Hello again. The "flaunting knowledge" problem is a rare one, don't take it too seriously. I'm probably worse on that one actually, even though I'm not an expert either. Another interesting section from the link I gave you is the one on Pariahs, which I immediately think of anytime people start insisting on banning, which happens all the time. Also read the politeness section, which is probably my biggest problem. I tend to be too polite and expect other people to be as well. CJames74502:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your proposition, but there is a redirect message at the top of all redirected articles. Therefore, the user is being advised by such redirect that their spelling was incorrect, and shows them both their incorrect spelling and the correct one (as the title of the proper article). If you wish to learn more about the policy for wikipedia redirects, please read Wikipedia:Redirect. Themindset21:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you violated 3RR at anarcho-capitalism. Because this is your second 3RR violation this week I have blocked you for 48 hours. Please discuss your differences with other editors on the talk page instead of starting pointless revert wars. Cheers, —Ruud02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was not arguing based on technicality. I pointed out that ONE alleged reversion was technically not a reversion. That's not what the argument is based on. Even if you do count that as a true reversion, I didn't violate the 3RR. I did not violate the 3RR rule. RJII18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You violated the spirit of the rule. [2][3][4][5][6]. Which one are you saying isn't a reversion again? 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... if I got blocked for 48 for "same week violation", you should be blocked for 72 hours for "same week violation" too, plus 24 hours for violating your probation. -- infinity018:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't violate my probation. I didn't violate the 3RR. The first adminstrator that looked at it made a mistake. He's only been an administrator for a few days. RJII18:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is what 3RR is for. 3RR is to stop edit wars, in particular edit wars of the form "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!". Adding information to bolster a position is not edit warring, it is responsible editing. So at least one of RJII's edits was not a revert under 3RR. On the other hand, Infinity0 freely admits his was a 3RR violation in email to me, so there's no controversy there. I've been asked to reblock; I appreciate being asked, but I still don't think the block was appropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried to include sources too, after 3 of my reversions, in an attempt to reach consensus. RJII then proceeded to add comments discrediting those sources [8][9]. I only reverted back when it became clear RJII was not going to allow my source to stand against his. RJII is knowingly adding biased sources, without even trying to make it NPOV. -- infinity019:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Biased source? Pretty much all sources are going to be baised. One of the sources I provided was an article in the MS Encarta Encyclopedia by Carl Levy. Is that biased? I don't know. What matters is the article in it was written by respected political historian. Also, I provided a source from a pro-capitalist. And, I provided a source from a socialist. I put a mixed back there precisely to avoid complaints of bias. How dare you lodge this accusation. RJII19:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MS Encarta argues that a-capitalism is related to ind-anarchism. You said ind-anarchism was another word for a-capitalism. You could alternatively include sources from different views, not just your own. I had to clean up after you. -- infinity019:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Marco Ferrero a socialist? The paper is on socialist economics. Does he represent all socialists? Most anarchists deny anarcho-capitalism is anarchism at all. Why are you discrediting their sources? -- infinity019:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is with regret that I must inform you that your nomination for adminship was unsuccessful on this occasion. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to seeing a nomination with your name on it again in the future! -- Francs200023:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I shouldn't have claimed the problems were deliberate. I was surprised how much the page devolved in a few hours. My objections toward your changes are the "intro clean" [10] which gave an etymology unsupported by the reference. I feel that removing the explanatory text about ancap insistence on the modern usage of "anarchism" was done in poor taste for purely POV reasons. -GRB
Hey, you seem interested in this article. Could you help restructure it so it flows properly? There's some discussion on its talk page already, see what you can input, and make any changes to the article as you think fit. Thanks :) -- infinity012:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it in a separate paragraph makes it seem like Ravi Batra is as significant as all those above authors put together. -- infinity014:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ramayan, please stop adding that paragraph. At least write two more paragraphs on Marx and Bakunin, and one paragraph on Naomi Klein, THEN add the paragraph. Otherwise it's unbalanced. -- infinity014:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Infinity0, you have a point that the paragraph is unbalanced. It´s this imbalance the reference to Sarkar & Batra fixes. That said, critics shouldn´t all be lumped together. Sarkar & Batra are coming from a very different angle - the idealist episteme with new concepts about class dynamics and exploitation. While they are striking at the roots of Capitalism, they are also showing the shortcomings of Marxism. Even if the ideas only emerged in the second part of the twentieth century, they are every bit as important as other major contributions. That said, I am not interested in arguing about it - nor do I accept spurious work assignments. Peace. Ramayan19:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Sorry :p but I live in Europe, too, and I was not at the premiere. But I think that something is better than nothing! So let the ones who don't care about being spoiled edit it? :) --84.249.252.21114:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First this use of "East Asian" may be common in the U.S., but not everywhere (not here in the U.K., for example). Secondly, the two names are clearly not Middle Eastern (unless that term is also being used in a very non-standard way.
