User talk:Pgreenfinch/2004-2006

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I find useful

Cheers, Sam Spade 15:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

European Union Olympic medals count for 2004[edit]

Hi there,

I have substantially rewritten European Union Olympic medals count for 2004. A united EU team is patent nonsense. I've discussed potential EU co-operation towards the olympics, and kept the table. I believe the table is valid, for us Europeans/EUians to see how the area has fared as a whole. I've left messages on talk pages of all objectors to see will the reverse their deletion decision. I've also commented on Talk:2004 Summer Olympics.

I would suggest it would be unwise to attempt to reinstate the discussion about a united EU team.

Hope the article survives VfD.

Regards, zoney ███ talk 01:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate" your efforts. But there are two things I don't understand in the rewording, a POV about what would be the future of the EU, and a censorship of the total of medals obtained by the athletes of the EU area. I suppose it was unintentional and that you tried to help, but I don't see the point of your changes. And anyway, you know that groupthink took hold of the debate, that nothing was done by the wikipedia admins to try to balance it, so I can only interpret it that there is an agenda behind that will to kill the article. --Pgreenfinch 06:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I reread my answer and see that it could be confusing. It is not you that I suppose having an agenda, but the english-speaking wikipedia in itself that seems to me far from neutral.--Pgreenfinch 06:40, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I am determined to let that article stay around and I don't understand why the pro-delete team don't consider the fundamental question surrounding the article - what bad does it do? I see it doing only good to Wikipedia. In any case, it is good and refreshing that there are other people around here which have views supporting European integration. I think that's an excellent thing. Rronline File:European flag.png 08:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, an illustration of what the professional censors have in mind can be seen in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Template:Insane --Pgreenfinch 12:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

re: the Insanity templates[edit]

Good morning, Pgreenfinch. I was reading your comment on VfD about the insanity templates. Given the previous conversation about the Olympic medal counts, I think you were being sarcastic. If so, I would ask you to reconsider the wording of the comment. There is too much risk that the comment will be taken at face value when the discussion period ends.

I know that you and I disagree about the medal count article but I hope that the discussion between the two of us at least has been fact-based, politely worded and rational. Thank you. Rossami 13:24, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Rossami, and I gave a new wording. --Pgreenfinch 14:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004[edit]

DO NOT delete other people's comments on this page. It is NOT your place to decide what does and does not belong on this page. You vandalize the page again, and you'll be blocked. You also deleted a vote by Mintguy, which in and of itself is a blockable offense. Rick K 06:16, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Explain yourself, what comment did I delete? I reverted your action, now if technically it resulted in some other change you better explain me technically how I should have operated. Please don't take advantage of your better experience of the technical system to make accusations of vandalism and "deciding" for others. It was quite clear in my summary what the reversion was about. Obviously I need more practice, and I consider your purpose as an admin is to help. Well, you might wish instead to get rid of me, just building a case so as to say "the guy was warned" at the slightest error. I hope your intentions are more honorable than that, and that from now on you will be more helpful. Thanks in advance --Pgreenfinch 07:44, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC) You didn't revert MY action, you reverted the action of somebody else. And you deleted Mintguy's vote. I'm not interested in getting rid of you, I'm not interested in you at all, so long as you don't violate the rules. I didn't know anything about you until you started yelling about censorship (which, of course, this has nothing to do with.) Rick K 18:29, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Replied to accusation in the EU VfD page, with explanations, apologies and al. Technical glitch that's all, no intentional violation, it would have been stupid, let us be serious --Pgreenfinch 19:03, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Ejrrjs | What? 16:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The business and economics forum[edit]

Anouncing the introduction of The Business and Economics Forum. It is a "place" where those of us with an interest in the business and economics section of Wikipedia can "meet" and discuss issues. Please drop by: the more contributors, the greater its usefulness. If you know of other Wikipedians who might be interested, please send this to them.

mydogategodshat 19:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A polite request[edit]

Comment 1: "As a general information for wikipedians, could you tell us where to find the rule saying that you have to write articles to be considered a user and have the right to vote? Btw, Ugen64, seems quite a cooperative and dedicated wikipedia citizen, being the first to enter a vote. As for not giving reasons, remember that Geogr tried to impose his rule of no discussion at all. I'm a bit puzzled by all this, wondering if it is the wikipedia SOP. --Pgreenfinch 16:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)" Comment 2: (to User:Lowellian): "Have any other *what if*? Come on, you can do better, I'm sure the people here will be more interested that you state your real problem. --Pgreenfinch 21:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)" Comment 3: "So what? Aren't you mixing up users and contributors, considering the huge majority of users as small obedient people that should just shut their mouth and leave you decide what food they can get or not for their meal? Are you creating your own rules and deciding they are THE wikipedia rules? I invite people to look at your VfD "advices" on your user page, about, for example, forbiding discussions. --Pgreenfinch 07:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

