User talk:Anna Quist

Welcome!

Hello, Anna Quist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 Wikipedia: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! NickelShoe (Talk) 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you again remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing.

Anna, please listen[edit]

Deletion templates are not supposed to be removed. Discuss it on the talk page and wait for a decision is made. If the AI is as large as you say it is, there will be no problem. Zazaban (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna, I wanted to clarify. You are allowed to remove the WP:PROD notice as you did (but you shouldn't remove any other deletion templates). Wikipedia operates by consensus, so we try to make sure everyone agrees with an action. So with the maintenance templates, you should fix the problem they're bringing up or else explain why you don't think the article needs them (on its talk page). Unfortunately, if you don't work with others and instead just repeatedly undo their actions, you'll very likely be blocked under WP:3RR.

So you're an anarchist yourself? Cool, I've been involved in anarchist stuff for about 10 years myself (though mostly all I do is food not bombs and anti-war stuff nowadays :/ ). Let me know if you need any help or anything. Hit me back at my talk page, because I'm bad at watching other people's talk pages. Peace, delldot talk 01:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello delldot.

I have improved the Anarchist International page on wikipedia by adding the following text today:

"It must be said that a so called "Anorg-warning" based on quotes from two leftist-marxistoid persons from Denmark and Germany (no longer active), published by Jamal Hannah, a member of the mainly marxist Industrial Workers of the World, at flag.blackened.net is almost entirely false, see [1] and [2] and search for "Hannah". Nobody should pay attention to this false "warning".

For a discussion between the Industrial Workers of the World and the anarchist International Workers of the World see [3].

Some external links to the Anarchist International and associated organizations are found at the following link [4]

I am not used to edit at Wikipedia, so I need help. If you can help me it would be fine.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist

(84.215.147.184 (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That's not an improvement, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to have content like that. Zazaban (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, it is of course an improvement. Who are you to talk for Wikipedia? I know the rules at Wikipedia.

Hi! Replied to your note. delldot talk 01:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT THE ANARCHIST INTERNATIONAL PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA !!!!

From the "Deletion page" of Anarchist International:

Anarchist International[edit]

De-prodded, posting on behalf of Zazaban. Prod summary was "Per WP:HOAX; http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html and WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR" delldot talk 02:01, 28 June 2008

The http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html is a total hoax, the stuff on this link is about 100% rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . (Anna Quist (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per above. There is strong reason to believe this organization consists of only User:Anna Quist and at most 2 or 3 others. No evidence has ever been offered up of otherwise. Zazaban (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete in favor or anarchy, lets delete it!Myheartinchile (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: No verifiable evidence of the existence, let alone notability of AI. Significant amounts of the material on the anarchy.no site have been shown to be plagiarized, and other material simply copied from Wikipedia itself. Libertatia (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity/COI issues as well. History page shows that two primary editors are self-proclaimed members of the "International." Libertatia (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is also false and rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html .(Anna Quist (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

---

I have followed the rules on Wikipedia and added the following to the Anarchist International Wikipedia page today:

It must be said that a so called "Anorg-warning" based on quotes from two leftist-marxistoid persons from Denmark and Germany (no longer active), published by Jamal Hannah, a member of the mainly marxist Industrial Workers of the World, at flag.blackened.net is almost entirely false, see [1] and [2] and search for "Hannah". Nobody should pay attention to this false "warning".

For a discussion between the Industrial Workers of the World and the anarchist International Workers of the World see [3].

There is no "discussion" at this link. The page appears to be an unsourced attempt to smear the Industrial Workers of the World and a few specific anarchists as marxist, or even fascist. Substantial searching has revealed no actual chapters of the International Workers of the World, which is pretty strange in an era where a small infoshop generally has significant web presence. Given Wikipedia standards, a possibly nonexistent union can hardly be used as support for the notability of a possibly nonexistent organization. Libertatia (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some external links to the Anarchist International and associated organizations are found at the following link [4]

The links on this note should prove without doubt that the Anarchist International is quite a large network.