Perhaps, but then a term should be used that will be understood by all readers. In this country, "Asian" would normally be understood, in the absence of any contrary context, to mean someone from the Indian sub-continent; "East Asian" isn't really used ("Oriental" would probably be the commonest term). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already moved about 12 of the Eastern and Western articles to /Featured Article/CURRENTDAY, CURRENTYEAR. So we're all set up to week 22 or so. The rest are all listed somwhere in my contribs. That's the only way I know how to find them. --Lacatosias08:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first is the economic. Wage Labour needs to be expanded...if I get done arguing on the Human and Adam and Eve pages, maybe I'll add to it. I'd like to get the cosmological argument page straightened out, too. It's looking pretty good, we just need to figure out how to get the last discussion into the article (unless you and Kenosis have given up on it). Jim62sch00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user thinks people who refer to themselves on their user pages in the third person using stupid boxes that take up too much space and is bad layout and design, especially on a website, instead of talking about themselves in normal text, need to learn conversational skills. ;P
I'd not be the person to do it, as I've edited it a little too often — but in any case, an edit every couple of days wouldn't be seen as good enough reason for even semi-protection. If it gets worse, though, I'll see if anyone esle would do it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need some more time to work on the History of this. Augustine's the main man, so to speak, and of course a few others to a lesser extent, but it runs right across theodicity, and I can see the inevitable POV stampede if it is not well documented, precise, and concise...Kenosis03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Infinity0. Sorry, I've been very busy, recently. No, that wrestler isn't me. :-P Anyway, I explained my reasoning behind tagging User:Vision Thing as a suspected sockpuppet on his talk page. Feel free to check it out and add your thoughts. --AaronS16:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"All other editors endorse this version", "Why do you insist on reverting to your own version and working from that?" "Please respond on the talk page before making any further edits"
Responded. [11] is interesting - it's hypocritical of you, since you are the one refusing to discuss the reasons behind your reversions of my edits. -- infinity0
I have had a really hard time communicating w you recently (not the least of which because of edit conflicts), and I am pretty sure were stuck in a rut. In the past I have found changing the means of communication can make all the difference in situations like this. As you can see Nikodemos agrees. I'm willing to give it a try if you are. Cheers, Sam Spade11:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't seem to do very well w IRC (altho maybe I should try again, do you know agood free client?). I use google talk and MSN. Sam Spade11:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should definitely have a page for it. A related problem is what I call unbalanced citations - creating a well-sourced article that only cites sources from one side of the controversy, under the excuse that "it's not my responsibility to write for the enemy". This is technically not against NPOV, though I believe it should be. At the very least, we should have a specific warning tag that should be placed on pages with unbalanced citations as long as the imbalance remains. -- Nikodemos18:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know Sam personally, so I believe I should be able to broker a way out of the current confrontation. I'll begin by rewriting the intro, which I have been meaning to do for some time. -- Nikodemos19:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Pmanderson/Septentrionalis is now trying to argue that anarchists are opposed to democracy or direct democracy! See his strange edits on democracy. Very strange when the anarchist FAQ speak repeatedly of direct democracy. I suspect that this is part of his campaign against the democratic peace theory and democracy in general, he is trying to get anarchists to support him. Please oppose him, the many advantages of democracy apply equally well to left-wing democratic societies. For example, research shows that more direct democracy makes the democratic peace stronger, so the theory is not an argument against socialist direct democracy. While we may disagree on the economic system, I do not think that we disagree on the benefits of democracy. Septentrionalis:
Anarchists generally oppose actually existing democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt. For example, see Alexander Berkman's Prison Memoirs and the historical introduction to the 1970 edition, explaining his refusal to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. It may be possible to regard their desired stateless condition as a democracy, but many do not regard it as being of the same class as the systems discussed in this article, and decline even the formal and coercive process of direct democracy; but agreement by consensus, as in News from Nowhere or The Dispossessed. As may be expected among anarchists, there is disagreement: Peter Kropotkin approved of Renaissance Florence in Mutual Aid; and some modern anarchists speak of association as direct democracy. Ultramarine21:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The anarchist faq seem to speak frequently of direct democracy.[12] I do think that all the advantages frequently mentioned for liberal democracy would apply to a system with more direct democracy.Ultramarine21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think democracy implies that or any hiearchy. This seems not be argued in the faq, it seem to speak only in positive terms of democracy. See also this [13].Ultramarine22:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "Anarchists oppose existing state democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt. For example, see Alexander Berkman's Prison Memoirs and the historical introduction to the 1970 edition, explaining his refusal to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. Most anarchists support a non-hierarchal and not coercive system of direct democracy where everyone has a say in the decision [14][15]" Ultramarine22:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "Anarchists oppose existing state democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt. For example, see Alexander Berkman's Prison Memoirs and the historical introduction to the 1970 edition, explaining his refusal to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. Most anarchists support a very different system, a non-hierarchal and not coercive system of direct democracy where everyone has a say in the decision [16][17]" Ultramarine22:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Anarchists oppose existing state democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt. For example, see Alexander Berkman's Prison Memoirs and the historical