User talk:Jurriaan

Welcome!

Hello Jurriaan, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:28, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

Register/log in

Hi. I assume this message left on my talk page is yours? If so, please note you were not logged in when you wrote it - this is why it sais above it was left by user '82.169.203.180'. Make sure you log in when you edit Wiki, and preferably check the box 'rembember my login on this computer' (or similar), so you are registered constantly (on a computer you use often). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made some minor adjustments to your user page; hope you find it of value. If not, feel free to negate! El_C 20:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wage labour

Hey, I see you've edited many ariticles to do with marxian economics. I recently started wage labour, though since I'm not an expert on this subject I haven't been able to say a lot. Could you help edit it? Thanks! Infinity0 ^talk 19:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you have a look at Talk:Wage labour? I'd like to talk about some things related to that article. -- infinity0 19:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juriaan, you changed that section to "Marxist usage". The term is not used just by marxists, but by socialists and anarchists too. -- infinity0 20:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Jesson

Thanks for your edits / adding lots of material too the above article. --Lholden 14:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parametric determinism

A lot of what you've added might look like original research unless you can find more than one reference. A passer-by might get the impression that Mandel was opposed to dialectics, which he was not. --Duncan 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parametric determinism: reply

I discussed it with Ernest Mandel himself while he was still alive, and I have referred in a section to a "dialectical view". Because I did the pioneering work on collecting his writings together in a bibliography, I am quite familiar with his work. He had the idea already in the 1950s, but did not call it parametric determinism until the 1990s. User:Jurriaan 1 May 2007

Pre-industrial society#Criticism of the concept

Jurriaan, you have introduced the section "Criticism of the concept" to the article entitled Pre-industrial society. Since there were no cited sources listed this section has been removed. Please feel free to reinsert it upon providing citations which comply with no original research. Thank you. Mister Fax 18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-industrial: reply

What I have said is academically correct but I did admittedly not cite references. User:Jurriaan 1 May 2007

If it is valid then it needs a source to authenticate it as such. Please consider WP:NOR. Thanks. Mister Fax 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a look at http://www.iisg.nl/research/womenswork.php

Jurriaan, please cite this type of information within the article. The reason is so that others may reference what you are referring to as not independent research but valid from a qualified resource with this article. Thanks. Mister Fax 23:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your private e-mail reproduced on a talk page

Did you know that a private e-mail of yours was reproduced on the talk page of the David Laibman article?

Of course, you know that there is only one person in the world of Marxian economics who could have done that.

If it is the case that you didn't give your permission to reproduce that email on a Wikipedia talk page, then I suggest you ask for administrative intervention by members of sysops. Watchdog07 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking by Dr. Unethical

Please read my comments on the talk page of Paul Bairoch - if Dr. Unethical hasn't already removed them. Watchdog07 11:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

If you wish to file an arbitration case, please read the instructions carefully and follow the correct format. Note, however that arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution and requests will generally not be accepted unless prior attempts to resolve the disputed have been attempted and failed. Please read the essay on dispute resolution and consider one of the earlier steps if you have not done so already. Thatcher131 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to pursue arbitration, read the instructions in the big pink box at the top of the page just below the table of contents. Copy the hidden template, add the requested info, and add the request to the page at the top of the list. However, unless you can show substantial prior efforts to resolve the dispute, such as a request for comment or extensive talk page discussions, the arbitrators are likely to ask you to pursue the earlier steps in dispute resolution before accepting a case. Thatcher131 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dated cleanup tags

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 14:41 13 June 2007 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Jurriaan. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy.
Message added 01:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An old edit of yours attributed material on unequal exchange to Gernot Köhler, could you help us source it? Paradoctor (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Flexibility (personal)

The article Flexibility (personal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sycophancy, Criticism and Charisma

You're doing a good job on Opportunism. Any chance you could work on Sycophancy, Criticism and Charisma ? They are all seriously short on text. --Penbat (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the compliment, if it is one, but working on the articles you mention is not something I am going to do. My first obligation if anything is to tidy up and finish the articles which I created, particularly with regards to the referencing. If I do so, I provide a good example for others, especially academics, to follow. User:Jurriaan 25 August 2010 4:50 (UTC)

I have added a few bits to the article on criticism, but it really requires a major cleanup. User:Jurriaan 6 December 2010 1:59 (UTC)

I have done more work on the Criticism article. See if you like it. User:Jurriaan 13 january 2012 2:12 (UTC)

Character mask

Yes, feel free to restore the material I deleted; but please read the original research guidelines regarding the material about Eyes Wide Shut -- all opinions in material like this needs to be capable of being attributed to third-party sources meeting the WP:V, WP:ATT and WP:RS criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow nice one!

