User talk:Jadabocho

Welcome!

Hello Jadabocho, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Skomorokh 22:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebars

The sidebars you added to the article on Anarchism are arresting. I am not sure that they are relevant, though. They bring together several loosely related concepts which share common theme (i.e., "individualism," "socialism"). The format is not one that is common in Wikipedia. That is not to say that it is not good, just that it represents a departure from current practice. I would suggest some discussion on the talk page of the article before adding them. In the meantime, I've taken them out of the article. Sunray (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in Template:Individualism sidebar

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Individualism sidebar, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Individualism sidebar is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Individualism sidebar, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (Copied over)

It is true the creators of objectivism claim it is individualist. But if claiming something is individualist is all you need for it to be individualist, then there clearly are many more things that are individualist. In reality, it offers individualism only for a small number of human beings compared to the majority: those who are capitalist supermen of some kind. Is it individualism for workers, for peasants and farmers, and for the dispossessed? No. It very clearly stated that corporate leaders are the champions of it and the epitome of it. I would argue that since it is an elitist type of "individualism" that in reality only betters a small number of people, just as Lenin's Bolshevism only bettered a small number of people, that it isn't individualist. It also is very clearly biased to one type of thought, and one side of an argument, while individualism itself is far broader than that. To say the Hungarians and Czechs and Chinese who rose up against the communist party, yet still believed in a libertarian form of communism were not individualist, is the type of thing a Rand or a Rothbard would do, and this is also elitist and exclusive. Those people WOULD say they were individualist, or would agree with most nonpartisan individualist statements. The fact that Randists and Rothbardians have already made up their minds for us what we are or aren't based on their own set of criteria makes them very simmilar to Leninists. No one has even bothered to address the issue of how un-individualist working for someone else is, even if you "agree" or "contract" to it.. and nobody has talked abotu how un-individualist it is to use force to keep someone from using some land or factory equipment. Individualism is not synonymous with capitalism, and Objectivism is a cultlike, somewhat bizarre ideology that many people even on the right have rejected as a relic of Rand (who wasn't even an American, yet we are told capitalist individualism is an American phenomenon - Bastiat wasn't American - what about that? And if we are to respect claims that individualism is by nature "capitalist" in America, why have capitalist ideologies created capitalist oriented entries in the Spanish wikipedia? Respect (or lack of it) for your opposition is a two way street.) Radical Mallard Feb 25, 2009 7:12 PM EST

A message to Jadabocho

The AI/IAF/AFI has renewed interest in wikipedia. I hope that ochlarchists like Zazaban and Skomorokh can be more matter of fact this time! The AI is certainly not a "hoax/spam/non-notable; worth keeping an eye on for quality control", see my arguments below. AI/IAF/AFI is significantly the largest anarchist organization in the world. This is based on reliable, independent third party sources, and I hope thus that my scientifical contributions will not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.202.78.10 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, semantics

Fist line is about historical use, libertarians like a simple synonimous of anarchism. Second part about how that word relates with anarchism now. An individualist anarchist use to be also a libertarian (with another market supporters) -I put "wide definition"- and a socialist anarchis use to be a socialist anarchist (a synonimous). But you should also remember that not all libertarian socialists are anarchists (I realized that in this moment). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's something your not seeing. Yes an individualist anarchist would be a libertarian. But so would a socialist anarchist. They're both libertarians. "Libertarian" is not restricted to refer only the individualist anarchists. "Libertarian socialism" is just a further subdivision of "libertarianism," or anarchism. Jadabocho (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's something like that in the political spectrum:

Libertarianism >>

1. Right libertarian

a)Non anarchist

b)Anarchist

2. Left libertarian

a)Non anarchist

b)Anarchist

But for the moment I belive the redaction is acceptable.--Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not taking into account that not everyone uses the word "libertarian" in the same way. YOU and some others use it to mean what you say above. Some others use it to mean ONLY to anarchism. We have to accommodate both uses of the word. Jadabocho (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, but in the way I propose I believe it is easier for understand and don´t exclude other ways of the word use. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that of "central"... I believe isn't very neutral and isn't exactly because in the next line there is a comparisson between philosophical movement and social movement (how you know which one have more importance than another in these days).--Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ;) --Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Synonym, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym

Hi Jadobocho. I am sorry if your edit was made in good faith, but the sentence you constructed: "Othertimes it (=pupil) not used as a synonym of car, but to indicate a part of the eye." made no sense, and I interpreted it as vandalism. The sentence still makes no sense. Pupil is never a synonym of car. If you edit it to say what you really mean I will leave it alone. Plantsurfer (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. THanks for pointing that out.

You're welcome. Plantsurfer (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-left anarchy.

I was getting a bit too heated, sorry. It's just that there isn't much stuff on post-left anarchy in general, and it was written by one of it's most prominent figures. Anyhow, it's all gone now, so we can go back to our lives. I wouldn't have reverted it again. I'm so sorry. Zazaban (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Ok. I really don't have a POV on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure the article is accurate. I don't even know what post-anarchy is, and couldnt care less whether it's individualist or not except just to make sure the article is not misrepresenting anything. Jadabocho (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry. I was under a lot of stress and I was taking it out on you. I'm not usually that much of an opinionated ass. I'm going to take a break for a couple of days. Thanks for giving me a much needed wake up call. I could probably find a better source, but I was in angry 'me vs. the world' mode, which made me into precisely what I despise most. I'm usually pretty relaxed about these things. Zazaban (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 18:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.