Pgreenfinch, the above constitute personal attacks. "Geogr tried to impose his rule" imputes that my motive was to silence people and implies motive. Comment 2 speaks for itself. Comment 3 suggests that I think that everyone should be quiet. I ask you here politely to knock it off. If you cannot be civil in your discussions, you are disrupting VfD votes and not showing proper etiquette for VfD.

I have absolutely no interest whatever in whether the article stays or goes. I think it's silly, chauvinistic, and amazingly desperate, but I really don't care. On the other hand, the first vote was marred by numerous nonce accounts and anonymous votes. Therefore, the final tally was not clear. Even with the illegitimate accounts counted, the vote was for deletion. Therefore, I am within my rights to simply delete the article. However, I have not done that and do not wish to do that. Instead, I wanted to establish a clearer consensus. And "clearer" means one not polluted by spontaneous accounts, anonymous votes, and, most of all, you attacking every single voter who moves for delete. All other comments have been about the article. Your comments have been about the users. There is a very sharp distinction between these. Geogre 00:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If there is something I find "silly, chauvinistic and amazingly desesperate", is the attempt to suppress an info that has nothing POV and is just facts. If I am myself desesperate and may appear quixotic, is that I don't understand how it would serve wikipedia, and I see that on the contrary it would be a dubious precedent. As for what my comments "suggest" and "impute", or that I should not answer biased comments of some users, all this seems to me a bit one-sided, but I will not elaborate. --Pgreenfinch 18:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

World citizens[edit]

Bonjour/Bonsoir! Good to see you can support at least some of the ideas at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/World citizens.
Robin Patterson 02:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Robin, I believe in democratic globalization. --Pgreenfinch 06:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You need to remove the stock image disambiguation page[edit]

Stock Image from what I can tell is a concept invented by you. And while it might be very true and worthwhile wikipedia is not the place for primary research. If you have any questions about what this means please ask an admin.

This concept is now mainstream. Many universities and financial institutions consult the site, and even the Journal of Finance has a link to it.

Stress (medicine)[edit]

Pgreenfinch, I find your use of censorship unpleasant and not exactly to-the-point. How about assuming good faith? If you'd looked somewhat closer at my userpage, you'd see that I am an external links skeptic. In my view, external links need a very tight causal relationship with the page. There must be a large number of sites with self-help information about stress on the internet, and I have strong doubts that this bilingual page (which otherwise looks very nice) is the best there is on self-management of stress. Why not give the reader the opportunity to discover different sites with Google? That is also very therapeutic :-) JFW | T@lk 17:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just saw that this is your own homepage, and I find the use of "discriminatory" even more objectionable than "censorship" alone. Would you mind observing Wikiquette? JFW | T@lk 17:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What you say, Jfdwolff, is interesting, and thanks for explaining. But it would have been more to the point if you had discussed with me before supressing the link unilateraly, and then giving "accumulation" as a surprising reason, as only that link was aimed at, two things I don't really find to be examples of witiquette. Then we could have seen together the pros and cons whether this link has value or not. Well, the possibility stays open. --Pgreenfinch 19:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry's it's all gone this way, but as you have seen I am a bit allergic to external links in general. Without prejudice for your homepage, I find that very few external links are actually helpful. Indeed, perhaps Mediawiki should have a function to automatically search Google using the title of the article, and show the best search results (eg top 5) at the bottom. This would be fairer that selective inclusion of particular sites with otherwise would not have high traffic.