Well done for all that work you've done at character mask! Nice one :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay-Sebastos (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Commodity fetishism. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠ ♠ 09:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not aware that I have added any promotional material. What are you referring to? User:Jurriaan 2 september 2010 2:21 (UTC)

I was reverting vandalism and there was another article with a link to his personal home page. I accidentally revert yours instead of his in my haste. I apologies for my oversight and will take extra caution in my future editing. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠ ♠ 17:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Commodity fetishism. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Being the misuse of WP:PRIMARY sources to produce Original research in the WP:LEDE which is not discussed at length in the body (or at all) and which appears due to the original research from primary material to be WP:SOAPBOXing. Please consider expanding the body of the article first with secondary sources that support your claim and attending strongly to the policy on original research and use of primary sources. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Fifelfoo, please refrain from polluting this talk page any further with hippy rants. You are a liar, because I have not introduced any "promotional material", and even if I did, you fail to specify what the "promotional" material is. This is completely unscholarly. We require proofs, not accusations. So where's the beef? If, in an article on a concept invented by Marx, I cite Marx to explain the meaning of his own concept, that is not "original research". That's absurd. Anybody willing to search the online texts can verify this for himself quite easily, and I have provided references for this. I cannot help it if Marxist professors teach these concepts wrongly to their students, at best I can acknowledge (as I have done) that different retrospective interpretations exist. When I am introducing references to primary and secondary sources, you destroy my edits even as I am writing them! Well, enough said. My participation in wikipedia ends here. User:Jurriaan 28 December 2010 13:39 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.162.215 (talk)

Please have a look at

The discussion in "Opportunism" under the heading This won't do. ... JonRichfield (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at Jon Richfield's comment and it is just vague waffle. Unless he provides solid argument back up with evidence for why the article should be changed, I am going to undo changes he makes, since they are not genuine improvements. User: Jurriaan 26 Sept 2011 22:43 (UTC)

Difference between The labour theory of value and The law of value

Hi Jurriaan, I read your article on Law of value, I am not able to get the subtle difference between Law of value and The labour theory of value, can you kindly add a few lines explaining the differences between the two either here or in the talk page of the article or may be in the main article itself. Thanks Castroby (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Law of value

I have put in an extra paragraph to help you along. User:Jurriaan 14 Dec 2011 16:52 (UTC)

Thank You. Castroby (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revival: Over the years I have come back and read this Wikipedia article several times, as I feel that a frequent refresher on the more technical aspects of the subject are magnificent in the insight they can perennially bestow. It wasn't until recently that I decided to go through the history of this articles many hundreds of revisions, taking note of the great effort that you made in providing it an [opinion:] almost unparalleled comprehensive overview, and the many attempts by those possessing seeming little knowledge of the subject to undercut its completion, and therefore, value to its use as a point of encyclopedic reference.

Having taken note of the fact that your account will be unblocked (hopefully) on March 29th of this year (2016), I would like to coordinate an effort to undertake a project for the restoration of the page to a more complete form. Currently the article is cited as containing several elements of discontinuity in form with community standards, all of which I feel could be remedied by taking an alternate approach: a broad and sweeping insertion of the various scholarly work included in your research and amendments throughout the years, along with references back to newly revised sections of it, into the articles of "mainstream" and Austrian-School economic theories that this conceptual apparatus stands in critical contention with.

Why should we be relegated to utilizing what would be widely referenced as a biased reference in communpedia.wikia.com, when properly crafted amendments to the worlds most regarded source of peer-reviewed information can only serve to further educate the world on what has quite arguably been the most divisive and impactful intellectual corpus of the past century-and-a-half? Thank you. Nebulous transient (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Value-form, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Criticism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tolerance, Sublimation and Repression

Character mask (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Harvey

Law of value (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Britain

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Criticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Law of value, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartesian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Character mask (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Russian and Magic

Law of value (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to M3

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Criticism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lying and Stigma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was Marx a Jew?

I know he was born a Jew, but he was baptized. If you know of any RS's on the topic can you post them here? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. When you recently edited Character mask, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page François de La Rochefoucauld (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. When you recently edited Character mask, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Judas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I wrote you a long message about how appreciative I am that you persevered in writing your Character mask article that we are all loving and sharing over on the facebook, despite the nitpicking of petty bureaucratic Wiki gadflies on the talk page, but alas my browser crashed before I could finish that message and I lost it. So this will have to do. You showed extraordinary restraint and grace in dealing with the naysayers and created a wonderful article for the world at large. Haterz gonna hate, but all my educated Marxist and etc. theorist friends think you are awesome. Thank you !!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for your brilliant work on Character mask, you're awesome! xoxox Saudade7 02:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

. In solidarity, Saudade7 02:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your last post to me

With regard to your last post to me which you have deleted, I assure you that my aim here is to help you understand how to edit in Wikipedia and avoid being blocked from editing, so I have identified the policies and rules that you are violating and provided links so you don’t have to take my word for it and so you can learn more.