The links all appear to have nothing more than contact information derived from the AI website. These is nothing that independently verifies the large claims made by the article. This is an open-and-shut case for deletion. Libertatia (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable person in Norway (Oslo) he/she can come and see that the AI-network has about 2000 valid e-mailadresses, networkmembers/subscribers for anarchist groups and individuals.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist

Those are all from your own website. I'm not sure if that counts as reliable. Zazaban (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

They are external links, not the link-site of www.anarchy.no ... You can check that the external links are valid - try them.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist

I either vote for deletion, on the grounds that the page is nonsense or an objective article that reflects the nonsensical nature of the "Anarchist International".--58.165.233.113 (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you vote deletion? If so, put it up in bold, like this Zazaban (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I officially vote for deletion.--58.165.233.113 (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

The homepage of the Anarchist Internatonal, www.anarchy.no , is not nonsensensial. Try to prove it and you will fail. The article Anarchist International on Wikipedia is objective and to the point.

The organizations/networks associated to the Anarchist International are found at the link-page of www.anarchy.no , and then there is a big network of networkmembers/subscribers related to the different organizations/networks.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Quist (talk • contribs) 07:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant Hoax and Possible G11 --Numyht (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Anarchist International is no hoax. You are not matter of fact...

Anarchist Greetings Anna Quist

Delete, and create another article on the Anarchist Federation in Norway, the sole component of the imaginary AI. --Soman (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have had a Norwegian page of the Anarchist Federation in/of Norway (AFIN) and the Northern Anarchist Confederation (NAC)/Anarkistenes Organisasjon i Norden (ANORG) for several years. We have had an English Wikipedia page for the Anarchist International for several months, and this is going to continue. The Anarchist International is probably the largest anarchist network in the world, and it would be a shame if some ochlarchists from Anarchism.net and a few leftist marxistoid persons should stop this. You know nothing about the Anarchist International...

As for Zazaban I have problems with taking him seriously. In a discussion on Anarchism.net he answered with the following "intelligent" and a bit ochlarchical statements: "You're one to talk. - And, just to see how you react; FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. FUCK FUCK. FUCK." Source [5]. I would not put too much weight on what he means. I don't think such comments are funny.

Anarchist Greetings Anna Quist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Quist (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's mainly because sense hasn't worked with you, so I tried nonsense. But really, ad hominem attacks have no place here. Zazaban (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails the usual test of notability, which is whether there is coverage from independent sources. Having an international organization of anarchists is like having Alcoholics Anonymous as a brand of beer. Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that there is no coverage from independent sources, se link to independent, external, sources, covering AI, at [6].

You don't seem to understand. True anarchism is a.o.t an accumulated updated research front of libertarian research, that is just what www.anarchy.no is. If the Anarchist International Wikipedia page is deleted, it is a severe attack on free research and publication of free research. I ask everybody that are for free research to support our claim that the AI-page should not be deleted.

Anarchist Greetings from Anna Quist --Anna Quist talk

Hi again Anna, replied delldot talk 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist International[edit]

A tag has been placed on Anarchist International requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Zazaban (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not recreate this article again. If you have an issue with the closing decision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International then you will need to take it up at deletion review. Kevin (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why the deletion of the Anarchist International is not fair above, with sound matter of fact arguments, without positive response. The content is verified at external links, see [7], a link that was also added to the AI-Wikipedia page 14.07.2008, but it was deleted again. The conclusion is that the present editing group with the power to delete at Wikipedia consists of ochlarchists, and enemies of anarchism. (Anna Quist (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You're the only one who thinks it's unfair. Zazaban (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only one that think it is unfair, remember your "deleting discussion" with another AI-member that you have linked at Anarchism.net. [8], i.e. [9]. Anyway the Wikipedia editors can vote with consensus that the world is flat, and put up an article about that. The deletion of the AI-Wikipedia page is a similar case. The deletion does not have scientific standard. The conclusion is that Wikipedia does not hold scientific standard in this matter. (Anna Quist (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That user is a vandal, not a good example. Zazaban (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant vandalism in this context is the deletion of the AI-Wikipedia page, and that is done by you and some other ochlarchists/vandals. (Anna Quist (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Like I said, take it to deletion review. Zazaban (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact, I insist you take it to deletion review. There's a link in Kevin's post. Zazaban (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to discuss this with you on a deletion review. I discuss as little as possible with ochlarchists/vandals as you Zazaban. (Anna Quist (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It won't involve me. Zazaban (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts[edit]