Far be it from me to discriminate or suppress non-doctor sites on medical subjects. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

af page[edit]

Thanks for your vote, Antifinnugor 20:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Capital of the European Union[edit]

Regarding your recent edit to European Union,

As far as I was aware, the fact that Brussels is the location of the European Commission, it being the executive body of the EU, made Brussels the capital of the Union. Apart from that, according with the Treaty of Amsterdam, Strasbourg is not the location of the European Parliament: the EP is held half the time in Brussels, half the time in Strasbourg. Further, the administration of the Parliament is located in Luxembourg. Therefore, if the location of the capital is determined by the location of the Parliament, the "capital" is divided between Brussels, Strasbourg, and Luxembourg. Am I mistaken in any of these points? — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:36, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Come on, you know perfectly well that the EU has no official capital, you will never find the word capital in the treaties, even the new one, for deliberate reasons that I explain below. So to say that Brussels is the capital is as wrong as to say it for any other European town. But as some people insist that Brussels is, it is normal to correct it by telling that other towns can rightly pretend to the title. Btw, Strasbourg is regarded as the capital of the whole Europe, as it is the seat of the Council of Europe. Also, the EU Parliament is really in Strasbourg, since the beginning, and it is exceptional that its sessions take place in Brussels, so nobody can deny that it is the democratic capital. So, either it is mentionned in this article that the EU has *no* capital, which happens to be its will from the beginning, this is the core of the issue, as a volontary sign of a decentralised union, or some try to maintain in the article that Brussels is, or is regarded as, *the* capital, then everybody is entitled to write on the article that any other town with a EU institution is the capital, or a capital, or a specific capital for a given aspect, or a part of the capital, or whatever specie, taste or flavor of capital. --Pgreenfinch 07:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good point, that there's no official policy on where the captial is. I thought that, being the location of the executive body of the EU, Brussels automatically became the capital, but I'm not sure that's definitive. (As for the Council of Europe, it's not part of the EU and so is irrelevant to the passage in question.) As for "democratic capital", there's no such technical term and as such is shouldn't be presented as one. If I recall my history correctly, the Parliament's functions were deliberately divided between Brussels and Strasbourg to prevent exactly this kind of debate, so I remain unconvinced that Strasbourg has any better claim to capital-hood than does Brussels.

A compromise, perhaps? The article could say something like, "Though Brussels is commonly regarded as the capital, in actuality the EU has no official capital and its component institutions are divided among an number of major cities..." How does that sound? It explicitly grants that there is no capital, while still explicitly addressing the potential reader who thought that Brussels was the capital. Just saying, "it has no capital" will confuse people and tempt them to "correct" the article, which is a Bad Thing™; similarly bad would be to list every town that has any claim at all to capital-hood.

(Incidentally, I will copy this thread to Talk:European Union so that others may see it easily. If you would, please respond there.) — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:49, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Trend Quotes[edit]

Should the second quote, made by the same person who made the third quote, be separately attributed to the quoter?

Nice job, thanks!! GT

About-Picard law[edit]

I don't think it's appropriate to quote one rather technical paragraph of the About-Picard law to illustrate it. A summary of the law would be more appropriate, if only because it would not suppose knowledge of the French legal framework (who in the English-speaking world understands what a civil party is in a French criminal trial?). I furthermore did not see the logical link which the Council of Europe's decision; that's why I removed the paragraph. David.Monniaux 10:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The logical link is that the Council of Europe didn't condemn the French law, and the explanation why was in what I added because the article was incomplete in that respect. The only other solution is to delete the part about the petition, that is misleading without my addition --Pgreenfinch 13:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Advice on controversial articles[edit]

I see from your edits that you're quite concerned about the articles that deal with cults, as I am. I'd like to give you just a bit of advice that might help you get more result from your effort, and that's to not give people the conclusion you think they should reach. I call this "jumping in the jury box"; if you want to convince people, you want to put the facts before them and present them in a compelling way. You can't jump in the jury box and announce "I've decided for you that this is the conclusion you should reach!" -- that's more likely to turn people off. Some of your edits have that quality -- the edit summary alone on this one is over the top -- and I hope you'll realize that if there's anyone out there that hasn't yet decided where they stand on the issue, declaring "this is how you'll regard things!" is more likely to alienate them than convince them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, I understand. But some people don't hesitate to play games with the system, under pretence of giving facts. Sometimes it has to be said, so that they understand their maneuvers cannot go far, and so that they think twice before doing it again. I think I got some results that way. What I agree is that it is better to do it in the talk page than in the article --Pgreenfinch 14:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete or transwiki[edit]