As I have noted, your behaviour violates Wikipedia’s rules. These rules have been established by the Wikipedia community to help people edit in constructive and collaborative manner. Without them, Wikipedia would not work.

I have taken a look at your previous disputes with other editors, and I see now that this is not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behaviour.

Wikipedia aims to be very forgiving, and to give people a lot of chances to change their behaviour before administrative action is taken against them. As you are making it clear that you are not interested in conforming to Wikipedia’s rules, you must understand that if you continue to behave in this way, you can be blocked by me or another administrator without further warning. There are, of course, procedures for appealing administrative blocks.

I invite you to reconsider your approach to thiis discussion. You have criticized me as being annoying, and then proudly declare that you are being deliberately rude. You complained of my “rants”, but you have resorted repeatedly to obscenity, name-calling, and typing all in caps. For someone who makes a big deal of your academic background, you are very quick to resort to the sort of discourse one would expect to find in the loading dock rather than in the halls of the graduate school.

It comes back to your repeated demand that I not edit “your” articles. Because I have not violated any Wikipedia policies of which I am aware, you have no way of enforcing your demand. I cannot be blocked for drawing your attention to Wikipedia policies. You can be blocked for violating them.

I deleted two words, as is my prerogative under WP:BOLD, you restored them (and eventually explained why) as is your prerogative, and I decided to leave it at that. This is part of the normal ebb and flow of Wikipedia. If you can’t accept that, you are never going to be happy here. It is something that you cannot change no matter how much you insult people, no matter what rude words you use, and no matter what pointless demands you make.

Wikipedia is a better place if people aren’t rude to each other, don’t engage in name-calling, and don’t shout at each other. For that matter, the world is a better place if people don’t do these things, but Wikipedians can’t change the world. Wikipedians can set rules of engagement for editing in Wikipedia, and can block from editing those who don’t abide by them.

The purpose of my posts to you have not been about “being embarrassed” or wanting to annoy you, or any other sinister motive that you ascribe to me (WP:Assume good faith), but as I said, to help you avoid being blocked by changing how you interact with other editors. Regards, Ground Zero | t 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, you misrepresent what I mean and what I stand for, even although you claim to be an administrator, and that is what gets my back up. I think your repeated criticisms lack objectivity, understanding and logical sense. Five points:

1. I do not make a "big deal" of my academic background as you allege (I have not been an academic now for 22 years, I spent that time in the workforce, though I have worked also as academic editor and translator of books and articles). I have referred to my academic credentials, if at all, only where this became relevant in some discussions I was having, or when people asked for those credentials. Plus, I stated my background on my user page.

2. I am simply frustrated by the fact, that editors who have no real competence to edit the content of articles I spent a lot of time on, and do not understand the content properly, change the content, and thereby turn it into rubbish. I am then associated with the rubbish of others, and I do not want to be.

3. If in addition the editors are not even willing to reconsider what they are doing, all I can do is pithily state what I think of them, communicate my frustration, and leave it at that.

4. You or anybody else is most welcome to edit any article I have written or contributed to - wikipedia is an encyclopedia which anybody can edit! It is probably true, that some of them could be modified to conform better to wiki standards. It is merely that if people edit articles without evidently really knowing what they are doing, so that the articles become worse than it was before, I may want to state that, or why I think the edits are rubbish. I do not want to be associated with the rubbish of others, because I stand for quality articles, not rubbish articles.

5. I realize that it is not appropriate to curse a few other editors, but it's more a sign of frustration with their irrationality - their persistent refusal to respect the work of others, their imputation to others of beliefs they do not hold, their inability to follow an argument, etc.

I am not going to get in an extensive discussion with you about this anymore, because there is simply no point: you deliberately reject what I mean, and present it as something it is not, and then impute to me views or positions that I do not hold. If you want to purge me from wikipedia, that may be within your power to do, as you said. I will just be among the thousands of wikipedia editors who have left wikipedia... sorely disappointed with the growing wikibureaucracy and the gradual lowering of the quality of many articles.

