomly provide source and license information. Effectively; these images are worthless to Wikipedia, and especially to our reusers. For example, I would like the pictures in the article Australian federal election, 2004 to have license information. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 19:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While I understand your views on Herch, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to them, the arbcom declined to do a substantial ban on him, which means that he is as much a bona fide editor as you or I. Which means, unfortunately, that he cannot simply be reverted on sight. Snowspinner 01:39, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not a valid reason for reversion. And if he's as big a nutjob as you say, it shouldn't be that hard to respond to any concrete claims he makes. Snowspinner 01:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, please consider certifying the complaint I've made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Weed_Harper and adding any comments or evidence you find appropriate. AndyL 08:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you are willing to certify the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Weed_Harper so it can continue please indicate so under the section titled "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" AndyL 22:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:Ac.polandethnicmap.jpg: Please take a look at Image talk:Ac.polandethnicmap.jpg. [[User:Halibutt|Halibu tt]] 23:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

They show which suburbs are adjacent for easier navigation. Furthermore, they were decided upon by general consensus among those who bothered to participate as an across-the-board solution for Melbourne's suburbs. Ambi 09:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't have much patience for this. Best course may be to try to bring in new people. User CJCurrie:CJCurrie has expressed an interest. He's a history phd candidate if that's of any help. AndyL 14:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would you mind adding some copyright info on Image:Ac.meinkampf.jpg, thanks. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:22, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)