Talk:Internet democracy/Archive 2

message: Ok. Here we go.
If you look carefully these links you obtained, you can easily notice this term you are talking about is already defined as e-democracy. Actually, this is not a term, but two lousily related words, such as "clearly defined". You can notice internet democracy you define, is not a concept at all. 
Some relate interent democracy to regulatives on the internet, some relate e-democracy projects under internet democracy etc. Steve, you can notice that you never use this term on your site, nor anywhere else. That is understandable, because it is e-democracywhat you are talking about. 
What I want to say is that term you are forcing here is just a lame and it does not have place in wikipedia. In the other hand, concept of the new political order, based on opennes and transparency is clearly described as concept and it can be placed in wikipedia.
Especially if we know that this concept is being used by many mambers, especially on the CICDD list. It is not only me, or people around me who use this clearly defined concept. What I can also notice is that internet democracy I am talking about is better defined than any other political concept, such as democracy, direct democracy etc.
All in all, lets sublime:
1. What you are talking about is not a concept and does nto have place in encyclopedia
2. What I am talking about is clearly defined concept that is being used around
So. Stop you ego bullshit and let this concecpt become a part of the wikipedia. We live in too dynamic information interface to make some concept known by everybody, which is actually impossible if you do not let it be accepted and placed by things like this one is. 
Now, I am removing the old part, even it is collorfull and well designed. But accept it. It is completelly empty thing. Though, being that formal, you can make internet democracy true concept become that beatufull if you help out for difference.
:It's all simple.  You can rename your concept to a term not already in use.  Further, you can stop your vandalism here before you are banned. -- Stevietheman 13:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your position is abject nonsense. -- Stevietheman 13:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: It was already explained to you (ad nauseum) that the Wikipedia is expressly _not_ for the establishment of new concepts, nor for the advertising of same.  Since nobody has agreed with your position, it's now time to accept that and move on. -- Stevietheman 16:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Online consultations are a form of e-democracy using the Internet (that is, Internet democracy). -- Stevietheman 13:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: See the definition of "Pervasive Democracy" on this page.  Note that I haven't created a Wikipedia article for my coined concept.  So why do you insist on doing that for yours? -- Stevietheman 13:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: The title strongly suggests a commonly known use of the term "Internet democracy", which is Internet users deciding how the Internet is governed. -- Stevietheman 13:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Internet democracy is a derivative of e-democracy... in fact, its most common derivative. -- Stevietheman 13:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia's purpose is _not_ to establish new concepts.  The use of "Internet democracy" on this page is a commonly known use of the term. -- Stevietheman 13:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: It's interesting that one committed to democracy as you supposedly are cannot accept the will of the vast majority to your minority of 1.  If you really accept democratic values, you will move on and find another way to promote your special unencyclopedic concept. -- Stevietheman 17:37, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: The right to add unencyclopedic content that breaks the established rules of the Wikipedia?  Surely you jest. I really don't understand why you insist on acting so irrationally. A rational person realizes that he cannot win all battles in life. Move on. -- Stevietheman 18:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)