As a matter of fact, I do not intend to contribute much more content to wikipedia anyway. Most of what I have done in recent times, is to re-edit some articles which I had already piloted or worked on before, for example, providing more references, which I was asked to do. I haven't started any new articles for a very long time, and do not intend to do so anymore. So basically you are flogging a dead horse in that sense, because I am simply not very active in wikipedia and do not intend to be in the future. User:Jurriaan 8 August 2012 23:45 (UTC)

I don’t claim to be an administrator. I am an administrator. I am providing feedback on the basis of my observations of your behaviour. I have identified where you have violated Wikipedia policies, and provided links to those policies. I don’t think you would deny that you have made personal attacks, used obscenities, told me not to edit “your” articles, asserted authority, typed all in capital letters, etc. I do not think that I have misrepresented you or that my comments lack objectivity on these points.

In your comments, I see a lot of complaints, which may well be valid, about the behaviour of other editors. Are these complaints really about my deletion of two words, which you restored and that remain there now? It really seems to be like you are venting your frustration at me about previous arguments you have had with other editors. You have even referred to “you and your pals” as if I am somehow in cahoots with other editors. I don’t know where you get that idea, but there is no basis for it.

I understand that editing Wikipedia can be a frustrating experience, but it is only made worse by ignoring the policies and rules that the Wikipedia community has adopted.

Finally, you stated, without irony, “… you deliberately reject what I mean, and present it as something it is not, and then impute to me views or positions that I do not hold. If you want to purge me from wikipedia….” From the beginning of this discussion, I have stated that my aim is to encourage you to change your behaviour so that you do not get blocked from editing. I have stated that repeatedly, so you are imputing to me a position that I do not hold. As far as “deliberately rejecting what you mean”, you are again assuming that I am dealing with you in bad faith. I am not doing so. I am calling you on your demonstrated behaviour, and encouraging you to change it so that you don't get blocked from editing. Ground Zero | t 20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK then: I accept that you act in good faith, and in good faith, I accept that it's not on, to curse in wikipedia, and I will refrain from doing so again. I furthermore agree, that wikipedia protocols are there to be followed, and that I should do so. I suppose it is simply not worth it to get riled about two words out of place, even although in this case, they are important to the theoretical issue. My only concern has been with some editors who start to re-edit articles comprehensively, when they clearly and demonstrably don't really know what they are doing, and moreover persist in their activity even when, on the talk page, it is explained what is wrong with the edits. I agree, that there are procedures to deal with this kind of problem, and that I should be using them where it becomes absolutely necessary. It is just that, if somebody deigns to edit articles, one assumes some elementary common sense and relevant expertise - a "procedure" shouldn't really be necessary at this level -, and if that common sense isn't in evidence, it becomes terribly frustrating at times. But if I get frustrated, it's better to chew on an old sock, or something like that, until I am sufficiently cooled down to explain once again patiently what's wrong and how to put it right. BTW I have never told you not to edit "my" articles and I have said you are welcome to do so (the articles are not "my" articles anyway, and some of them have been published already under the name of fake authors). All I am saying is that anybody should edit them, if they really know about the topic, and not mistake theoretical distinctions for linguistic niceties. I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of articles which I would never edit, simply because I have no relevant knowledge to offer - at most I could correct a typo or something like that. If you say, "It really seems to be like you are venting your frustration at me about previous arguments you have had with other editors", you are right. But what other editors do wrong, is obviously not your fault. User:Jurriaan 10 August 2012 22:47 (UTC)

I have been meaning to reply to this, and apologize for my delay in doing so. I don't want to say much more other than to thank you for your thoughtful reconsideration of the dispute we have be having. Well, I will point out that I interpreted "keep your mitts off" as telling me not to edit this article, and I think that is a reasonable interpretation. But I think we should leave this dispute at that as it has taken far too much time for both of us. I will also thank you again for your contributions to Wikipedia. Best regards, Ground Zero | t 21:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Law of value, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Administration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unscrupulousness.

Hello Jurrian. I came across your Character Mask wikipedia page and was very impressed by its comprehensiveness. I was horrified to learn that it had been reproduced without permission by an unscrupulous publishing house who have it on sale on Amazon. I know it doesn't count for much, but I posted a one-star review of it documenting my complaint, and you should too.