introduction to the 1970 edition, explaining his refusal to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. Most anarchists support different system from that of the liberal democracy discussed in this article, a non hierarchal and not coercive system of direct democracy where everyone has a say in the decision. As may be expected among anarchists, there is disagreement: Peter Kropotkin approved of Renaissance Florence in Mutual Aid; and some require consensus, as in News from Nowhere or The Dispossessed. [18][19]" Ultramarine22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to compliment you on how much you have suprised me in your honesty and rigour. Those are hard to find qualities, and they are appreciated. Cheers, Sam Spade20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) I'm glad that you accepted my compromise - I really hate to work against other editors. I hope we can sort this out as efficiently as possible (ie. without further disputes). -- infinity021:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting for the record that infinity tried to get me banned again for no good reason: [20] He wasn't successful this time, fortunately. RJII21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you posting this on MY talk page? Please understand that I finally get some peace for two weeks, then as soon as you come back you insert something blatantly disputive and disruptive; I was not pleased. I will leave you alone if you stop being so aggressive in your editing. -- infinity021:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop harassing other users RJII. You got banned for doing it to me (among other things) and now after only a day or so of being back on you are starting again. Please stop. The Ungovernable Force04:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not get banned for harrasing you. I got banned as a consequence of reporting you for this. [21] You, of all people, asking me not to "harass" (sic). Very funny. RJII04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one buys your poor victim routine, give it up. I'm merely asking that you stop going and posting past offenses on people's talk pages with no provocation merely to make them look bad. In the end it only hurts you anyways because anyone with background in this conflict can see what you're up to, so why do you continue? And yes harrass (or however you spell it) is one of my problem words with regard to spelling, thanks for pointing it out--not. The Ungovernable Force04:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I generally think it's neater and easier to maintain than the curly quote marks, which aren't directly typeable on a normal keyboard. -- infinity022:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it’s okay if you can’t type them, but please don’t change curly ones into straight ones just for the hell of it — especially in articles that already consistently use curly ones. It’s an unnecessary step backwards (unless you actually prefer the straight marks, in which case you should change your font). — Daniel Brockman22:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it would be easier for everyone else to type - since most people use straight quotes instead of curly ones anyway. I actually think it does look neater, but the main reason was so that in the future it would be easier to maintain consistency with directly typing straight quotes rather than having to copy and paste curly quotes every time. -- infinity022:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your (indirect) assistance with democracy. Since Ultramarine was nice enough to credit you when he put his final version on the subject into the article, I found your version, and replaced his version with much of yours; see what you think.
I should have included non-coercive in the description of anarchy; I am indebted.
Also, I'm not trying to push a leftist POV, but only give the main view the importance it deserves. Please stop accusing me of POV. You've done this ever since you started editing this article and at some point or another it will become a serious hindrance to me assuming your good faith. -- infinity0 16:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Everyone has POV. I don't think you are trying to push anything, in fact you come across as particularly good natured and honest. I have even complimented you for your rigour (no small compliment from me). The fact is, you are pushing a POV. You clearly have an opinion, and it shows. So much so that it can be frustrating at times, and early on I felt much as you describe above, on the brink of assuming bad faith. You made me pretty mad one night with how hard it can be to push you outside your conceptual box. Thats why I went after you for the 3rr, because I was angry and frustrated. Fortunately I saw the light, and strove for dialogue instead. I can only hope you do the same. Sam Spade21:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you reaaranging comments so much, but please don't remove comments because they are redundant in your view. My comment was somewhat repetitive, but it also elaborated a bit on what I said previously and clarified my position. Thanks. ---WGee16:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I'll keep an eye on the page and on the discussion. However, if you have a dispute with any editor, don't engage in constant reversion of the article. The article should not be a battleground. I acknowledge that having something in an article that you disagree with is hard to bear, but the main arena for discussing disputed text must be the talk page, not the article itself. Always assume good faith, however hard that is, because if you can demonstrate that it makes it easier for an outsider to work through the situation. At the moment Vision Thing has asked on the talk page to discuss his version; please do so. Steve blocktalk09:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to assume good faith in an editor who constantly accuses people of harassment (while engaging in harassment themself), makes personal attacks and admits to assuming bad faith in other editors themself? The Ungovernable Force09:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's hard work, but you assume good faith in the project. Like I say, it's hard for an outsider to read a situation if all sides accuse the others of bad faith and so on and so forth. Focus on content, not the contributor. Steve blocktalk10:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking for the 3RR block to be reviewed; but I'm afraid I was stupid enough to fall into RJII's trap this time. I'll try to restrain myself from now on. -- infinity017:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 48 hours. Please *don't* remove talk page comments on the articles William M. Connolley14:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for violating 3RR; I was annoyed that one person was circumventing the consensus. I did make great efforts to discuss the other editor's changes on the talk page. I removed comments from the talk page because they were attacks and disruptive - we were already discussing the changes, and the other editor added a new section intended to attack and discredit me. I will remember to