User talk:Vaketer
Hi Vaketer :) I hope you like the place and choose to stay.
Some links that may be of use:
- Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers
- Wikipedia:How to edit a page
- Wikipedia:Village pump - ask questions you may have here, or leave a message on my talk page
Check out the Wikipedia:New user log, or here's some stuff you can do, if you want:
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
Thanks for spotting that plagiarised paragraph. Rest assured plagiarism is not permitted here, and verbatim copies of content will be removed. I hope you will continue to edit here, don't be discouraged :) Dysprosia 10:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Lyndon LaRouche[edit]
The anon edit said this: Hence, his theory of how the overall picture stands, with both the labor movement (openly or covertly associated with socialist and communist movements worldwide) on the left and the "right-wing neo-con Satanic Cabalists" like G.W Bush,Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney: all intellectually associated with Leo Strauss and the Chicago School of Classical Political Philosophy composing the right fits pefectly with his theory of an overall conspiracy in which both the above mentioned left and right make up the Synarchic "left-right illusion".
Now, you tell me that words like "Satanic Cabalists" and the assertion that the worldwide labor movement is either socialist or communist are NPOV. RickK 20:51, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Larouche published a pamphlet entitled "Children of Satan." Cheney is on the front cover of said pamphlet. Larouche has published several articles where he accuses the neo-cons of being Satanists. We are telling the readers of the article that this is what Larouche believes and has said. It is what Larouche believes and says. If Larouche says it, how is it controversial? I thought it was clear that this is what Larouche believed -- I think maybe you read it in the wrong way. It's not the author of the article that's making these statements, the whole para. is about what Larouche believes. I don't think this is an odd practice or use of English at all...it seems quite clear to me. The only claim the paragraph makes is that his theories "fit perfectly" together; the rest is just what Larouche believes. Maybe you're being oversensitive to any possible POVs and so read it the wrong way. If you think the paragraph implies that the author believes any of the Larouchian opinions, then the right thing to do would have been to change said paragraph to make it clear that these were Larouche's opinions. Vaketer 09:07, 9 May 2004 (UTC)