Sincerely, From Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.118.47 (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for your support, but I do not own the article I have written. Nobody in wikipedia "owns" an article. It is perfectly legal for a private company to publish wikipedia content, also for commercial gain, but provided they acknowledge that appropriately. The real issue here is, that the company may obscure the fact that the article is freely available online, and that it may name somebody as an author or editor, even although that author or editor had nothing to do with the article. They may also combine different wiki articles in one publication even although the real authors never intended that combination. In order to sell the article as a commodity, it has to be registered with an author name, so, often, the publisher will fake it. User:Jurriaan 26 october 2012 11:08 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Law of value". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 03:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Society for Theatre Research concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Society for Theatre Research, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Abstract labour and concrete labour may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fuzzy concept, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Administration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment

“Before the start of the capitalist era in human history (i.e. before the 1500s), structural unemployment on a mass scale rarely existed, other than that caused by natural disasters and wars.”

I have a couple of issues with this sentence. First of all, it needs a source for what is defined as “capitalist era”, if not a definition itself. Second, a source for the alledged “start” of that era (is it actually Early Modern Period, or Industrial Revolution?).

But most of all, the sentence “sounds big,” but has little to no meaning. Obviously, mankind lived in a subsistence economy for most of its history. There were no firms, which means no one was actually “employed”, and thus could not be unemployed either.

So, do you mind if we re-write or delete this sentence? --bender235 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to such a change, except that "early modern period" is a bourgeois-ideological weasel term. For instance, how is "modernity" defined? The concept of the beginning of the capitalist era in the 1500s is taken straight from Marx, and we are talking about Marx's concept, not bourgeois ideology. As against that, there are historians with quite different periodizations of capitalism, but again, I am referring to Marx's conception, not those other historians.Jurriaan (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an economist, so please help me out here: what is defined as "capitalist era"? And what is characteristic about this era?

Apart from that: "early modern period" is an established term among historians, refering to the 1500s and 1600s. --bender235 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Marx and Engels meant by the capitalist era (in a European context) is the period of the ascendancy and political victory of the urban bourgeoisie, based on the emergence of sophisticated urban trading systems and industries employing wage-labour, and the gradual expansion of product markets and financial markets. This begins to happen on a significant scale in Europe roughly from the 1500s (though any periodization is to an extent arbitrary, disregarding exceptions that prove the rule). The distinction of "early modern" is just a convention or shorthand used by historians but it has no profound scientific basis - the term itself does not clarify what the qualitative change from the previous period consists in, and different historians do not agree about that either. In Marxian economics, there is a difference between "capital", "capitalism", "capitalist mode of production", "capitalist economy", "capitalist society". These terms do not mean the same thing but refer to different things. Capitalism can be simply described as "using money to make more money", which initially happens mainly through trading and renting, but eventually occurs through producing products and services (with hired wage-labour) that can sell for more than what they cost to make.Jurriaan (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Varieties of criticism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Holy Family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tendency of the rate of profit to fall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Socialists (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tendency of the rate of profit to fall, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Roberts and David McLellan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Real prices and ideal prices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Steuart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tendency of the rate of profit to fall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Material Product System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CMEA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Society for Theatre Research

Hello Jurriaan. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "American Society for Theatre Research".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Society for Theatre Research}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Communpedia

I recently saw the Value-form article linked to from the `Debate a Communist' pages at Reddit. I followed it here and was pleasantly surprised, as quite a few Wikipedia articles on Marxism that I've read were not of good quality. Thankyou for sharing your knowledge.

I've copied the article to Communpedia ( http://en.communpedia.org/Value-theory ) You're free to edit it there, or anything else at Communpedia for that matter. It works like Wikipedia, except it's written from a `common communist point of view'.

Communpedia is still a rather quiet place. I wish it had more viewers and editors, but it has its advantages. What you write there is unlikely to be messed up by crusading anticommunist Wikipedians or people just making noise for noise's sake. Also, the level of `rules-lawyering' and bureaucracy is near zero. I find I learn more when I write articles there, because I can concentrate on the topic rather than having to worry about a lot of peripheral stuff like you do here. Also, I like contributing there because I feel like I'm `promoting the brand', so to speak.

I think it's worthwhile contributing to Wikipedia and Communpedia, for different reasons. Just thought I'd tell you about Communpedia, in case you hadn't heard of it. Also, thanks again for writing that Value-form article. -- Communpedia Tribal (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits?

