User talk:Robocracy

Hi - I moved your question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) to the bottom of the page, which is where new content goes on talk pages and all of the various help related pages. I suspect user:CesarB will respond fairly soon. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. By the way, if you'd look a little closer at the Village pump (technical) article, the whole thing is sort of out-of-order. That's why I got confused. The article at the top is dated July 6th. The lowest one (above mine) is July 5th. So, I thought it was in reverse-order. If you want, you could reformat the whole thing. I'd do it, but I'm a new editor. --Robocracy 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The out of order entries are almost certainly from other folks adding new entries to the top. Since some of the out of order ones have been there a while I suspect it's best to just leave them there. I added a comment suggesting new entries be added at the bottom, and come to think of it I'll revise it to also suggest that the easy way to add an entry is to click the "add" link in the header. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberty

I re-wrote Wikipedia's article on liberty. Looking through the members of the Philosophy WikiProject, you seemed educated enough, so I thought I'd have you take a look at it. The article was in horrible condition before, it was poorly structured, some facts were wrong, and it had been turned into more of a debate over Libertarianism Vs. Marxism than an article about liberty. Take a look at my revision and make a comment in the talk page, if you don't mind. Robocracy 06:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take a look at it. I will say this though; no entry on the philosophy of liberty is complete without a mention of Lord Acton. -- Calion | Talk 17:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Neturei Karta

Saying MA kept up good relations with NK is like saying The grand wizard of the KKK keeps up good relations with the group "African Americans for self-reenslavement". Firstly, NK is SO fringe as to drop below the level of "undue weight" and secondly, they are rabid anti-Zionists. If anything, that blurb belongs on Neturei Karta; nowhere else. Thanks. -- Avi 00:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether such a group exists or not is irrelevant, the point is clear. Please see WP:NPOV#Undue weight where it says (emphasis added is my own)

Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

— Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight

Also, for the record: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you..

Thank you. -- Avi 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct, there have only been three, which is why you were warned, instead of blocked. . -- Avi 12:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Klein

Hi Robocracy. I don't think the activity on Aaron Klein was vandalism. We are not supposed to remove well-sourced material from an article (unless it is copyvio or defamation) without a consensus on the Talk page.

The multiple anon IPs do seem like they must work for Aaron Klein's promotional agency. Some of the claims that are still on the page seem like they need sources. Anything that was said to be widely admired, widely noticed, or 'made headlines' also needs sources. I am pleased that my complaint got someone to replace that phrase 'some left-wing critics' with an actual citation of an opposing web site, Conwebwatch. Looking at Conwebwatch itself, it seems that it might not be hard to locate material on Klein that might add balance to the article. (Though any criticism of Klein would have to be carefully sourced, to avoid being defamatory).

Since Aaron Klein's writings must be widely read, at least on his web site, it's quite possible that the many anon IPs are all fans of Klein rather than Klein himself.

I think that one or both of us could post on the Talk page whatever problems we still see in the article. Also, I think one of the anons removed the cleanup tag that you put on the article on November 5. This is not supposed to be done without discussion on the Talk page. Nonetheless, the section you removed should probably go back, unless you can argue that it is unsourced. I suggest that you restore it yourself, perhaps adding a little NPOV in the process. EdJohnston 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Robocracy, see User_talk:EdJohnston for another response. EdJohnston 01:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

See the talk page of WorldNetDaily for some debates similar to the Aaron Klein debates. EdJohnston 02:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Robocracy, just a heads-up—the user who continually reverted encyclopedic changes (and because of whom the article was semiprotected) has registered; the AK article is the only article he edits. He has been working the same type of changes on it as before, the lengthy talk page explanations of NPoV unavailing. (cf. article history in past week, user's contributions, Talk:Aaron Klein). –Æ. ✉ 14:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

excuse me but what do you call the discussion section on CHANGES? Yes, it is a discussion...on changes. Not be sarcastic...but I was discussing my changes. One does not edit war if they are protecting minor changes, such as the addition of block quotes, to the page. SF, or you, are engaging in an edit war. Furthermore, my removal of misquotes of Block, or editing them, is not an edit war or failing to reach consensus, in fact using your logic and SF's logic, placing them in the article without consensus in the first place...well, plain and simple, its without consensus and thus should not be there, and instead should be on the talk page. Do you follow me?

Civic rights

Hi, In your (much needed) rewrite of Liberty, you link to civic rights in the paragraph Liberty#Criticism. Civic rights redirects to Town privileges. Are these the same civic rights mentioned in your text? --Manscher 06:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thought so :-) I am translating the article for dawiki, and the sentence didn't make much sense. Thanks for your help. --Manscher 07:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

CL intro

I'll be glad to take a look at a new introduction draft if you have one.Shawn Fitzgibbons 21:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for peer review

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

File:Wikipediainbinary.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wikipediainbinary.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Arthunter (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)