focus any discussions on the talk page in the future. -- infinity017:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. In future, please don't remove comments from the talk pages. You could probably have removed the bit about "amounts to vandalism" though. If you are repentant, and promise to leave the Anarchism article (and anything strongly related) alone for the duration of your block, I'll unblock you William M. Connolley18:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend against this. Justice should be served. I don't think he has learned his lesson. He's violated the 3RR several times in the very recent past. RJII19:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RJII, I'd like to have a serious talk with you. We have been going against each other for the past few months, and I don't think it's doing any good. If we got to know each other better we might be able to work together more easily. Are you willing to have a friendly chat with me, say on IRC? -- infinity019:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RJII, your comment above didn't help your case. I've just banned RJII for 48h under his arbcomm probation - I wasn't aware of that before. Inf: please leave the Anarchist stuff alone - and that includes all Anarchist related articles, not just the FAQ - except for stuff like copyediting and anything that no-one could possibly consider contentious - for the full 48h. I won't be watching, so I'll rely on others who are interested to report you... You may edit the talk pages BUT not get into big arguments and stuff... anything like that, back out till 48h is up. I'll unblock you now. You'll probably get zapped by the autoblocker, if so leave a note here and I'll remove that too William M. Connolley19:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oooohhh... how about 18:00 on march 33rd... no, april 2nd I guess that makes it. I won't track you to the second, or even the hour, just don't push it. I didn't need your IP, BTW. You should be OK to edit now. Be good! William M. Connolley19:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's Special:Ipblocklist - I'm 2006-03-31 20:05:41, William M. Connolley (Talk) blocked #130200 (expires 2006-04-01 20:05:41) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Infinity0". The reason given for Infinity0's block is: "3rr and removing talk comments at An Anarchist FAQ".) - I don't know, for you admins there might be a "revert" link next to it or something. If autoblocking can't be reverted, then I suppose I can just wait. I have a few people to thank/apologise/offer stuff to, but all of that can wait until tomorrow, I suppose. -- infinity019:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sam Spade keeps reverting socialism back to his own version without attempting discussion. The next time he does this, could you please point this out to him? Thanks. -- infinity0 21:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I was done anyway. But, in all honesty, I've looked at Sam's edit history back to the time he joined, his behaviour has been the same throughout, nothing has changed it, and it's unlikely that anything will. I've been through this with two other editors (Jason Gastrich and Benapgar) and my experience has been that remediation is untenable, and rehabilitation unlikely (sounds odd coming from a liberal, eh?).
Also, an RFC is just that, a request for comment. In order for the process to be in any way effective, a preponderance of the evidence must prove the point one is trying to make. •Jim62sch•23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. On my Asymmetric controversy page, I've proposed the following template to be used in articles that give undue weight to a certain POV. What do you think? And btw, do you know how to get a template officially adopted? -- Nikodemos07:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article or section deals with a controversial issue, and is unbalanced. Please help improve the article by adding more information on points of view that are currently neglected.
I suggest you drop the casual use of the word. "Do not feed the trolls" in the context you have used in in Talk:Anarchism constitutes a personal attack. Regardless of the excuse. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆19:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, advice accepted. I realise it's a bit harsh to use that word but at the time I couldn't think of any other words to express what I meant. -- infinity021:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What university or universities are you applying to, if you don't mind me asking?
Also, what are tuition fees like in the UK, roughly (for a British citizen). I've recently read some stuff about a government plan to raise top-up fees, but I'm sure tuition in the UK is still cheaper than in Canada.
Please stop violating our undue weight and NPOV policies by deleting sources from mainstream scholars in favor of leaving in sources of radical anti-capitalist anarchists. Please review our policies so you can be more acquainted with them. Thank you. RJII14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're deleting sources and leaving the intro of the article Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism unbalanced from POV perspective. You delete all but one source saying anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism, and leave in at least 4 sources from anti-anarcho-capitalists disparaging anarcho-capitalism. That's very POV. Please review our NPOV policy. RJII15:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made such a violation. I'm pointing out that you were the one making the violations. Not me. It would be great if you could take the time to learn about our policies here on Wikipedia so that you learn to become a better editor. I understand that you're relatively new to Wikipedia. I'm just trying to help you along so that you can learn to be more NPOV about editing. RJII15:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This charade is getting tiring, RJII. Unless you have any real accusations, please respond to my points on your talk page instead of turning them aroudn onto my talk page. -- infinity015:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound mean. It's always hard to make the right impression via the internet (this will all be resolved once everyone switches to using Lojban). My point was simply that the equivalence of bosses to rulers is your POV, which, not surprisingly, is shared by the AnarchoFAQ. Since it is a POV, it probably shouldn't be stated in the article as if it were fact, although if I knew exactly the right way to word it, I would have changed it myself rather that adding a note. - Nat Krause(Talk!)18:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's only a little higher than tuition here in Ontario, but our universities are nowhere near as prestigious as Cambridge and Oxford, of course. Myself, I'm planning to carry out my undergraduate education at Quebec's McGill University, and then, maybe, attend the LSE for my postgraduate studies (aka graduate studies in the UK?). If I can't, due to money, the selection process, or whatever, I will most likely stay in Quebec and do my postgraduate work there.