Hey Anna, I feel like I maybe did a bad job of explaining my perspective before. I think I understand your feelings on the matter, you think the subject deserves an article and that it's not fair for Wikipedians to decide it doesn't, right? My perspective is this: This is Wikipedia, a project with very specific goals. We need those goals to remain narrow in order to have a cohesive project, so we can't just be a free speech venue (although there are sites that do offer similar opportunities, like indymedia and social networking sites). To us Wikipedians, the question is about whether the article is good for Wikipedia, not the world at large. As far as I can see, that's the only way the project will work. Similarly, Wikipedians have to decide by consensus what stays and what doesn't--again, I can't see any other way to work it. I can certainly understand how you'd want to resist and fight back, but please see my point: Wikipedia isn't The Power, we're a community project to provide a free, valuable resource indiscriminately. If we're successful, it'll help take back control over information from media conglomerates. This is why I'm strongly urging you to work with the project rather than against it. Besides, we get tons and tons of people trying to disrupt the project every day, we deal with them very efficiently, by blocking them. I don't want that to happen to you because I can see you're trying to do the right thing.

I think the sources you're pointing to as resources for the AI article aren't reliable enough; I assume that's why it was agreed to delete the article in the AfD discussion. If you want an article on AI to be kept, I suggest creating a new one in your userspace (that is, any page beginning with User:Anna Quist/Anarchist International... such as User:Anna Quist/Sandbox); you'll need to cite reliable sources like mainstream media, journal articles, and books. Sources can't be forums, blogs, or self-published because there's not enough editorial review to ensure accuracy. For an article to be verifiable, every fact in it must be attributable to a reliable source. If you create a verifiable article with reliable sources, I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be included. If the subject's not mentioned in reliable sources, we simply can't have an article on it. Definitely let me know if I've misunderstood your perspective. I'm glad to continue discussing it.

I'll talk to Zazaban and ask them to step back from this matter because I think it's not doing either of you any good. Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot talk 22:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Delldot. If you take a serious look at [10] you will find a lot of reliable external sources confirming the content of the Anarchist International, including listing of International Journal of Anarchism at a well known New York university. By the way the original AI-Wikipedia article was posted by H. Fagerhus, the editor of International Journal of Anarchism, in itself a reliable source, and not by me. (Anna Quist (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Out of the english language websites, most were either generic lists, or about the IWW or other organizations that you claim to be affiliated with but have never proven to be. Zazaban (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The International Workers of the World, affiliated to the Anarchist International must not be mixed up with the mainly marxian Industrial Workers of the World, that is not affiliated to AI. It is proven from the homepage of the International Workers of the World that it is affiliated to the Anarchist International, see http://www.anarchy.no/iwwai.html .

There are several independent newspaper and other articles about the Anarchist International and affiliated organizations, quoting from [11]:

"Articles about the Anarchist International etc. are a.o.t. published in the paper-editions of the largest newspaper in Norway, Verdens Gang 06.11.2001, p 39, "Anarki er demokrati", reprinted at http://www.anarchy.no/vg1html.html, Universitas 23.10.2002, p 1, "Akademiske anarkister", pp 14-15, "Anonyme anarkister" and 13.11.2002, p 17, "Replikk fra Anarkistisk Universitetslag", and the two largest economic newspapers in Norway, Dagens Nærlingsliv 2/3 June 2007, p 3, "Lest siden sist", and Finansavisen 17.10.2007, p. 64, "Norges Anarkistråd avviser skattetrussel", reprinted at http://www.anarchy.no/dnfa.html . The articles in Universitas are also available online, see below.

We will also mention the articles about the first and second IFA-IAF congresses in Oslo etc. in the IFA-IAF organ CRIFA-bulletin, documented at http://www.anarchy.no/ifadok.html and http://www.anarchy.no/mandate.html .

More material about the Anarchist International etc is found in the 487 pages book "About the northern and southern sections of IFA-IAF and the Anarchist International AI-IFA-IAF - Anarchism and syndicalism in Norway about 1850 - 2000 - Anarkismen og syndikalismen i Norge ca 1850-2000", International Journal of Anarchism © ISSN 0800-0220 no 2 (35) ISBN 82-90468-25-3 Anorg forlag, Oslo, Norway 2005, by the Norwegian anarchist historian H. Fagerhus. He has a.o.t. also written an article in the book "Arbeiderhistorie 2005 - Årbok for Arbeiderbevegelsens arkiv og bibliotek" ISBN 82-90759-22-5 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, pp 103-116, and the article "Anarkofeministene" in the journal Sentralposten no 3 - 2005, pp 17-18. (Anna Quist (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If you read the updated [12] you will see that there are not only "generic lists" but several quotes and articles of the Anarchist International and affiliated organizations/organs. You should read all of it before you make (wrong) judgements.