Hi there! From your reaction on VfD, I believe you are unfamiliar with the term 'transwiki'? It means to move the article to a different wiki (usually Wiktionary or Wikisource), because some articles are interesting but not encyclopedic, and as such do not belong in Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that something has to be gotten rid of. Hope that helps! Yours, Radiant! 16:41, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems you are not too familiar with it either. I understand it not as moving it to a different wiki, but as putting it in an obscure waiting room, just in case it could end in a different wiki, and as saying good bye to its opportunities to become encyclopedic. Regards. --Pgreenfinch 17:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, check the Transwiki log and you'll find out it's not an obscure waiting room, but something that's remarkably up-to-date (unlike, for instance, copyvio). Of course articles should only be transwiki'd if they would not be encyclopedic in the first place. That is an issue that sees some debate, but on the issue we were talking about on the recent VfD, consensus does seem to side with me. For the record, I'm not half as destructive as you seem to think - for each article I nominate on VfD, there's ten that I classify in the appropriate categories (my project is emptying the Deadend pages). Radiant! 22:15, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

World government[edit]

The local pizzeria, eh? Not sure I understand your meaning.. Hmm.. [1] Rad Racer 09:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. The omnipresent pizza at every street corner around the world or, in its frozen form, in all supermarket, is the #1 symbol of globalization, much more than the World Bank or McDonald, and it is also a fantastic business success. I wanted to give a salute to it, and also to bring some neutrality to the article, that seems a bit panaroid about economic globalization, and making it an argument against or for political globalization. --Pgreenfinch 13:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guru[edit]

Hello Pgreenfich, could you please take a look at the article guru and talk:guru. I am in a conflict with Zappaz who thinks that I insert too much critical material in the article. All critical material that I inserted is attributed, authorative and referenced though. Andries 11:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pgreenfinch, I need your support. User Goethean removes attributed referenced criticisms that comes from reputable sources from the article guru. I think this is against NPOV guidelines. Andries 18:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

A page that you joined to help with associate with other members of the Wikipedia community is on VfD. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedian citizens of the world, and the related page Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Cognition 09:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violation of the 3 revert rule. Please don't do this again. Also, User:Goethean and User:Zappaz both each only reverted 3 times within 24 hours and did not violate this (so they are not being blocked). Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks[edit]

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 18:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World Citizen userbox, {{User:1ne/Userboxes/User world}}[edit]

Hi, I noticed the message saying you're a World Citizen, I would like to invite you to add {{User:1ne/Userboxes/User world}} to your user page if you wish to proclaim it in a more effective way, and this template will also add you automatically to the Wikipedians with World Citizenship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Onix[edit]

Bonjour, j'aperçois que l'article Eddy Onix est une probable autopromotion. Qu'en penses tu ? La page est d'ailleurs proposée à la suppression en français.--87.64.15.31 09:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les articles sur le fédéralisme mondial sont plutôt rares. A mon avis, laissons sa chance à celui-ci, d'autant que le concept commence à être connu. Un chapitre sur les critiques et oppositions serait toutefois utile. --Pgreenfinch 13:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alterménage[edit]

Salut Pgreenfinch,

Sur http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Association_pour_la_taxation_des_transactions_pour_l%27aide_aux_citoyens je disais :

Il y a une multiplication d'articles sur l'altermondialisme qui biaise la neutralité de wikipédia

On m'a répondu : > C'est généralement le bon critère de suppression d'un article : la possibilité ou non d'un travail en commun et critique (i.e., un nombre raisonnable de personnes connaît le domaine, et il n'est pas si spécifique que les gens extérieurs ne puissent pas l'aborder). Peut-être à voir, donc. Mmenal 8 mars 2006 à 11:34 (CET)

De même, sur Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Eddy Onix (qui concernait pourtant un article qui se tenait), on t'a répondu : << Onix n'est pas suffisament connu pour que des personnes autres que ses partisans écrivent l'article-> pas neutre, pas vérifiable. Le but d'un tel article n'est pas d'informer encyclopédiquement mais de créer de la notoriété. Apollon 26 avril 2006 à 01:02 (CEST) >>

Il me semble clair qu'il serait sain de soigner l'hypertrophie alterwiki de la même facon. J'ai fait une première liste d'articles complaisants/manquant totalement de notoriété pour pouvoir être traités de facon neutres :

As-tu d'autres idées d'articles ? Vu le nombre, il serait sans doute utile de faire une page de vote "en bloc" en remplacant chacune des pages de suppressions par un petit

#REDIRECT [[Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Ménage_dans_Catégorie:Altermondialisme]]

Jmfayard.

