User talk:Sneitzke

Hello Sneitzke and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

This could take a while. Used four tildes to sign that first comment in "discussion", but used the "edit summary box". That was probably wrong. Went back to the markup language. It shows the use of a colon/space/four tildes. Experiment, experiment, experiment.

Sneitzke 19:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Direct Democracy

Hello, I just saw you make a very large change to the direct democracy page. I also noted that it was reverted by user:Stevietheman. You then reinstated it. I am also not entirely happy with the changes that you've made and can understand why they were reverted. However, I also wish to acknowledge that there is much new material in what you have written. The problems with what you have written are:

• It contains much that is POV and it's style betrays an implicit agenda (one which I agree with but nevertheless not appropriate to an encylopedia).
• It is not well sectioned. In particular the introduction is very long.
• It contains many references to the authors own material.
• References to external sites are made in the body of the article rather than being footnoted.

I will move your version onto a talk page link and will reinstate the old version. If you then want to make incremental changes to the text by moving material across do feel free to do so. But please do this at a rate that allows others to copyedit and reword the changes. I will also be working as much of your new material into the article as I feel appropriate. I should point out that the attitude that you displayed on the talk page will turn others against you and is likely to get you blocked. I don't want that to happen as I think you could make worthwile contributions.

I should note again that I am in favor of direct democracy as are many who edit in wikipedia. I contributed to DDF for some time before getting bogged down with college work. If you search in google for "Barnaby Dawson" you can see my contributions to this email list. I wrote the 3 pillars as a simple introductory explanation of Direct democracy as it is practicised in Switzerland (I am not an ememy of direct democracy) although not the bit about athens. It is actually better for the cause of direct democracy to include criticisms of direct democracy in the article because then people will see it as being an objective article and will trust it more (as they should). We adherents of direct democracy will then be able to answer those criticisms and move the debate forward. I hope that we are able to work together on this article rather than engaging in futile revert wars. Barnaby dawson 09:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Integration work

I have integrated substantial portions of your new text alongside the original article. I have not including the lengthy section pros and cons because it is now just pros. It does look like there is usefull information there but its presentation is still overly POV. I have discussed the changes I've made in the discussion section of the Direct democracy page. I hope that this compromise article is something on which we can both build.

Another point - There is a bias towards direct democracy as it is understood in the US in your text. Because of this I made a section "Direct democracy in the US" and a new page "Direct democracy (history in the US)" (refered to in the text and discussion page). Also I think that your exposition of direct democracy while more detailed than the three pillars metaphor is not a definition understood worldwide. The three pillars was meant to encompass many different direct democracy definitions in use and explain quickly the substance of these definitions without getting bogged down in messy constitutional details (ones that don't apply at all in the UK and only in part in other nations with DD structures).

One more point - You seem to imply in your bit on digital direct democracy that we have no extant system for anonymous voting (which is resistant to vote rigging). Is this really true? Because if it is I can provide the DD comunity with the necessary encryption protocols to accomplish this. Anyway hope to see you continuing to contribute to wikipedia. Barnaby dawson 11:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)