Just a quick question. Why do you mark all your edits as "minor"? This is supposed to be a tag to indicate something that could not possibly be disputed, such as a badly spelled word, or some other change made that could not possibly be disputed. You should stop doing this immediatly. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fuzzy concept, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conditional and Specificity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fuzzy concept, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Formalisation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fuzzy concept, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Johan van Benthem. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tendency of the rate of profit to fall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Bowles. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fuzzy concept, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Excel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global account

Hi Jurriaan! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National psychology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Otherness. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have repeatedly personally attacked other users, specifically calling them "criminals" or similar, on multiple occasions. This is beyond the pale, and will not be tolerated at Wikipedia. If you can unambiguously disavow this behavior of yours, and assure us that you will change how you interact with other people, you may be unblocked. Use the {{unblock}} template to request an unblock if you are willing to change how you treat others.--Jayron 32 01:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "personally attacked other users, specifically calling them "criminals" or similar", whatever that means. This is just vague libel. I have only criticized User:Bobrayner, specifically for his "criminal" editing behaviour. I have no way of telling whether he is as a person a criminal or not, I only know that his arbitrary, whimsical and destructive editing behaviour is beyond the pale. I do not deny his right to edit, but he should do so in good faith and on the basis of knowledge about the subject, and not because it "seems" to him that text should be removed, for whatever reason. I have occasionally criticized other editors who attacked me personally, when they did so in violation of wikipedia protocols, I might add.Jurriaan (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just told a Wikipedia administrator that you do not understand why what you did was wrong and that, if unblocked, you will continue doing it. This sort of thing usually goes one of two ways. Sometimes the user sees the light, asks for help understanding Wikipedia's behavior standards, decides to follow our rules, and gets unblocked. And sometimes the user insists that he is right and that all of Wikipedia is wrong, continues his bad behavior on his talk page (the only place left where he can post), and gets his talk page access removed as well. I suggest that you slow down, take a while to think it over, and choose wisely which path you are going to follow. You might find our First law of holes article to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand so far, is that I should mind my language in wikiland, when making a criticism or complaint. Whatever my personal temper about it might be, it is not helpful to express that here, and I should address the relevant issue in a sober, businesslike manner, following protocols in these things. That is fair enough, assuming that others do likewise, and I fully accept that. I made a mistake in how I expressed my complaint about the editing of User:Bobrayner, which did not actually help me at all, nor resolve the issue at all. It gets more difficult for me though, when the very people who claim to adhere to protocols, in reality subvert the protocols themselves, and seek to punish me for something else, that I am not guilty of. That promotes more confusion, instead of clearing it up, in my opinion.Jurriaan (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jurriaan --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for a year. If anyone sees any further attempts to continue the attacks through sockpuppetry, please drop me a note on my talk page.