Also, when you're done your applications, would you be interested in helping to organize/propose a WikiProject Socialism? Either that, or you could simply help me and a few others improve some socialism related articles, as last night I noticed several obvious fallacies in some important ones. Spread the word to others interested in socialism; I can't fix everything on my own! :)
Oh, I'm sort of new to Wikipedia, didn't know it was discouraged. I have a few articles in mind that need some corrections (in my opinion, at least), so I'll procure some interest in the socialism talk page, as you suggested. --WGee00:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under anarchy, the only system that could exist is capitalism. Anarchy requires the existance of NO form of government. Comunism and other forms of collectivism, can only be imposed, never arise naturaly. So if there is no government to impose comunal property, each person would be on their own, free to sell their services to anyone willing to pay. Sorta like Capitalism. :) Dullfig05:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm not infinity, but that is simply not true. I don't think (actually I know) hunter-gatherer groups had centralized authority imposing collectivism upon them--it developed naturally (more naturally than capitalism in fact). All hunter-gatherer groups are based on communal ownership, and they are the most "natural" humans you can find. The Ungovernable Force06:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look what happened in Somalia. The government collapsed and it turned into pure capitalist system. (see for example: [26]) People naturally want to own what they produce, trade, and even get rich if they can. The only way to stop them is with government. You think if government goes away everyone is going to turn into a communist? I don't believe it for a second. And, who wants to live like a "hunter--gatherer" anyway? RJII06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather live in a primitive band society than modern society. And no, I don't think if government goes away everyone is going to be communist--it will take a long time before everyone is able to evolve to the point where they can live peacefully without government (regardless of the economic system chosen). And btw, I'm not a primitivist, I don't label myself beyond anarchist (or perhaps social anarchist). And don't conflate what some societies do with human nature, it's far too common of a mistake. Only some humans are greedy selfish jerks, not all of them. It depends on the society you are raised in and the values that are stressed. Humans lived cooperatively much longer than they did competively (if human history happened in only one hour, only the last 10 seconds would have involved intensive agriculture, which is what led to strong hierarchy in the first place).The Ungovernable Force06:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Greedy, selfish, jerks"? If Somalis weren't going into business and trying to make a buck, the people would have NOTHING. Thanks to business and trade they're taking themselves out of abject poverty. How dare you call them "greedy, selfish, jerks." RJII06:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is my talk page, I'm right, and you're wrong. By you I mean RJII and Dullfig. Why are you wrong? Because I say so. Since this is my talk page. Don't like it? Go away to someone else's talk page, then.
Okay, let's continue this thought experiment. I think it's a good one. Let me introduce myself. I'm Blind Electric Ray, and for the purposes of this thought experiment, I'm bigger, richer and smarter than you. This is my talk page now. As an anarchist, what are you going to do about it? ElectricRay14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since this is not yet an anarchy (since you are richer and that's not anarchistic) we take direct action to undermine your authority. I will also do as much agitation to get people to understand that you have no right to takeover someone else's talk page and get more people to take direct action until you come crashing down. The Ungovernable Force04:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha... so you are allowed to be non anarchic until you get to a state of pure, blissed-out anarchy, and then you'll behave like anarchists, but not before ... Got it. And exactly how will we know when we've reached that state of blissed-out anarchy? As a thought experiment, assuming we're there. Now, take the same scenario as above. Apart from me, everyone else is a blissed-out anarchist. Now, what do you do? ElectricRay07:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My original model was self-defense (actually third party self-defense). I do understand that there is some non-anarchistic parts to it, but there is no other way to change things (even non-violent civil disobedience is coersive). If everyone else is an anarchist, it would actually be pretty similar--we organize to combat you (after trying to negotiate first, which probably won't work). I do support the use of community militias on a by-need basis, but only for defensive action. The Ungovernable Force15:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you not concede that there are sometimes - often, even - violent conflicts between people each of whom hold the sincere belief that she/he is in the right, and is acting reasonably and (perhaps proactively) in self defence? (Wouldn't you say that almost all conflicts are like that? How many political debates do you know where one side freely concedes that it is morally in the wrong, but just doesn't care? Remember, not even the Nazis thought they were the bad guys).
If you need non anarchistic means to get to blissed-out anarchy, presumably you think these are reasonably ascceptable. What is your rationale for, in the long run, rejecting them and going for anarchy at all?
If, in the blissed out anarchic state, you would gang up with everyone else to combat (a.k.a. dominate, coerce, govern, suborn) me, then how thorough really is your commitment to abandoning all forms of hierarchy, coercion and domination of individuals?
What you seem to be talking about isn't anarchy at all, in any sense of the word: it's good, old-fashioned, Marxism. It's alright - it's nothing to be ashamed of! ElectricRay21:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're dissembling there - you totally are ganging up to dominate me. The fact that I might have started it is neither here nor there. What you're talking about might be totally reasonable, but it's not anarcho-socialism in the sense you've described it to me - it's (ha!) actually more like anarcho-capitalism - what you've done is formed a private defence force... ElectricRay00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. Forming the defensive agency involves personal cost to you all (in the sense of opportunity cost - time, energy and resources you could be putting into other pursuits are being committed to your defence force), and (assuming you're at least trying to be rational) you have collectively made the assessment that the benefit likely to accrue to you all from having the defence agency (viz., dominating me) outweighs that personal cost. What is the definition of the excess of a benefit over an outlay? A profit. You're doing this for a profit. Why do you form a defensive agency? Because it's worth it. It's just not a monetary profit. But since money is just a convenient means of expressing "value" (money doesn't have intrinsic value - as someone rightly put it on the anarchy talk page, you can't eat money) that is only a formal, not a substantive difference.
