User talk:158-152-12-77

My first Wikipedia contribution was in January 2004, and you can get a list of my contributions by clicking here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=158.152.12.77 (from IP address without using username)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=158-152-12-77 (under username)

Fibonacci

As soon as this checks out, who should credit go to? And thanks! --Elonka 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've sent you an email. 158-152-12-77 09:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Verification

Could you please verify that this is the same person as 158.152.12.77 by posting on this page with that IP address? We need to prevent impersonation. Thanks. —Mets501 (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes.

Thank you :-) —Mets501 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem! May I ask when you first became aware of my username (i.e. in connection with which contribution), and how many other people you have asked to verify that their IP-type usernames correspond to their actual IPs, without any suspicion having been voiced that impersonation was actually occurring. Regards, 158-152-12-77 13:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I became aware when someone reported to WP:AIV that you be blocked because of a possible impersonation of the IP 158.152.12.77, and then I came here and asked you to verify just to make sure. —Mets501 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone called MER-C then :-)158-152-12-77 13:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

Hi 158. I know this may seem like a strange request given that you've had this account for almost a year, but would you consider changing your username? It falls under two types of name prohibited by Wikipedia:Username: "Names that consist of random or apparently random sequences of letters and/or numbers" and "Names that look like an IP address". I'd appreciate it if you requested a name change at Wikipedia:Changing username. Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is less important now that you're verified that you own the IP address yourself. —Mets501 (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Samuel. As is also on the record, I contributed from the IP address without opening an account, beginning in January 2004 (follow the link from my front page) so I chose an account name which stressed the continuity. I like the username and am not going to change it.158-152-12-77 13:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that a) my username does not contain an apparently random sequence of letters or numbers - the numbers refer to a specific IP address, and b) the name itself does not look like an IP address, because it uses "-" instead of "."158-152-12-77 23:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Proletarian control of Wikipedia!

All new technology increases exploitation - and can only create new human values up until it becomes industry standard (in this case i predict this will not really happen until it gets bootstrapped onto the 'semantic web'). The Proletariat, in taking over all the means of power, destroys Capital - and Wikipedia ! In this case, as the internet originates in the nexus of academia and the military it is a site of class struggle, which we cannot escape but it is just another part of the Proletariat takeover of power and struggle against capitalism. See the Antisystemic Library. Paki.tv 10:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What scope exists for subverting support for NPOV, in an environment where participants must play by its rules or get banned?

I mean, what scope exists that doesn't involve saying something opposed to what we really mean, and thereby getting sucked in? I don't want to assume good faith on the part of my enemies.

It is possible to escape many fields that some say it is impossible to escape. The other day someone asked me how I managed to live without having a TV. Very easily! Escape we must! Just as the proletariat will never control parliament, or Ford Motor Company, it will never control Wikipedia.

Wikipedia and the internet are private capitalist networks which can easily be turned off by our enemies. Interestingly, in the past 10 years there has been a privatisation of discussion on the internet, away from e.g. Usenet, towards forums on private websites, of which Wikipedia is one. The idea that 'anyone' can 'edit' the encyclopedia is full of lies IMO. It's a bit like saying 'anyone' can vote. Wikipedia is also very centralised. It's a demonstrable fact that cops find they are very much in their element. We are witnessing an intensification of the democratic lie.

In Russia, many call democracy der'mocratiya, meaning shitocracy, and privatisation prikhvatisatsiya, meaning pri-grabbisation. Many there have far more sense than most in the West. Shittipedia sounds a good name... How to stir up contempt for the whole capitalist shebang, and its hi-tech dynamism, is the question. Rather than competing with scum for an audience.

Sharing bibliographies and lending books is nice. But I don't know why it has to be dressed up with words like 'anti-systemic' and 'distributed'. Workers did this sort of thing a lot, a few generations ago.