About lists it is important to notice that the International Journal of Anarchism is listed together with all the other main economic journals on the web, by several universities, etc., and that proves that it is a highly reliable journal. (Anna Quist (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I think it's great that you're working on it in your sandbox Anna, I sure appreciate you listening to my advice. I don't have time to look at the sources now, but I will when I get the chance. Journals sound like a good source, I'm not as sure about the website anarchy.no itself--what kind of editorial review does it have? You can certainly cite the sources it links to, if you can get them, those sound good. My only problem with the article so far is that it only has one inline citation--remember, we need to be able to back up every claim in the article (although sources that affirm that the group exists are a start, they're not enough). If you want, I can mark the sentences in your sandbox that I think need citations. Thanks for working so hard on this and for taking my concerns seriously. Peace, delldot talk 02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!!![edit]

My bad! I undid your blanking of YOUR sandbox... My apologies. I obviously wasnt thinking. Lucifer (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Delldot about editorial review. Quoting from the webpage of The International Journal of Anarchism, http://www.anarchy.no/ija.html .

"Articles to IJA may be written in any language, and should be provided with an English summary. If the article is written in English, the summary can be omitted.

International Journal of Anarchism is a Refereed scientific journal. Refereed materials are publications reviewed by "expert readers" or referees prior to the publication of the material. After reading and evaluating the material, the referee informs the publisher/editor if the document should be published or if any changes should be made prior to publication. Refereed materials are also referred to as Peer Reviewed. Refereed materials are significant to the research and the literature of library and information science because they assure readers that the information conveyed is reliable and timely. With some exceptions a refereed article is one that is blind reviewed and has two external reviewers. The blind review requirement and the use of external reviewers are consistent with the research criteria of objectivity and of knowledge. The referees can a.o.t. help you polish the content of your article by improving the grammar, punctuation, and consistency, and by making content suggestions. The referees of the IJA are independent Norwegian senior researchers loosely associated to the AI-secretariate. Their first language is Norwegian, but they are rather clever in English and other languages."

(Anna Quist (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

PS To delldot. You wrote:"If you want, I can mark the sentences in your sandbox that I think need citations." I think this is a good idea. Hope you have time soon to do it, see User:Anna Quist/Anarchist International for comments. (Anna Quist (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Another reason for to have the Anarchist International Wikipedia page is that the Anarchist International www.anarchy.no is the most popular real anarchist organization web-site in the world, according to the web information company Alexa, see http://www.anarchy.no/popular.html . (Anna Quist (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Responses to the article in userspace[edit]

Looking good Anna! I've marked parts I think need citations--basically any time there's a statistic (broadly defined, including dates), potentially controversial fact, or quote. More thoughts:

You can reuse a citation, if it endorses more than one fact in your article. Use <ref name="blah"> instead of <ref>.
It would be great if you could flesh out the reference you have, with publisher, location, and an ISBN if you can find it.
To create a link to another Wikipedia article, enclose the name of the article in double square brackets, [[like this]].
I would not use anarchy.no as a source, although it's certainly fine to include it as an external link. Usually websites aren't that reliable unless there's something really special about them.
For the sentence ...was not a federation, but an authoritarian group..., I would cite the source that called the group authoritarian rather than asserting it in the article, for WP:NPOV reasons. You could use wording like "so-and-so accused the group of being authoritarian..." Same with "made it necessary": says who?
Similarly, for the sentence The suspension and the disallowance of their congresses will remain until ..., I would replace with so-and-so said that the suspension and the prohibition of their congresses would remain until... with a citation. The article is supposed to merely report facts, not be asserting anything of its own. Similiarly, the article should avoid using words like valid, again to avoid assertion.
I would do away entirely with the sentences Thus they state that people that do not agree with them are lunatic, just like in the Soviet Union. This only confirms ... and other sentences that seem to aim to convince the reader what a bunch of jerks these Marxists are--they may well be, but Wikipedia is not the place to be pushing a particular viewpoint. All articles must be absolutely neutral and balanced. POV pushing is strictly out. This is of utmost importance to the survival of the project. The sentences I quoted also have problems with original research because the writer is drawing a connection that has not been published.
The next paragraph has similar neutrality problems. Words like "dogmatic" would need to be attributed to a source, the article can't assert that itself. The Anarchist International is a global, undogmatic, free thinking, nonsectarian modern anarchist international, with sections for anarchoindividualist, anarchocollectivist, social individualist and mutualist anarchist and anarchocommunist as well as green/ecoanarchist, anarchosyndicalist and anarchafeminist anarchists sounds like an advertisement for the group, also a problem with WP:NPOV (too favorable). It's obvious which side of this conflict the writer's on, the article reads like it's trying to convince you to join that side of the conflict. In a truly neutral article, the reader should not be able to tell what the author's point of view is at all.
I urge you to read the WP:COI guideline and decide whether you are truly able to remain neutral in writing about this topic.
However, I think the purely factual stuff about the history is fine and should stay if there's a reliable source for it (note that I don't think the anarchy.no site will cut it). The notability guideline calls for multiple reliable independent sources, so I would recommend finding more sources in order to avoid deletion when you do move this to the mainspace.