By the way, what is your reply to the paragraph in bold above? Answering this question is critical to the credibility of the position you're advancing. ElectricRay22:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You would have a lot more credibility if (a) you hadn't already wasted reams of text arguing the toss with all comers about all aspects of anarchy to the point where you were accused (unfairly, I'm sure) of wikistalking, and (b) if you hadn't actually participated your self in this very argument at 21:18 today! No matter - I get the hint. But expect short shrift if you suddenly decide to butt back into any other discussions I should be having around the place about anarchy... ElectricRay23:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was arguing with RJII about the content of the article. A different thing from pointless debates about a topic which has no effect on anything whatsoever. -- infinity023:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that pointless. Unlike some other proponents of anarcho-cap, Electric ray here seems to be pretty cool (misguided, but cool). Ok, as to the bold paragraph, yeah, you're right which is why I am probably less keen on violent action than some other anarchists. I do try to look at things from a reasonable perspective and understand other people's ideas (such as yours), but there are some instances where not acting can cause some serious problems. I try not to hate cops, nazis, capitalists, soldiers and politicians because I feel they are victims of this society as well, they have had their souls utterly destroyed to the point that they are able to do terrible acts of violence against totally innocent people (although my emotions do get in the way sometimes). And I don't think anyone with any objectivity would consider you stealing someone's "home" with force to be fair. I use non-violence when possible, but there are times when that just won't work. And of course it can't be fully justified and of course what I consider self-defense, others might consider offense, but there is no way to get around that. As for your argument that doing something profitable (in the sense of non-monetary profit) makes someone a supporter of capitalism seems fairly ridiculous--that would make everyone, a capitalist since everyone does what they consider to be profitable. That would include Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Goldman, the Spanish Anarchists, Osama Bin Laden--everyone. From a philosophical sense that might deem some more examination, but honestly, I don't think there's much merit in that as a political argument. The Ungovernable Force05:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you should reassess the underlying philosophy then - it might not seem politically acceptable to you to think these immoral thoughts but might not that be a case of your preconceptions clouding your better judgment?
I agree with what you say re Marx et al: a failure to understand (or at least a willingness to ignore) the real nature of "altruism" and "value" (altruism is a slippery concept - it's really no more than an expression of ones own personal preferences, though one doesn't like to say that too loudly) (and accordingly "profit" which is no more than an expression of those) is at the heart of many misconceived philosophies, and I would certainly count those of Marx, Hitler and Bin Laden among them.
All I can say is: do the exercise of examining the philosophy underlying your political belief - you can only do it by yourself, but you owe it to yourself: if you don't, how can you be confident in the position you so passionately advocate? Aren't you just a dogmatist? Here is your challenge: identify a way that doing something for monetary gain is materially, substantively (not formally) distinguishable from doing something to accord with your own assessment of your values. You need to think about what is money, if it isn't an approximation, and a representation, of your own personal values. ElectricRay00:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, OK; it's just his comment "Answering this question is critical to the credibility of the position you're advancing" set off my troll alarm. -- infinity010:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
apologies for seeming to troll. I really meant it. If you want to adopt the moral high ground in this debate (and almost all the "anarchists" on this site seem very strongly to want to, which strikes me as odd), then you need to be able to answer some basic questions. None of this is hard, and if you take your anarchism seriously, it shouldn't be news to you. ElectricRay00:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. But what do you mean by moral high ground? I don't see a-capitalism as evil; just stupid and contradictory. -- infinity012:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're one of the few, in that case. I would be genuinely curious to know in what way you think capitalism is stupid and contradictory? Also, Another question. When you think of capitalists, would you include the guy that runs the pretzel stand on Broadway? How about a singer/songwriter busking (and singing prtotest songs) on the subway? Or an architect? ElectricRay13:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not quite - labour is a subset of capital - it is human capital. Machinery isn't a type of labour. Is a person who gets money of his or her own labour a capitalist? ElectricRay15:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a philosophical viewpoint which dehumanises a person and treats them as only a wealth-producing object, without taking into consideration the other aspects like their character, their rights, and so on. -- infinity015:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yours is a philosophical viewpoint too, don't forget. Even if it were right (I'm an employee, and I don't feel dehumanised, and anyway, if I did, it would be my decision to stay, right?) what is so wrong with this? Impliedly, you think something is (else why make the comment?), so I think there is a moral element to your discomfort despite what you say above. In any case, if treating a person as "human capital" is dehumanising, it is no more so than almost any other relationship we have with any person outside of our circle of immediate family and friends: I like to watch David Beckham play football because of his skill at free kicks; not because I care about his rights, or his character, or his personal opinions on Samuel Beckett's plays (indeed, he might find it somewhat intrusive if I were to be overly concerned with these things). When I get on the bus in the morning, I view the ticket collector as a man who sells me my ticket and lets me on the bus; I don't pause to reflect on whether he has a wife and three kids, or enjoys baseball, or not, and so on. And nor does the conductor care what I do at the weekend. Why should he? What difference does it make to him? I dare say you are the same. This doesn't mean I mistreat the conductor (or David Beckham), or them me, and on these terms we might quite like each other. Likewise, my employer doesn't care two jots about my interest in contributing to Wikipedia, but it should care that I'm happy, and feel generally fairly rewarded for what I do, simply because it has a direct financial interest in making sure this is the case. Just as it makes sense to keep physical plant oiled, polished and well maintained, so it is with its human capital. You might think this is dehumanising, in which case, fine - don't get a job. Capitalism doesn't force you to. But you have to weigh up the opportunity costs of remaining free from dehumanisation for yourself.