Jurriaan, if you manage to convince an administrator (I am just an ordinary user) that if he lifts the block you will not repeat the behavior that got you blocked, I suggest going to WP:DRR with your content disputes. I have no idea what you and bobrayner are disagreeing about (nor do I care; please don't try to explain it to me here) and I might very well have supported your version if you had followed our dispute resolution process instead of attacking another editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I am doing very little editing anymore in wikipedia anyway, except adding some references to articles I wrote on, and few minor changes, and of course reverting a few edits by User:Bobrayner which simply destroy text, in my opinion (and the opinion of others) for no good reason. My role in wikipedia is very modest indeed compared to User:Bobrayner who edits all over the place, mainly cutting out text he thinks is wrong. I have not made any "attacks" through sockpuppetry in the last days, as alleged, merely corrected a reference error in an article and reverted an edit by User:Bobrayner. I'll leave it at that - I will not contribute anymore, for now (I have plenty other things to do). I am not exactly sure what specifically the "behaviour" is that I am being attacked for, except that I called User:Bobrayner editing style "criminal", "arbitrary" and "biased". As noted, this wording of mine is not accepted by the wikipedia administrator.Jurriaan (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLOCKEVASION. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, that's clear, I will action that when I get time. It is not really that I am attacking anybody, but that I am defending myself again the attacks of User:Bobrayner against articles that I spent a lot of time on (without pay) to inform readers. The main objection I have to User:Bobrayner's editing is that he edits articles without any proper knowledge of the subject and then substitutes his own interpretation, the result being a bunch of errors. Let me give a recent example to illustrate. In the article on the Marxian concept of Surplus product, User:Bobrayner recently wiped out the sentence "The concept plays an important role in Das Kapital", but for no good reason. After all, Marx writes that: "Since the production of surplus-value is the determining purpose of capitalist production, the size of a given quantity of wealth must be measured, not by the absolute quantity produced, but by the relative magnitude of the surplus product." Cap. Vol. 1, Penguin, pp. 338-339. This is absolutely central to Marx's argument. The concept is discussed in more detail across about ten pages and at least five places in Capital Vol. 2, and again in at least 11 different places in Capital Vol. 3. So it is an important theoretical concept in Das Kapital. Yet User:Bobrayner wipes that out! Next, I write "Nowadays the concept is mainly used in Marxian economics, surplus economics as well as sociology and other social sciences”. User:Bobrayner wipes out “surplus economics”, “archaeology”, “sociology” and “other social sciences” so that the sentence now reads: “Nowadays the concept is mainly used in Marxian economics.[2] political anthropology, cultural anthropology, economic anthropology” (in that case, it should really be “AND economic anthropology”). However, scholars familiar with the concept know quite well that this concept is used exactly in the way that I said, and references can be provided for this (in fact I quote plenty examples in the rest of the article). However, if I provided references, then User:Bobrayner will no doubt wipe them out on the ground that I am offering a “quote farm” or some such thing. User:Bobrayner next wipes out the statement that “For most of the history of civil society, the meaning of the surplus product was fairly obvious and clear. It consisted of (1) that part of what workers produced (products, offspring or services) which they had to hand over to the chief, the landowner, the lord, or the state, as a tax, rent or tribute, and (2) incidental surplus produce, in excess of the producers' own requirements, which was traded for other goods. However, the meaning of surplus product becomes less clear in capitalist society (see below).” There is nothing particularly controversial about this statement, and it could be referenced without any problem; I explain the reasoning in subsequent sections of the article. Next, User:Bobrayner wipes out “the statement that “Since trade always involves two or more parties with their own interests in the matter, the meanings of that trade can be construed in different ways by different stakeholders, and they can evolve across time. If that is the case, the economic meanings of trade are never completely fixed once and for all. Such ambiguities gave rise to many different interpretations of what "fair trade" or "just trade"(and therefore trade of benefit to society) might be considered to be. For a long time, it was very difficult for economic theorists to separate out the moral judgement about different kinds of trade, from a scientific appraisal of the actual objective processes of trade, because commerce was dominated by legal codes and by religion.” For any scholar of the subject, this is quite obvious, but nevertheless User:Bobrayner wipes it out. After wiping out a few more small clarifying bits, User:Bobrayner modifies the sentence “The existence of a surplus product normally assumes the ability to perform surplus labour” and adds, “In Marxism, the existence of a "surplus product" normally assumes the ability to perform surplus labour.” But this doesn’t even distinguish between Marx and all sorts of Marxisms or Marxists or other historians using this concept. When I write carefully, “With the bourgeois state, taxpayers typically have the possibility of electing their own representatives to state office, which means that they can in principle influence the taxation system and the justice system generally. That possibility has rarely existed in non-capitalist states; there, any public criticism of the state meant that the critic could be fined, imprisoned or killed,” then User:Bobrayner changes that to “With the bourgeois state, taxpayers have the possibility of electing their own representatives to state office, which means that they can in principle influence the taxation system and the justice system generally. That possibility has rarely existed in non-capitalist states; there, any public criticism of the state meant that the critic is fined, imprisoned or killed.” But this removal of my qualifiers yields a statement which is, from the point of view of historians and political scientists a scientifically incorrect and a caricature, since bourgeois states can also feature unelected dictatorships, and since criticism of the state “could” mean that that the critic is “fined, imprisoned or killed” (the threat was there) but this did not happen necessarily in every case or automatically, among other things because the criticism was not made in public. User:Bobrayner simply wipes out the referenced quote that “Duncan K. Foley comments: "Having established the idea that the increasing division of labor underlies rises in labor productivity, Smith argues that the division of labor itself is largely determined by the size of the market". It then seems to follow that the bigger the market, the higher productivity will be.” Yet is this is precisely an implication which is important to show the basic difference in argument between Marx and Smith about the division of labour which creates tradeable surpluses. User:Bobrayner wipes out “The concept expresses an abstract proportion which does not really refer to a static condition but to a continual flow of producing and distributing output.” Originally I never put that in there, someone else did, but it is basically correct, since production and distribution are processes across time. Yet User:Bobrayner