Sorry if this sounds harsh; as I say, neutrality is of utmost importance. I think only the last few paragraphs are problematic, the first part of the article will be fine with citations. I think it's great that you've taken the citation policies to heart and put so much work into creating a quality article! I can tell you're trying to do the right thing here, thanks for taking my advice so far. delldot talk 14:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, replied delldot talk 18:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and third party sources[edit]

Hi Anna replied on my talk. Peace, delldot talk 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, replied again. delldot talk 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) delldot talk 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply delldot talk 15:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The Anarchist International[edit]

A tag has been placed on The Anarchist International, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. triwbe (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your article[edit]

It looks good, feel free to create it, but please next time, can you put something like that in a Sandbox in userspace and give Delldot, me, on anoher admin a link? Thanks, --Maxim_(talk) 11:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a little copy edit and some tags. See the talk page. I think maybe you should explain on the talk page that this artice is substantially different from the previous afd one. It may make a passing admin think twice. Good luck. --triwbe (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page[edit]

I have made som major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page, and I am sure it will meet the WP:RS standards this time. Thus I hope you will not delete it if I publish the new website on Wikipedia. What is your opinion? Please give a quick reply. The new material is:

"The International Journal of Anarchism (IJA), [17]the organ of AI and International Institute for Organization Research [18], the independent research institute of AI, is a Refereed scientific journal, and the only Refereed anarchist scientific journal in world, quoting from IJA's official website:

Articles to IJA may be written in any language, and should be provided with an English summary. If the article is written in English, the summary can be omitted.

International Journal of Anarchism is a Refereed scientific journal. Refereed materials are publications reviewed by "expert readers" or referees prior to the publication of the material. After reading and evaluating the material, the referee informs the publisher/editor if the document should be published or if any changes should be made prior to publication. Refereed materials are also referred to as Peer Reviewed. Refereed materials are significant to the research and the literature of library and information science because they assure readers that the information conveyed is reliable and timely. With some exceptions a refereed article is one that is blind reviewed and has two external reviewers. The blind review requirement and the use of external reviewers are consistent with the research criteria of objectivity and of knowledge. The referees can a.o.t. help you polish the content of your article by improving the grammar, punctuation, and consistency, and by making content suggestions. The referees of the IJA are independent Norwegian senior researchers loosely associated to the AI-secretariate. Their first language is Norwegian, but they are rather clever in English and other languages.

The electronic issues of the International Journal of Anarchism are updated every time there are significant more informations about the different events and cases. But unless special cases, they are not redistributed by e-mail when they are updated. Also the IAT and other pages at www.anarchy.no are updated almost every day. Thus, to be updated on the news and comments about anarchy, anarchist(s) and anarchism in different connections, it is necessary to visit the AIIS-web sites every day.

The IJA is listed among the other main scientific journals in the world by several universities and other academic sources, i.e. the US Oswego State University of New York's List of Economic Journals on the Web, see [19], by Cpa Directory Index - Law Research, see [20], Resources and Links at http://www.crsp.com, see [21], by Benno Torgler - Researcher in Economics, Tax Compliance and Tax Morale, see [22], Economic journals on the web of http://cba.unomaha.edu/, [23], and Interneteki Ekonomi Dergileri, see [24]. The IJA is thus seen as the most reliable anarchist journal in the world. Other important, but non-academic anarchist journals, that have published AI-IFA-IAF material is Le Monde Libertaire (French) and the multilingual CRIFA bulletin, see Further readings below.

Other important non-academic journals that have published AI-IFA-IAF resolutions are the largest newspapers in Norway, Verdens Gang, see [25], and the two main economic journals in Norway, see [26], and Further readings."