You haven't, by the way, said what you find to be stupid and contradictory about capitalism. Nor whether you think a person who gets money of his or her own labour is a capitalist? ElectricRay20:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A personal one-off treatment is different from a philosophical analysis. Watching football is not the same as sitting down to think, "what is a human"? Capitalism forces you to get a job, because without a supply of money, you die, and jobs are the easiest source of money avaliable. But I'm sure you've heard this ALL before, why come talk to me about it? I haven't explained my views because I don't feel obliged to explain them to you right now, sorry. -- infinity020:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Different in what way? Why should one be any more obliged to "humanise" an employee than a footballer or a bus conductor? What are the "stupid and contradictory" aspects of capitalism? In what way does capitalism "force" anyone to get a job? What about buskers, beggars, sole traders, freelance journalists, authors, the self employed (assuming you would not define these people as capitalists, as they don't exploit other people's labour)? What about ticket touts, currency hawks and people who operate on the black market? How about people who are self sufficient, or who choose to live in an anarchose syndicalist commune? What about people, like me, who are happy for their labour to be exploited? Capitalism is entirely agnostic to these people.
Why come talk to you about it? Because I want to see what happens when a keen young Marxist is made to specifically explain, justify and defend sweeping statements and allegations he makes about capitalism in the face of a considered analysis. I would genuinely like to know your answers (I am researching for a book on the topic, and I would like to understand the contrary viewpoint). But, whenever you're put on the spot, you refuse to engage. You say things like "Blah, blah. I have better things to do that debate such detail" and "I don't feel obliged to explain" and, of course, you aren't obliged to explain - that's your prerogative. But it is mine to draw conclusions from this refusal about the rigour and coherency of your position. ElectricRay22:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Marxist. I said anarcho-capitalism was contradictory. I explain forcing up there. People are different, some are more resistant, but the majority are suppressed by the minority. Consent does not negate exploitation; happy slaves are still slaves.
I tried to explain that your analogy between employees and watching football is unsound, because in concluding a human is a machine, you infer him to be *only* a machine. With the footballer you are not stripping away his other characteristics; just ignoring them. Draw whatever conclusions you like from my unwillingness to respond. I am not interested in having a debate where the opponent delivers an ultimatum of "respond or be called stupid", nor do I have an interest in trying to convince you of anything. -- infinity022:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, Infinity0, it is helpful in understanding your position. I understand you don't want to debate anymore. But for what it is worth i think you are reading too much into the terms "human capital" - this doesn't conlude that a human is a machine at all - I don't know how you got to that conclusion, but you did, so that's your business and, really, since you must be looking forward to a life of being stuck in the system as a "happy slave" therefore, your problem. ElectricRay23:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As noted earlier, the theory can be seen as an argument for the democracy that many socialists support, direct democracy. Studies show the more representative democracy have a stronger peace. Ultramarine16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Infinity0, if you look at Pmanderson critical references, you will see that he mostly cites very old studies. My studies are mostly after 2000. Read the overviews mentioned if you want a correct description of current status. Ultramarine17:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried that for months. But as you can see, he insists on his version, refusing to trim obsolete or disproven arguments, or present current status fairly. Ultramarine17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that Septentrionalis has on several other articles constantly tried to exclude well-sourced advantages of democracy and related research. See for example this, where he completely deletes the painstakingly made table regarding world-wide democracy from Freedom House.[27] Regarding Septentrionalis only constant supporter, Robert A West, he is real-world friend or relative of Septentrionalis. See their extensive collaborative editing of numerous Baron West and Earl De La Warr. They have extremely deep knowledge about this particular aristocratic family. Ultramarine17:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
infinity, I advise you to stop following me around to various articles that you don't ordinarily deal with and deleting my edits. Also, stop complaining to Adminstrators' Noticeboard in an attempt to get me banned because you don't like my edits. I'm getting very close to filing an arbitration case against you for your harrassment. RJII19:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be more self critical and reflective. Don't think you're right all the time. You're way too aggressive, and you ignore other people's comments related both to you as a person and to your edits. And, stop denying things - especially when people criticise you. A lot of people have critised your POV yet you just ignore them, and even say that you're NPOV. You need to improve this sort of behaviour, because it's not healthy for wikipedia as a whole. -- infinity020:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. You're the one that needs to listen to your own advice. You're trying to twist it on on me. That's really funny. RJII20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't know what is being discussed specifically, I will agree that RJII is very good at twisting things around to make others out to be the bad guys. RJII often engages in the exact same behaviors he/she accuses other people of. The Ungovernable Force05:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I added the picture of the Prague sculpture in "anticommunism". I disagree with you, the sculpture is an anti communist sculture, therefore is relevant to the article.