Salut, jm. Interesting list and interesting argument from Mnemal. C'est effectivement n'importe quoi tous ces articles fantaisistes sur des personnages et sujets qui ne branchent qu'un petit cercle d'afficionados. C'est surtout une utilisation prosélyte de WP tout-à-fait abusive, destinée à occuper le terrain et à épuiser et décourager par leur masse même tout ceux qui réagiraient. But we have to find the right timing to use it. Pas sûr que cela servirait pour sauver l'article onix, puisque on nous rétorquerait cyniquement que c'est la même chose que ce qu'on lui reproche (en oubliant que le vrai problème est celui de la distortion entre un article isolé qui permet d'amorcer l'information sur un sujet insuffisamment traité dans l'encyclopédie, et une machine propagandiste qui sort des articles à la chaîne pour se rendre maître du terrain). Mais à un moment opportun du débat plus général, cela devrait être utile. Un truc pourrait être d'éveiller progressivement la réflexion sur le bistrot, sans être trop spécifique, avant de lancer la cavalerie, soit en bloc, soit par vagues article par article. Peut-être le mieux serait de déjà tâter le terrain avec l'article Jean Sur puis ensuite de lancer le bloc d'un coup. le problème est de trouver la bonne stratégie en fonction du terrain. Et là j'avoue que je saisi mal l'attitude des contributeurs lambda, et aussi des leaders d'opinion, du wikipedia francophone. Je les sens pour l'instant peu réceptif à ce genre de problème de fond sur la neutralité, ya du boulot pour qu'ils finissent par comprendre dans quelle impasse cela conduit l'encyclopédie. Merci / thanks. --Pgreenfinch 08:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

José Bové[edit]

Hi. Please could you stop to intervene in Jose Bove article. J. Bové is a French nonviolent and member of the Honorary Board of the French Coalition for the Decade of culture of Peace and Nonviolence. Yours Prof75 Prof75

Vous plaisantez / Are you kidding ? Non violent the guy that destroy crops, organize blockades with tractors and dismantle a McDonald restaurant ? --Pgreenfinch 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not kidding at all. José Bové is one of the main leaders of nonviolent actions in France and in the world. Bové is part of the Larzac movement and has longtime relationships with nonviolent movements. There are discussions on that point in some circles but it seems that people doesn't know what it is exactly nonviolence... Destroying crops, blocking roads, dismantling McDonald are direct nonviolent actions. There is a long tradition of this nonviolent actions but it seems you are not informed of them. The "Faucheurs volontaires" with which Bové is destroying OGM crops is a movement founded by Jean-Baptiste Libouban, former leader of the Ark Community of Lanza del Vasto !!! What do you know about French society and French organizations ? Prof75 10 August 2006

Maybe you don't know that he was condemned in France for violent actions. How about that, mon pote ? --Pgreenfinch 12:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

j'ai découvert que vous étiez français. Merci de garder un vocabulaire correct (même caché derrière l'anonymat de Wikipédia). Bové a été condamné au nom des lois actuelles. Mais Gandhi, ML King, Thoreau et bien d'autres désobéissants et non-violents l'ont été en leur temps et ont fait de nombreux séjours en prison an nom de lois semblables. Détruire des plantations de plantes OGM ne devrait pas être un délit mais un devoir. "La où la loi est injuste, la place du juste est en prison" David Thoreau. Merci de bien vouloir avoir un peu de modestie et de ne pas vous déclarer le censeur de qui est non-violent et ne l'est pas. José Bové revendique son appartenance à ce courant et il est reconnu comme tel par les mouvements non-violents français. Prof75 10 August 2006.

L'autoreconnaissance et l'autosourçage ne sont pas des critères spécialement encyclopédiques, vous devriez savoir cela. Par contre une décision de justice est un fait incontestable et vos considérations philosophiques n'y changeront rien. Quant au fait que mon language ne vous plaise pas, vous n'avez pas idée comme cela m'indiffère, comme d'ailleurs le reste de votre appréciation ad hominem et vos posture de donneur de leçons de modestie dont vous devriez d'ailleurs vous même vous inspirer. --Pgreenfinch 07:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

En l'occurrence, vous ne semblez pas comprendre grand chose à ce que vous croyez pouvoir censurer. Ne se déclare pas compétent, ni encyclopédiste qui veut. Que Bové ait été condamné par la loi française est une chose, qu'il soit non-violent en est une autre. Prof75 11 August 2006.