Best regards, 158-152-12-77 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

'i' agree about npov - it is really just some kind of liberal fascism. neither left nor right, combined with verification thru googlism it confers to the state and private capital, all power to define. But let me put forward the situation that Proletarians will and must take control of this - of parliament, ford and wikipedia - but of course these things are no longer recognisable as parliament, ford or wikipedia when it does so. in other words, these institutions are transformed, rather than simply 'destroyed', as they are taken over. an example is the pga. the leadership, in denial of its own existence is warped beyond its own recognition. however, in belgrade we met, through our involvement with the pga some people, active proletarians, anarchists and others who were working within, against and without the pga structure. proletarian control of pga? well, maybe not... but it is not so powerful to warrant the same level of subversion, subterfuge and sabotage as out and out bourgeoise/capitalist and vanguard capitalist institutions like wikipedia, ford and parliament. i love the english language but i have contempt for those who own and control it - the antisystemic library is a fatal yet practical critique of the institution - like a clown army but better prepared for when they (in our case the thought police that constitutes the dewey decimal system) come knockin'...

Well a few comments. On one level, NPOV is like doing an exam paper, presenting all sides of the case etc. On another level you are right, it creates the same old illusions of democracy, dressed up as modern technology. Will it get sold off for a vaste amount of money: yes I reckon so. Also Open Source Software in general, including Linux, are very important for the capitalist future. Like the railways, at first developed by private capital, and then taken over by national capital. I agree with you that changes are on the cards as regards intellectual property rights (IPR). I think I would go further and suggest that one reason why the Soviet Union was done away with was because it failed to operate copyright laws (which led to all the restraints imposed about exporting IT there set up by the USA). I agree with you that it is disappointing how little discussion there is about the limitations of Open Source. I have seen rooms full of people talking about liberalising the IPR as the next revolution. Most of these peopel are themselves are young programmers who have more to gain by using other peoples work. Whether they will feel the same when they have a substantial back-catalogue of material is another matter. Aside from political naivety, the most significant current is individualist libertarianism . . .

Returning to NPOV, it creates a very constrained writing style, which can be easily internalised - you can just get used to writing with these constraints and forget you are doing so. The point of reference is broader than academia, but still creates problems. I think the issue is that all information is distributed in a fashion helping to perpetuate capitalism, this affects the information which is available on the internet, just as much as acaedmia etc. So any interventions take place in the situation of asymmetrical warfare. It is only in times of open contestation that we have any other situation.

So why use Wikipedia? I think on my part, laziness is part of the answer. It provides a big note pad where I can work on stuff (like Emile Acollas and Joseph Heco), and perhaps get help for others. A bit of an open research tool. Yes of course anything we do becomes alienated and can be used against us. And perhaps wikipedia provides a way in which that can be speeded up. I don't think wikipedia desrves a privileged place when it comes to seizing the means of production, nor a privileged place in terms of oppressive institutions which need to be smashed. Just as the Bolsheviks used their control of the electrical power stations to help seize control in the Soviet Union, or the anarchists fought with the stalinists over control of the telephone exchange, certain industries by their nature have strategic importance in how industry as a whole operates. And of course it can be turned off at teh flick of a switch, as we saw on 7-7, when the mobile phone network was disabled. What concerns me in all this is much more the internalisation of the values embedded in these institutions, eg that NPOV is in some way "good" or "fair", or that Open Source is somehow anti-thetical to capitalism, or that teh interneyt is liberating. These illusions need to be smashed, but to what extent this involves smashing the institutions which create them and the technologies upon which they are based I think remains to be seen. I do not know how to envisage a society without any institutions - by which I mean organisations which draw together specific activities, the skills, technologies and resources through which those activities can occur - i.e. a division of labour. I do not know how the existing organisation of resources, skills and technologies would be re-organised in a communist society. However, the anti-systemic library is a very limited attempt to look at some of those questions. Yes, workers have been sharing information for generations, even under conditions when possession of certain material could be met with death. I shall leave the question of "Escape" to another day. Even Gaughin going to sun himself on a South Pacific island could not escape the contradictions of contemporary capitalism. What hope is there today? I prefer resistance to escape - which of course can be done from teh South Pacific just as much as anywhere else. Harrypotter 09:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Harry! Nice to hear from you. We agree on the essentials. This will have to be short and aphoristic; I'm about to go to my Pacific island! :-)

What importance to give to the concept of institution? I don't think such an institution as a library will exist in communism. All books etc. will be in the same 'library', in which case the concept could only help to cause separation. If we kept the word, it would just mean books etc. But asking Is there a book on this in the library? would be an odd way of asking Is there a book on this?