wipes it out. The question arises: why does User:Bobrayner do all this, very deliberately, willfully and knowingly? What is the pay-off? Since his edits only show he doesn't even know about the subject, I can only surmise he is engaging in censorship according to his own biases, under the cover of editing. But that is a wrong motivation for editing. And it does not make the article better. It is easy for User:Bobrayner to wipe out text at a click of a button without any valid explanation for what he does, but it is much more difficult to create the text and respond in detail to every destructive edit that User:Bobrayner makes. I do not intend to explain myself endlessly to an editor who shows no knowledge of the subject and offers no explanation for his edits, I do not have time for that. I have mentioned only this one example, but User:Bobrayner does this in hundreds (or thousands) of different places. If the wikipedia administrators do not intervene in this type of case, then the quality of articles will go downhill all the time, since you can wipe out text for any old reason quicker than you can write it.Jurriaan (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read non sequitur. You have not been blocked because you had a disagreement with another user. You have been blocked because you believed that disagreement gave you the right to call people names and personally attack them, specifically calling someone a "criminal". I have no idea who is correct here. You could be right about what the content of the articles should be. But that's irrelevent to why you have been blocked. You have been blocked because you have taken what should have been merely a dispute over content, and made it personal by attacking the person who believed differently than you. This has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong here with regards to the content of the articles. It is only about how you behave when interacting with other users, and how you discuss them as people. You would never have been blocked had you not personally attacked another user, and you would have been swiftly unblocked had you admitted your wrongdoing, expressed clearly that you understood what about your actions was wrong, and made earnest assurances that you would not do it again. With every comment you make where you try to deflect the focus of the discussion away from your own behavior, you make it more and more clear that you don't understand why what you did was wrong, and that you would not stop doing it if you were unblocked. If we don't believe you would change your behavior for the better, you give us no reason to unblock you. It has nothing to do with article content. Just about what you did wrong, and that we are not convinced you wouldn't stop doing it if you were unblocked. --Jayron 32 02:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification and reference, User:Jayron32. I could be wrong in the articles I wrote, you know, and I could be proved wrong. And if somebody pointed that out, it would be a good thing, I would learn from it. But very likely that will never be established, since User:Bobrayner simply and only wipes out text, sometimes referring cryptically to some procedurality, if that, and for the rest, I am blocked. For example, in the Tendency of the rate of profit to fall article, User:Bobrayner cut out more than 1,000 words, remarking cryptically that "it doesn't seem to have anything to do with profit decline". Huh? It does not "seem" to have anything to do with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall? Thanks very much, I contributed 1,000 words and User:Bobrayner cuts them out in a second because it "seems" wrong! That is not the kind of editing that is needed in wikipedia, I think. I know very well that unreferenced statements can always be removed, or placed somewhere else. Them is the breaks. However, if a statement seems to be wrong, it is the best procedure to tag it appropriately and discuss it on the talk page. This is not however what User:Bobrayner does, he simply wipes it out. Now, why would an amiable 56-year old archivist and editor of academic publications like me, get angry with this at all? The reason is that he edits topics under the cover of some suitable procedurality, while in reality I think he is subverting the real intention of the procedures, to insert his own ideological perspective of how things should be, and without proper knowledge of the subjectmatter. There is no procedure without a loophole somewhere. In that case, it does not really help to appeal to procedures, since he will find yet another way to delete text, as is his habit. I requested an arbitration procedure but that was denied, and there was no interest in looking at the matter further when I posted to the noticeboard, since I called User:Bobrayner's editing style "criminal". I fully agree with you, that I made a serious mistake in letting my irritation get the better of me, and, feeling irritated, used inappropriate language to express my point of view. I must desist from any "personal attacks" in wikipedia at any time, even if I think that the editing is not being done "in good faith" and without appropriate discussion. Point is that such criticisms of an editor are not helpful, or effective, in the attempt to improve articles, which is the overall aim (if User:Bobrayner genuinely assisted in improving articles, I would certainly welcome it). But whether I will work on wikipedia again I do not know yet, since it is very frustrating that, when you try to provide readers with the best possible article, parts of the text simply get wiped out, for no good reason, and without proper explanation (if you are familiar with the subject, and I only write about things I have a lot of experience with, including contact with many of the people mentioned in the articles). I will ponder that some more in the future, weighing the costs and benefits of doing unpaid work in wikipedia as a service to readers. I just feel terribly disappointed about the deformed end results of all the effort I have put in.Jurriaan (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want a dose of psychotherapy or a patronizing sermon, I want a fair go in resolving an editing dispute. However, given that articles I worked on and was building up with care are gradually being ruined by mainly American "editors" who evidently have no knowledge or experience with the subjectmatter, and since the wikipedia administrators reward and applaud these "editors" while punishing the writers, I am withdrawing from wikipedia.Jurriaan (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't about the truth of the claim, it's about democratic consensus, anti-science by default. Manjaroman2 (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Jurriaan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19049 was submitted on Aug 23, 2017 11:02:06. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Jurriaan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19073 was submitted on Aug 25, 2017 10:44:39. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Jurriaan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19082 was submitted on Aug 25, 2017 18:08:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Neo-Trotskyism

The article Neo-Trotskyism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article was created in 2007 and has not been expanded at all. It's not notable enough to warrant an article itself when there is an article about Trotskyism and a sub-section on that article could include what is on this article. There are no neo- articles for Leninism, Maoism, etc.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Neo-Trotskyism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neo-Trotskyism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Trotskyism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Grnrchst (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]