Ben voyons. Bonjour chez vous. --Pgreenfinch 15:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funding[edit]

You wrote 11 July 2004 in Funding, "Among the main sources of funding are savings and credit." Funding to me means income. Savings is money you haven't spent yet, and credit is money you owe. So I don't understand why you said they were funding. -- Chuck Marean 22:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a balance sheet you have the origin of the money on one side (sources) and the way the money is used. Savings and credit are sources. --Pgreenfinch 08:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contraversial sentence in language section of Bourdieu's article.[edit]

Hi, I have removed the sentence that you added and readded after it was deleted. Please see my note on the talk page and discuss there before adding it again. JenLouise 23:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stock valuation[edit]

Without bothering to talk-back, my redirect of this page was rudely reversed. This is far from the first time 'owners' of pages have refused to support their decisions. In defense of my redirect - If you will bother to look at fundamental analysis you will see a section called You are here. This section does a much better job of covering all (and more) of the stuff here. I WAS going to come back and rewrite this page, but since it is controlled by 'owners' I won't bother. Caveat Emptor. Retail Investor 15:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't decide who owns what, the same could be said about your sense of property. --Pgreenfinch 15:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I asked for feedback before redirecting, therefor I made NO claim to ownership. It was you that decided you 'owned' the decision. Why no comment on the value of the content you reinstated vs. my info at "You are here"?

Sorry to say it, but your info doesn't detail the valuation methods other than fundamental analysis. --Pgreenfinch 18:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't know enough to realize that technical analysis does (specifically) NOT value stocks. That is the whole point of it. 24.82.95.165 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't play on words, TA tries to see if a stock price will rise or fall, I call that valuing. Don't try to interpret what I know or I don't know, although I suppose you know perfectly well that TA is used as an alternative or complement to other "valuing" methods. Btw, FA and TA are two methods among others, there is also Quantitative analysis and Behavioral analysis, and of course subcategories as well also as pricing methods that combine several ones, everybody uses its own little cooking recipe. Thus all those methods, or at least the main ones, should definitively be listed together to give a clear information to investors, so that they don't swallow that there is some unique best practice, some perfect science or some go

There is no play on words. The whole point of TA is that there is no need for valuation. Price changes are only relative. What you know is displayed by what you write. The 'other methods' you talk about on the page are NOT stock valuations. If you had ever tried to use them to give you a stock price you would know that. They are paradigms for "how the markets work". Generalization about the market cannot be used to value stocks. If you had looked at the section at FA I directed you to, you would have seen that. I guess you didn't need to look because you are always rightRetail Investor 16:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know pefectly well that in TA jargon you read things like "if it breaks the 42 level, the next level is 47". Now please tell me, if to give a potential price is nor valuation, what is the meaning of valuation? I maintain that there is a lot of valuation methods, new variations are invented everyday (remember the dotcom craze when the number of clicks on a website became a valuation criteria, or the EVA craze among management consultants, or the magic of elliot waves or fibonacci golden number). None is perfect (remember also some scandals about financial analysts recoms), all of them have flaws, major ones often, and I don't see why you want to confuse valuation with just one of them. Why not making readers aware that valuation is a very slippery topic, precisely because you find any kind of methods promoted by every kind of people? . --Pgreenfinch 22:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herd Behavior, Human Herding, etc.[edit]

Pgreenfinch, a LONG time ago, you did some cleanup on the Herd article (I see you mentioned on the Talk page.) I have recently discovered that there are (at least) three Wikipedia articles on herds and human herding: Herding instinct, Herd behavior and Herd. I would appreciate it if you would go to the two talk pages where the discussion is happening and weigh in if you could. It would really help the discussion to have more eyes on it. Talk:Herd behavior and Talk:Herd -- there is some perspective worth seeing on both talk pages. N2e 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pgreenfinch for adding your perspective on the Talk:Herd behavior page about a potential MERGE. It appears that a wiki-consensus has now been reached on the merge. There is now a question as to the best name for the new page. I would very much like to have a decently wide consensus on the best NAME before we merge the two (still muddled) articles, so if you would be willing to weigh in, that would really help. (as would input from any other interested wikipedians) N2e 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South American Community of Nations[edit]

Hey, how are you? Having a look at the discussion of the article in question I could notice how you congratulated and supported the SACN. I just wanna thank you for your nice words and your feeling for South America as a whole. Unfortunately, I cannot see the changes we were supposed to experience with the Union. Recently, there has been a meeting in which every associate member agreed to revoke the so-called visa. This visa, as you may know, was a compulsory and expensive document required when travelling from one country to the other. I'm pretty sure this fact is really important for us as a subcontinent, because it allows everyone to cross the border for a maximum of 90 days without showing any documentation. Anyway, there are still many things to do. I hope we can see the difference in a couple of years time. Greetings from an Uruguayan citizen living in the European Union.--Gustave - May I help you? 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]