I think some institutions will exist in communism, though. E.g. the institutionalisation of the first consumption of food after waking up, aka breakfast. Just without the hassle, the harmful additives, and any prospect of going to work. Calling for the abolition of breakfast would seem unserious and arty.

As for the internet institution, I think its abolition should be accepted as an aim by those who want a better world. I can't imagine how the internet could continue to exist in communism. It's much better to relate to people face-to-face. Getting to see them won't be a drag even if they are on the other side of the world.

I agree that open source is very important for the capitalist future, although how things will happen in China, as compared with in the US empire, is not wholly clear.

Roomsful of people thinking the liberalisation of intellectual property rights is the next revolution? I'd hazard the guess that most of them were computer programmers for whom the focus of a) their career aspirations and b) their politics was...the fascist US empire which has long carried 'FREEDOM' on its banner...

I tend to stick my fingers in my ears and go 'laaaaa' when computer programmers come out with social theories based on the economics of computer programming.

Some gibberish I found recently from a certain disreputable individual of our mutual acquaintance in the distant past is here. Presumably having a double first in classics, even one obtained via time travel, is an advantage in the US software industry.

You make an interesting point about the railways. Much of early railway investment (Russia, South America, Africa) was controlled by a handful of merchant banking families, e.g. Rothschilds and Hambros, who didn't step on each other's toes much. In those rare places where the State was involved in the construction effort, the money was raised from specific loans (largely from those same banking interests) rather than through general taxation.

Interesting that one of the spokespeople for the ones-and-zeros guys who wants to tell us all what's what, is Douglas Rushkoff who raps admiringly about how Judaism has been so successful because it's open source. Yeah, right.

"I prefer resistance to escape". Gauguin made his money on the French stock exchange before going in for the French myth of Tahiti etc., which the mass-murder advocate and marquess, de Sade, had also been into. In Tahiti he went to church every day!

Doubtless we'd agree that to build up a choice between resistance and escape as a big idea would be subjectivist, as perhaps indicated in the raising of 'preference' onto a pedestal that it would entail. I think much of the reason that resistance occurs is that it is forced. Resistance isn't a great deal of fun, just less undignified, degrading, and psychically unhealthy than being ground down into the sh*t without a fight. (Unmistakable evidence that the so-called 'anti-capitalist' movement is anything but, lies in their ignoring this point in their advertising. Quoting 'I won't make a revolution if I can't dance', or whatever that idiot American tourist Emma Goldman said, is pretty much typical). The overall aim of resistance is...to escape.

I was just making a more mundane point that too many people fail to escape what they could escape. Recently I encountered someone in her 50s, who I believe has been in debt for decades, who plans to buy a house and live in it with her elderly dad who is selling his own house and will put up some of the money. In order to get a large house, she will be getting a loan similar to the one that she has currently got, which is linked to the mortgage on 'her' present house. The result - she will probably have to continue to go to work up until she is maybe 65, to pay off the bank. And yet she has got a fine opportunity, right now, to get out of debt forever. This sort of mentality is widespread in the UK. People have much more sense in most of the rest of the world - Russia, India, wherever.

Wikipedia/NPOV. I participate on Wikipedia too... One crawls in through the interstices only. Conflict on given pages is bound to be lost, because it's the cops and our enemies generally who are most at home with NPOV, which we stand opposed to (as with moderation) but without being able to say so during a conflict. That cops find they are in the element here is indisputable. The page on archaeogeodesy was closed down by the cops, although admittedly they had unwitting help from a small businessman. Elsewhere, the encyclopaedic position is that the cold war ended in 1989 and that East European countries were mainly soviets. Not to mention the medical-industry lie that medics are doctors. Profiteering, cops, lies, all go well together. Recently I had cop trouble, people finding my choice of username objectionable, and interpreting misread rules to back themselves up. Perhaps a cop had a filter running to trap the phrase 'Smash Wikipedia'. Perhaps a GPAer called the cops. I dunno.

Talking of financially loaded greenery, I wonder whether Zack Goldsmith will be in the next front-of-house 'government'?

Catch you later; hope you're well; take care!158-152-12-77 11:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurocenticipedia:  :::[[1]]

Paki.tv 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Workers Playtime (magazine)

The article Workers Playtime (magazine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)