I have also added another article to the Further readings list and added one new source at the External section.

I hope Wiki-consensus about publishing of the page can be reached before I publish it. What is your opinion? Is the page good enough for publishing?

The proposal to the new AI- Wikipedia page is in my sandbox, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International .

PS. Since there seems to be Wiki-consensus for publishing it, I have published it. (Anna Quist (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy deletion of The Anarchist International[edit]

A tag has been placed on The Anarchist International, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Skomorokh 06:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page and it is published by Wiki-consensus, approved by Maxim[edit]

There have been major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page and it is published by Wiki-consensus, approved by Maxim, see Maxim's talk page,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maxim Quoting from Maxim's talk page:

"Major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page

I have made som major changes to the AI-Wikipedia page, and I am sure it will meet the WP:RS standards this time. Thus I hope you will not delete it if I publish the new website on Wikipedia. What is your opinion? Please give a quick reply. The new material is at User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International

I have also added another article to the Further readings list and added one new source at the External section.

I hope Wiki-consensus about publishing of the page can be reached before I publish it. What is your opinion? Is the page good enough for publishing? (Anna Quist (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Yes, it is. Feel free to publish it. Maxim(talk) 13:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)" (Anna Quist (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

ANI thread[edit]

Hello Anna, you might be interested in knowing that there is a thread about you and the Anarchist International articles here. Regards, Skomorokh 09:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The so called "anorg-warning" is entirely false[edit]

An argument against the AI-Wikipedia page is the so called "anorg-warning". This document is entirely false, quoting: [edit] Anarchist International Anarchist International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log) De-prodded, posting on behalf of Zazaban. Prod summary was "Per WP:HOAX; http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html and WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR" delldot talk 02:01, 28 June 2008

The http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html is a total hoax, the stuff on this link is about 100% rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . (Anna Quist (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) (UTC)

Strong Delete Per above. There is strong reason to believe this organization consists of only User:Anna Quist and at most 2 or 3 others. No evidence has ever been offered up of otherwise. Zazaban (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC) delete in favor or anarchy, lets delete it!Myheartinchile (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Strong Delete: No verifiable evidence of the existence, let alone notability of AI. Significant amounts of the material on the anarchy.no site have been shown to be plagiarized, and other material simply copied from Wikipedia itself. Libertatia (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Vanity/COI issues as well. History page shows that two primary editors are self-proclaimed members of the "International." Libertatia (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC) This is also false and rejected and turned down at " The so called "Anorg-warnig is false" at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html .(Anna Quist (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

--- (Anna Quist (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I included the rebuttal of the warning in the ANI thread linked above, for neutrality. Regards Skomorokh 13:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The debate[edit]

Anna. I think you have a decision to make here - ask for the article to be speedy deleted - this gives you the chance to try to improve the article once more and re-create later. OR go for Afd - which will mean the whole debate taking place - but if the result is "delete" then I think it would be the end and the article will never be allowed. Jump in here or ask me to make a comment for you. --triwbe (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, could we please hear your thoughts on this? I'm holding off from nominating the article for AfD, but only as a courtesy. Regards, Skomorokh 15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a speedy delete is a good option. Neither the AFd (?). I work with the article in my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International and have improved and changed it several times. I don't know what Afd is. There are added reliable independent third party sources to the article. I think it is unfair to question the reliability after all these changes are done. I think the discussion should continue here on my talk page, and on the basis of this discussion I will change the content of the AI-wikipage in my sandbox, and later, after discussing with, say, Maxim, I will publish the changes, i.e. after broadest possble consensus. I am interesting in improving the article from the present B-rate to A. We have had a similar page in the Norwegian Wiki-site for years, and we ahve had no trouble with this. I think you are creating problems where there really are none. WHile we work on improvements teh article should stay on Wikipedia. As mentioned I don't know what the Afd is, but it does not sound good. I must repeat that Maxim approved the article before publsing. I see no reson for you to question his authority and judgement in this matter.

(Anna Quist (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry for the jargon, Anna. AfD stands for Articles for deletion, meaning the article is put before all the editors to decide whether it should be deleted or not. Maxim is simply a user, like you or me, and carries no extra authority. If you don't want the article to go to AfD, triwbe is going to delete it from Anarchist International, although you will still be able to edit it in your sandbox. I hope this is clear, Skomorokh 18:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, there are enough people that think this article should not exist, for what ever reason (not inlcuding me, I am just trying to mediate).