Very glad about you being able to sing "The international" in so many lenguages. Try also to say "Freedom" in all those lenguages.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Randroide (talk • contribs)
YOU SAID: "your remark about freedom was unnecessary"
I REPLY: As unnecessary or neccesary as you "La internacional" poliglotism remark. Anyways, I did not want to offend you. Have good premises. Randroide18:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Randroide.[reply]
Where you say "fanatical" I say "with clear ideas". You also said Why such a strong view?. Well, it is not a "view" (a "view" is something subjective), it is a constatation of reality. Look at what Communism made in the 20th century. Left-wing politics always means the subordination of the individual to the "collective" (i.e., to the group of individuals with the biggest club), and that always leads to tyranny.Randroide19:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say all right-wing politics is exploitative or coercive. You should say it. I am going to say it: Right wing politics coerces in different ways the individual (the draft, compulsory prayer, outlawing of drugs and homosexuality..).
you can argue individualism subordinates society to the individual. No, you can not. Individualism recognizes the rights of the individual, Period. BTW, "the collective" has no special rights, only the rights of the individuals that make the collective. The entity made by the sum of the individuals has NOT special rights. Moreover, if you want to enforce "collective rights", you would nedd to choose WHICH collective are you going to favor, and all that degenerates very quickly into tribal warfare.Randroide19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I’m the user that was formerly known as Bitola. I decided to make some changes (changes are always welcomed from time to time) and I created a new user account. I was pretty much involved in the Macedonian articles heated area for several months and these days I will take some rest from all that bickering. In the same time, I would like to thank you for your voting for the brief option on the Republic of Macedonia talk page (the option I was supporting). MatriX17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have seen, I'm dropping out of Wikipedia. I give my reasons on my user talk page. I just wanted to say, though, thanks for all your efforts. I really appreciate your work here and I just wish I had the time and energy to continue. But I don't, I'm sorry to say. So keep up the struggle -- I know how hard it can be! BlackFlag 09:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
CLASSIC passive aggressive behaviour, Infinity0. Absolutely copybook. Since you're such a smart guy and know everything about anarchy, politics and stuff, surely you don't need to revise something as straightforward as differential equations? I mean, surely you know it already? And if not, surely your answer is to stop faffing around on the internet, turn off the computer, and go do some study? Why should it somehow be RJII's problem? ElectricRay21:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What have you got against me? Why do you think I'm the aggressive one? What's with the sarky comments? And furthermore, why are you making it out as if I'm the one at fault and that RJII has done nothing? -- infinity021:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again! I'll say this for you; you're brilliant at it! Casting yourself as the victim as a way of swinging the argument.
A couple of things: (i) look up the term "passive agressive" - you don't appear to be familiar with it. (ii) I don't by any stretch agree with everything that RJII does or says, but he does play with a straight bat. He argues his case, intensely, provides sources, and usually his arguments are logical and reasoned. Your only objection, so far as I can see, is that he calls a spade a spade. You might not like that, but that's your problem.
RJII has (in his brusque manner, which personally I don't have a problem with) made a number of perfectly fair observations about your reasonning which, to put it bluntly, you don't seem to have been able to grasp, and rather than trying to objectively assess the content of what RJII has been saying, you've instead inferred some alterior personal motive on RJII's part against you (as you seem now to have done with me also). As I have said before, step back, take a breath of fresh air, and get some perspective. And go do your algebra revision! ElectricRay21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is so ironic. You're calling me "passive aggressive", but you're making accusations which make it hard for me to respond without seeming nasty. -- infinity021:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So be nasty. Tell it like it is. I give you my word I won't complain - as long as you promise likewise. Sticks and stones willl break our bones, but words ... Come on, let me have it. ElectricRay22:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think RJII is correct about verifiability. Per WP:V:
A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.
This is in contrast with your RFAR view that emailing a publisher counts as verifying something. Wikipedia veriability means the claim is verifiable from already-public sources without having to email anyone.
This is a difficult issue and I understand where you are coming from. However, my "research" is different from the above example in that it does not contradict anything that is common knowledge. It is well known in the anarchist commmunity that the FAQ is going to be published by AK Press. There is nothing stating the FAQ is NOT going to be published.
WP:V says "Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors." - in this case, my claim is easy to verify: anyone can e-mail AK Press and ask them themselves. I am not acting on behalf of AK Press in divulging this information, which is not even new - news of the FAQ's publication has been around for quite a while. -- infinity011:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just come out and tell him what they told you: "We do not have a release date for it but the administrators of the FAQ are hard at work editing it down into a few volumes. Hopefully we'll see it in the next couple years but until then you'll have to read it online." Hopefully in a couple years? LOL. Until then, stop citing the non-credible source. RJII14:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, their e-mail to you is not a reliable source per wikipedia's definition because no one else can look it up to verify it. If the AK press web site lists it as a forthcoming book, that would count. I ordinarily wouldn't think this is a big deal one way or the other but since RJII has questioned it, it's up to you to show by a source that other editors could check if they wanted to. Thatcher13103:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can e-mail AK Press and ask them themselves. I'm not using my e-mail as a source, I'm using AK Press themselves as a source. -- infinity011:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Image:Ac_chart.png){kind=link}