Option 1) speedy delete the main article and you will be sure to have another chance to recreate it when ever you think it will be acceptable.

Option 2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process. You saw this before when it was deleted previously here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International. The article is put under discussion for up to 5 days and afterwards a decision is made be consensus. If there is a consensus to delete, then the article is deleted. The point is that we feel that if the AfD says delete a second time then there will be little chance of the article ever being allowed. I cannot say what the result of an AfD would be, but there must be a consensus to delete, if the consensus is mixed then the article will stay. But looking at current edits and comments there will sure to be some strong arguments for deletion.

If you do not choose soon then some one will make the option 2 choice for you.

What do you think ?

--triwbe (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have read the new AI-wikipage very well. There are several references to independent large newspapers, anarchist journals outside AI, and independent websites. I suggest you read the AI-wikipage before making any judgements.

I see no reason to delete the article while it is improved. Why such hurry? I feel a bit manipulated. I would like others' opinion before I make a decision, especially Delldot and Maxim. I was not a part of the last Afd debate because I was on holiday, so I have not a clue about what it is like. I will like you to give me some more advice. By the way , is not Maxim and Admin with higher status than an ordinary user such as me.

(Anna Quist (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

My opinion is that if you speedily (voluntarily) delete then you and the others will have plenty of time to review and change in peace.

You say you were not part of the last AFD debate. Are you sure ? Read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International carefully and then look at the history here which clearly shows you adding to the debate.

I have the agreement with Skomorokh to give you 24 hours to choose, I hope by then Delldot and Maxim will have checked by then in so take your time. --triwbe (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that I was in it in the start but, but I really can't remember, I went on holiday 30 june and was not back until 14 july. if the debate lasted in my holiday I was not in that part.

(Anna Quist (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I will check the file.

PS. I have checked the file. The debate stopped 30 june, when I went on holiday. I was really surprised when I found the AI- page deleted after I come home on 14th july.

AI-Wikipage again - deletion or Afd, are these the only options?[edit]

I have posted on Delldot's and Maxim's talkpages. Hope to hear from them.

"Hello delldot/Maxim.

I have got some proposals for speedy deletion or Afd from Skomorokh and Triwbe. I feel I am being manipulated a bit, what is your opinion? - I would like you to say a word in the debate on my talk page if you have time, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Quist#The_debate "

I feel som hostility vis-a-vis AI here that I find irrational.

(Anna Quist (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

AI-Wikipage has rank B on the assessment scale, other anarchist pages have a much lover rating. Why should the AI page be deleted?[edit]

Say the International of anarchist federations' page (only southern IFA-sections) has a much lower rating then tha AI-page. Why should the AI-page be deleted and other stay? (Anna Quist (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As far as I can tell, you rated it yourself. Zazaban (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not rank it myself. I don't know who did the rating, perhaps Maxim or Triwbe. I don't know how to do the ranking. You should be more careful with the truth Zazaban

(Anna Quist (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Zazaban is very hostile to the AI - if he can decide deletion - it will be deleted the same what arguments I put forward[edit]

Zazaban is very hostile to the AI - if he can decide deletion - it will be deleted the same what arguments I put forward. The main reason for the deletion of the initial page was the http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html . IIFOR has proved that this documet is a hoax, rejected and put down alle these arguements against AI at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html . Thus I see no reason for deletion, if the routine for deletion vs not, is fair. My main question is, does Zazaban really have the power to delete, same what the facts are? (Anna Quist (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

What exactly do you mean is negative with the AI-page ?[edit]

Someone - I don't know who, has placed the tag with questions about the AI page:

1. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.

Ad 1. There are independent third party publications, three main Norwegian newspapers, Le Monde Libertaire and the CRIFA-bulletin and several webpages under external links.

2. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.

Ad 2. "Notability" is a word thay can be interpreted in many ways. I guess the question of notablity is related to the so called "anorg-warning" at http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/anorg-warning.html . This is however a total hoax, rejected and turned down by IIFOR at http://www.anarchy.no/anorgwarning.html

3. It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter.

Ad 3. I have no "conflict of interest with the subject matter". I am acting in a scientific, objective way, stating facts in this matter

4. The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax.

ad 4. I have answered to this under part 2. AI is not a hoax.

Tell me what exactly do you mean is negative with the AI-page?

See also the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anarchist_International

(Anna Quist (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The AI-Wiki-page is deleted once more, who did it and for what reason? Please undelete it! The discussion page is also deleted, where can I find it?[edit]

The AI-Wiki-page is deleted once more, the name Maxim is mentioned on the discussion page. Did you delete it? Remember you said it was ok to publish it, and it is even been improved since then. Thus I mean the deletion is an error. Can you please undelete the page. Also please answer the question, who did it and for what reason?

The discussion page is also deleted, where can i find it? I would like to copy it to my talk place - it was an interesting discussion, and it must be stored somewhere on Wiki

This message is also posted on Maxim's talk page

(Anna Quist (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The AI-Wiki-page is deleted, this was not a part of the deal - Where can I find the discussion page?[edit]

(Copy of message to Triwbe)

The AI-Wiki-page is deleted, this was not a part of the deal. Can you undelete it, or may I repost it from my sandbox? What do you think I should do? - See see my talk page... The discussion page is also deleted. Where can I find the discussion page? It must be stored somewhere here on Wiki, and I would like to copy the content to my talk page.It was an interesting discussion.

(Anna Quist (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, you took too long and there seems to still be a lot of major concerns among the community. I did not propose nor delete the article. The (rather brief) discussion is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International (2nd nomination). It was proposed for delete by Hoary (talk · contribs) and closed and deleted, very quickly by Bjweeks (talk · contribs). You can ask him to give you a copy of the article and the talk page. there is nothing more I can do. Again sorry. --triwbe (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete the AI-Wiki-page, what is the reason for deletion?[edit]

Copy of post to Bjweeks

Triwbe has said you have deleted the AI-Wiki-page, what is the reason for the deletion? It was rated class B, and sould not be deleted. Please undelete the AI-Wiki-page, besides I want a copy of the AI-page's talk page to paste it on my talk page. It should not have been deleted but perhaps going at an Afd. See my talk page for more information, Regards ... (Anna Quist (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Why the article was deleted, and why it will stay deleted[edit]

Another user, Ohconfucius, discovered and announced that much of the Wikipedia article directly reproduced what was within this page of anarchy.no. Neither that page within anarchy.no nor the top page of anarchy.no clearly states that the content is released either via GFDL or into the public domain, and therefore its content cannot be reproduced within Wikipedia. BJweeks was entirely right to delete it, and fast.

In case you're wondering: If anarchy.no had released its material via GFDL or into the public domain, the discovery that the material came from anarchy.no would probably pushed the direction of the deletion debate more certainly toward deletion, as Wikipedia does not serve as a conduit for organizations to write about themselves.

You'll find the deletion debate here. You'll see that although there are minor disagreements among the people who spoke up, nobody disagreed with my finding that virtually none of the content of the article was independently verifiable, and that it was instead merely on the say-so of Anarchist International itself.

You will be unable to re-create an article at either Anarchist International or The Anarchist International, and any attempt to think of some other name in order to re-add similar material will be treated as disruptive.

I hope that you enjoy editing articles on matters that are completely unrelated to Anarchist International. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Hoary - this so called deletion "debate" has only a few posts, and is thus not much valid[edit]

I have read the so called deletion "debate" for the AI-Wiki-Page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchist_International_%282nd_nomination%29

It has only a few posts, the main contribution is Hoary's. I did not know about this "debate", or else I would have joined in and turned down and rejected some misunderstanding of Hoary et.al, see the next post on my talk page. Thus I think the deletion is wrong. If the AI-Wiki-page needs some improvements, to be within Wiki-consensus, this will be done. (Anna Quist (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Message to Hoary - Anarchy is cooperation without coercion/destruction/deletion - about the deletion of the AI-Wiki-page and cooperation to achieve an updated AI-page with general Wiki-consent[edit]

I have read your note at my talk page "Why the article was deleted, and why it will stay deleted". I find really no good arguments for your demand for speedy deletion. Sources on www.anarchy.no are of course relevant to an article about AI. Ad the copyright matter, GDLF etc, I am not sure about this. I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know the routines. But I am sure we can reach an agreement on the copyright question. I want to discuss this, with the aim at a good solution within Wikipedia bureaucrat rules. I would like som more information on this matter, and please be so kind to inform me.

Leaving the bureaucracy at side for a moment, I will inform you a little about the content of the AI-Wikipage:

Someone - I don't know who, had placed a tag with questions about the AI page: