Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:42, 11 March 2006

Welcome!

Hello RJII, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 06:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Check anarchism talkpage on Heider -- max rspct leave a message 16:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm not defending the New Deal in this instance. I just don't think it's economic fascism. But if you are so in favour of no government-owned corporations etc what do you think of the tax payers money given away in privatisation at the behest of private think tanks. Really RJ you should be more shocked at capitalist control and pilfering of the state. for example:
On the advice of the Adam Smith Institute, under John Major's Conservative Government's Railways Act 1993 British Rail was split up and privatised. This was a continuation of the policy of Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government's privatisation of publicly-owned services. -- from British Rail

Remember it was Thatcher's gov that pioneered all that privatisation in US etc -max rspct leave a message

Is this what we should expect under anarcho-capitalism? -max rspct leave a message 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean it's taxpayers' money? In a privatization, the government sell the assets to the private sector. What does taxation have to do with it? RJII 20:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on they always get it for peanuts all over the world -- max rspct leave a message 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's sold for too much or to little, the result is that there is less government. RJII 21:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal status update - Anarchism

Dear RJII: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and coordinator down at the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal. This is a status update regarding a mediation request that you are involved in, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism. I have written my initial view on the case and would be grateful if you would please consider what I have written there; in particular, I'd be grateful if you would please carry out the task I asked for to write a single sentence overview of what you think is wrong with the article, so that we can compare viewpoints to come up with a collective solution. Thank you very much for your participation. If you require any assistance relating to this matter please do not hesistate to contact me. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Property

I've been working on Property, adding Charles Comte, Proudhon, and Bastiat's theories. I'd appreciate your "peer review" and input. BTW, I think it was you who turned me on to Comte in one of your posts. Thanks. Hogeye 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll check it out. RJII 03:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements. Per your suggestion, I added a pertinent Proudhon quote: "By this method of investigation, we soon see that every argument which has been invented in behalf of property, whatever it may be, always and of necessity leads to equality; that is, to the negation of property." I guess you haven't read "What is Property," but basically he takes various arguments for property from past luminaries, and argues that they all imply that equality should prevail. Hogeye 05:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Could you add an e-mail address to your account so that I can ask you something relating to the arbitration case? Gazpacho 13:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Pronouncing RJII

You've said at the RfAr evidence page that you plan to cease using this user name soon. Before that happens, I have to ask: how do you say "RJII"? Is it Arjay-eye-eye? Arjay-two? Arjay-the-second? When I read it, I say Arjay-eleven in my head, like the phone connection. I mean no disrespect by asking this; it's honestly something I've thought about since I first saw your name. TomTheHand 13:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I say Arjay-eye-eye. It's an acronym. What it stands for will be revealed upon completion of the project. RJII 15:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, because I have to admit I've been extremely curious about it for a long time... :) As a fun idea, would you consider dropping clues about it beforehand to see if anyone figures it out? Just a thought... I think I might guess what one of the I's stands for. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 19:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not strictly an acronym if it's pronounced Arjay-eye-eye. An acronym should be pronounced as a word -- otherwise, its just initials. FBI is only an acronym if you say "fibbie," if you say "eff-bee-eye" its initials. Just my random bit of pedantry for the afternoon. --Christofurio 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Capitalist authority"

I agree with you, in the context its weasil words. I think the poster was trying to say that an-caps support the boss' authority to control a workplace, work functions, hours, goods produced, production methods etc., as opposed to workers control. Stupid place for it, its non-cogent. Fifelfoo 03:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put it here instead of on Talk:Anarchism, because that page becomes enflamed rapidly, particularly with what I felt I needed to say to you. Sure I observe NPOV scrupulously. Mainly because I feel that the proper response to anarcho-capitalism is anti-fascism (good slogan actually). But that's a normative belief. And there are people who claim to be anarcho-capitalists in verifiable primary sources, and commentary about them in verifiable secondary sources. I'm quite happy with how the article is turning out (if only Libertarianism could address Libertarian Socialism with a two para "see also" bite). I've also noticed the quality of your edits, though I expect like myself, you are predisposed to expand some paragraphs without thinking of article balance simply because "what's written there isn't complete and so isn't correct" :). We're at 56kb, and the article seems to have improved greatly on past attempts. Looks good. Could be featurable in the next few weeks. Fifelfoo 06:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Altruism

Are not you sacrificing your time for the public good in editing Misplaced Pages? Perhaps you have a touch of altruism, too! Of course, if you are handsomely paid to do this, you should own up to it. The rest of us just have to make do. :-) Carrionluggage 07:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit Misplaced Pages out of altruism? No way. I'm in it for me. RJII 07:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

About that Communist you know. There are two kinds (at least): one kind tells you he is altruistic and you should be also in order that he can grab something from you. That kind is dealt with in George Orwell's Animal Farm. The other kind is a dupe of the first. But this chap you know - he must be a rare case today - I never hear of this stuff any more so I feel Ayn Rand's supporters are kind of beating a dead horse. Today's threats seem (to me) to be religious extremism and the approaching exhaustion of world resources. But to each her/his own.Carrionluggage 19:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is rare today -communism/altruism is pretty much moribund. Though pursuit of self-interest still has many detractors, I don't it's frowned upon as much today as it has been in the past. Maybe Rand deserves a little blame for that. RJII 20:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Voltairine de Cleyre quote on American individualist anarchism

Can you please stop misquoting??!!. -- max rspct leave a message 23:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not misquoting. She said that when she was an individualist. RJII 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

She was describing the philosophy though not voicing her exact views -- max rspct leave a message 16:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job

That usage of "self interest" is just fine. Carrionluggage 02:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Your "project"

Well it sounds like you are just here to bait (troll) wikipedians whose political persuasions are 'counterposed' to yours. Aren't you just being disruptive or testing the flaccid Godwin's Law -- max rspct leave a message 23:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep it up. I enjoy personal attacks. They turn me on. RJII 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you for defending the truthiness

Category:Real Americans

.

Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Thank you for your comments on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including possible merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. Also, please remember to stay civil even to those with whom you disagree and to those who are not civil to you. -- Jonel | Speak 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Workshop page

You were informed of the /Workshop page in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:RJII&diff=32526173&oldid=32438425 Fred Bauder 15:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So I was. Sorry for jumping the gun. RJII 15:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your conduct

Why don't you stop using wikipedia? You seem to have real difficulty in finding unbias sources and seem to support those with similar problems. Besides all the disruption. -max rspct leave a message 20:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dial 1-800-EAT-RFC. RJII 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you may find you will be stopped from using wikipedia unless you change your ways.Harrypotter 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And what "ways" is that? And, what do you mean? Is someone going to come and arrest me to make sure I don't get on Misplaced Pages? Are you going to join the special few who attack me without justification? You'd better have some good evidence of wrongdoing to back up your remark. What is it? What have I done? RJII 02:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you look at the posting immediately above mine, you may notice the word disruption appears. This word disruptive also appears in Misplaced Pages:Banning policy: "In some circumstances, an administrator may ban a disruptive user to get them to leave Misplaced Pages alone for a short time or stop editing a particular page."". Why would I need "evidence" to back up my remark, when the evidence is before your very eyes. I have no doubt that you are quite capable of mending your ways without tutelage from me!Harrypotter 15:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, you're taking a disruptive editor's (Max_rspct) claim as true. Well, let me tell you, he's full of it. All he does is personally attack me. And, if you watch his editing, he deletes sourced material. He'll violate the 3RR regularly. If you want to know what he was responding to, it's because I replaced a chart on the capitalism article because he was deleting it without explaining why. Then he has the gall to message me here and call me disruptive. He's very disruptive. A claim of disruption is not evidence, especially from someone with as little credibility as him. You should be more careful before you make assumptions like that. RJII 15:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem too ready to ascribe views to me without considering what other possibilities may exist in this world. I think that is what you might call "making assumptions". A claim of disruption is evidence that there are people who may try and have you banned. Perhaps you should point this out to our colleague max rspct, if you are so concerned about their behaviour.Harrypotter 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you told me to "change ways." That's an assumption that his claim of disruption was true. RJII 16:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did not tell you to do anything. I merely pointed out one amongst many possible consequences which could occur if you continue with your current behaviour. In fact I consider that you getting banned could be quite independent of whether or not max rspct's are true, as I do not believe in the Omniscience of the wiki GodKing. Perhaps you should read more Stirner, and then you might be able to better understand your Ego and your own . . . assumptions!Harrypotter 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, you suggested that I change my ways. The assumption is that I was disruptive and need to stop. RJII 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite, check out New_Troll_point_of_view. My observation was based on the above mentioned posting and that it brough to mind a possible future in which you were banned. In fact all that I suggested was that "you may find you will be stopped from using wikipedia unless you change your ways". Harrypotter 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"New Troll point of view" hey? Who am I to bemoan natural law? RJII 17:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

While things are protected...

I found it refreshing to edit on the libertarian wiki. I transplanted the last good version of the anarchism article there. You know, with the individualist/collectivist structure that we worked on after the last unprotect. I merged your Individual anarchism and American individual anarchism articles - that was obviously an edit war fork. Anyway, check these out:

Anarchism

Individualist anarchism

Hogeye 07:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

embarassing to have to bring this up, but...

Er, about your Misplaced Pages Defender barnstar... I see that it was awarded to you by Ghgfhfhfdh. Ghgfhfhfdh has 17 edits, all but one in talkspace or his userpage, and most of those in user talkspace at that. His awarding of a barnstar to you was his ninth edit. (FWIW, judging by the replication of identical misspellings and malformations, that was a copy-and-paste of the identical award given to Ghgfhfhfdh by an anon AOL proxy, surely in error as Ghgfhfhfdh was at that time sixteen minutes shy of his first edit.)

Don't be embarrased! It's not your fault! I'm sure that until now you were unaware of these troublesome facts, and of course will swiftly return the tainted object to the pool, as there are only so many to go around. Herostratus 04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I just figured he wanted to be anonymous. RJII 04:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, but that's not a very good precedent... we're supposed to have transparency and stuff here... Herostratus 06:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. RJII 06:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if anonymous giving of awards was countenanced, who knows but some cad might give himself an award, for instance. I would think that surely rather than risk being thought of in such company one would renounce and remove such an award. Herostratus 10:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. You think I gave it to myself. Well, if you want to think I gave it to myself, feel free. I really don't care what you or anyone else thinks. I certainly don't need a medal to make myself feel important or worthy. And, I don't need you to bother me anymore with your bogus concern for my public reputation. RJII 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that you gave it to yourself, but others might. I did, however, point out its tainted origin, expecting that you would of course remove it at once. To display a tainted award is akin to wearing an unearned combat ribbon -- no person with a sense of shame would do so. Perhaps it would be best to let you continue to display the object, its exposure as a sham now mocking rather than ennobling you to all who view. However, I don't think that would be fair to those have fairly earned awards, so I must ask you, as Wikipedian to Wikipedian: please remove it. Thanking you in advance for your speedy compliance, Herostratus 00:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're taking Misplaced Pages a little to seriously. Maybe it's time for a break. (by the way, I deserve a medal for everything I've done for Misplaced Pages. One couldn't give me enough medals to compensate me.) RJII 00:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You deserve something. Whether it's a medal or censure is unclear. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your work, as I'm not familiar with it. Returning to the matter at hand, since you won't comply with my request, will you agree to my (or our, if you wish to participate) taking this before a disinterested third party and be bound by his decision? Herostratus 06:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. Why should I unnecessarily give someone else authority over me? Now go away and stop bugging me. RJII 06:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, sir, I propose to bring you up on charges. Herostratus 14:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To make myself crystal clear, I intend to enter a Request for Abitration on this matter. Have you anything to say? Herostratus 14:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The RfA is at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#2.1 User:RJII, improper display of an award. You are invited to comment there. Herostratus 15:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How old are you? RJII 20:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

An-cap FAQ

When making a list of anarchist links, I noticed that there was no anarcho-capitalist FAQ. Sure, there's a wonderful Anarchist Theory FAQ by Bryan Caplan, but that's about anarchism in general. So, drawing upon my Misplaced Pages experience, I created one. Please make comments or suggestions on my Talk page. Behold! I give you ...

Hogeye 17:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I like it. Of course there are some things I would change, but that's your work --not Misplaced Pages. Weird that there wasn't one out there already. RJII 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman and criticism of socialism

Hi, you had Economist Milton Friedman says "Hardly anyone today, from the far left to the far right, regards socialism in the traditional sense of government ownership and operation of the means of production as either feasible or desirable. Those who profess socialism today mean by it a welfare state." in the intro to the Socialism article. I'm not sure it is the right place for it, particularly as there is a specific section on criticism, and indeed an Criticisms of socialismarticle. You might want to put the quote on the Milton Friedman page too. Cheers! MrTrev 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't really looking at it like a criticism but a definition --an economists noting how people use the term today. RJII 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In which case, you might want to use more than one economist's views, and gather views from across the political spectrum - the views of one economist are only representing his POV, other economists will have different POVs. MrTrev 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else would take care of that. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a collaborative thing. RJII 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Stem Cell

I've left some comments for you on the stem cell talk pages. Thanks,--Nicholas 12:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Misplaced Pages:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BDAbramson T 03:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug

This arbitration case has closed. RJII is placed on personal attack parole, probation, general probation, and is cautioned regarding POV editing. Firebug is counseled that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and that perfection is not to be expected. These remedies (where applicable) shall be enforced by a block of up to one year. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A year? LOL! RJII 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What a scam. The arbitrators should be ashamed of themselves for condemning me for "POV" editing. I'm always careful to provide sourceable material to Misplaced Pages. There is no rule in Misplaced Pages against putting in information that may happen to favor someone's "POV." So what? As long as it is true information, it's good for Misplaced Pages. I'm proud of what I've done. I actually deserve medal for my informative contributions. So some POV-inclined people that wanted to censor me found a few personal attacks found after scouring over a years worth of voluminous discussions. Big deal. That that's the extent of any wrongdoing (and the attacks were well deserved). The judgement is bogus. RJII 20:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I will remember WP:Civil, and refrain from commenting. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Anarchism

I have protected Anarchism due to the edit history yesterday which appears to show repeated removal and insertion of the same information. Be warned that such behaviour is not productive, and that we have policies in place, such as the three revert rule and edit warring which proscribe against such actions and allow admins to block people in violation of such policies. Please continue to discuss the issue on the talk page, being mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. In order to build a consensus it might be wise to advertise at the pump, WP:RFC or pages related to the dispute or the article in question. Once a consensus is established, please respect it. To request the page be unprotected, either contact me or use Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Steve block talk 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I would like to unprotect the page, but I want to check their will be no more conflict regarding the infoshop sourcing. Are we all now happy that the opinion being sourced from infoshop can also be sourced from other sources, and that it is now acceptable to use infoshop as a source in this innstance, given the direction at WP:RS, which allows partisan sources if used only to source opinion and if not used as sole source? Do we have an agreeable compromise on that issue? Thanks for your good natured debating of this issue. Steve block talk 15:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does the FAQ say that paying wages for labor is coercive? RJII 15:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that the basis of your dispute? Steve block talk 14:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's two-fold. That and that the FAQ is not a credible source. RJII 14:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made comments at Talk:Anarchism which I would appreciate your response on. Steve block talk 14:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you read this? Harrypotter 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't. But, I've made a serendipitous discovery in that article. I had been wanting a 19th century dictionary definition of socialism, because it wasn't clear why some the 19th century individualist anarchists called themselves socialists. And there it is. Now we can see why some of the 19th century individualists anarchists called themselves socialists --nothing to do with abolition of private ownership of the means of production or embrace of collectivist principles: "a theory of society which advocates a more precise, more orderly, and more harmonious arrangement of the social relations of mankind than has hitherto prevailed." Thanks a lot! RJII 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

There is a consensus that the Anarchist FAQ can be cited, as long as it is cited openly, and that the FAQ in its entirety supports a summation that they criticise anarcho-capitalists for their approval of capitalism, since the writers of the Anarchist FAQ believe capitalism is coercive, for example wage labor which they refer to as wage slavery, and thus this coerciveness is contrary to the Anarcgiust FAQ writers view of anarchy and is therefore a basis for criticising anarcho capitalism. Regardless of your agreement with that consensus derived position, I would like to know if you will accept that the consensus exists. Steve block talk 13:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Referring to wage labor as "wage slavery" is not the same thing as saying it's "coercive." It's not meant literally. Everyone knows that the individual is free to leave his job without being arrested and forced to work. It's about exploitation, not coercion. RJII 14:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What everyone knows is beside the point. Do you agree that consensus has agreed that the Anarchist FAQ argues that wage slavery is coercion. This isn't about what you or I think, only what the writers of the Anarchist FAQ, no matter how right or wrong, believe. Our duty is to present information to the reader and let them decide what is right and what is wrong. Find a source which makes the case that wage slavery is exploitative, and amend the text to note that although wage slavery is thought of as explotative, the Anarchist FAQ argue it is coercive. Steve block talk 14:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No I don't agree that there is a consensus. And, I don't agree that that FAQ says it is coercive. Is that your evidence? That it calls it "wage slavery"? RJII 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you don't agree there is a consensus? Steve block talk 14:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't see one. RJII 14:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's hardly helpful. Could you list people who have objected to the above outlined consensual position at Talk:Anarchism. Steve block talk 15:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Me. And the only people I can tell who think the FAQ says wage labor is coercive is Infinity. Then you come along to arbitrate (which I appreciate) and agree, and that makes two. I don't see that as a consensus. RJII 15:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Okay... so, do you then object to the following text, including a direct quotation from the FAQ, which would then be a primary source:

• Anarcho-capitalists argue that banning consensual relationships is a violation of the principles of anarchism, and that the prohibition of profit, trade, and employment is itself unanarchist. This view has been countered by writers of the Anarchist FAQ, who believe "that for choice to be real, free agreements and associations must be based on the social equality of those who enter into them, and both sides must receive roughly equivalent benefit. But social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination". replacing the statement "Opponents argue that the relationship between workers and employers is a form of authority; anarcho-capitalists disagree, arguing that banning consensual relationships is a violation of the principles of anarchism, and that the prohibition of profit, trade, and employment is itself unanarchist. Opponents argue that such relationships are not fully consensual, but coercive in nature (for example wage slavery) and that it is essential to anarchism for them to be abolished."? I'm going to post this at Talk:Anarchism to get a broad opinion. Steve block talk 17:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me. As long, as we're noting that its the writers of the FAQ that have that opinion. But, still I wonder who actually wrote that statement and whether they're a credible source. It's very unclear who the author is. It was my understanding that a credible source had to have a named author. RJII 18:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, not according to WP:RS, which allows primary sourcing of the opinions of a larger like-minded group. Enough people have chipped in that the site is allowable as primary source. Steve block talk 19:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then. RJII 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. I'm trying to establish a position both sides are happy with. Infinity0 wants to amend the text; the amendment proposed is at Talk:Anarchism#A compromise position at the bottom of that section. I'd appreciate it if you could comment on the amendment so we can get some sort of consensus and then I will unprotect the page. Steve block talk 21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

The page is now currently semi-protected, the state I found it in. I have amended the text to address a spirit of compromise I saw exhibited. I would ask you to respect that text in the short term, and also not to engage in edit warring. Any reversions you wish to make, please use the talk page first to get agreement before making them. Steve block talk 14:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of capitalism

Hey, I'm posting you this notice because I remember you recently editing the Capitalism article. I moved the "criticisms" section and other criticisms embedded in other sections and their responses to Criticisms of capitalism. Atm the ordering of the sections isn't very logical, since all I did was moved separate sections. Please help, and/or comment at Talk:Capitalism#When_to_split_off_criticisms. Thanks! Infinity0 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath

I suggest you take a breath, relax and step back from Anarchism and Talk:Anarchism. Can you source for me the self descrition of the authors of the anarchist faq as "social anarchists"? Steve block talk 19:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"while social anarchists disagree with the proposals of individualist anarchists, we do still consider them to be a form of anarchism" Why do social anarchists reject individualist anarchism? They whole FAQ is from the perspective of communist/syndicalists. It's very relevant to state what they're POV is, especially since they have no academic qualifications. We agreed to use this is a primary source, so it's needs to be made clear that they're not speaking for ALL anarchists. And, then, not necessarily all "social anarchists" but just the ones that wrote the FAQ. RJII 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Poker link

Right, sorry... the front page just read like advertising. I guess my disgust triggered my anti-advertising reactions too quickly. =p Infinity0 00:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

You are blocked becasue of your violation of WP:3RR, specifically your removal of the following text:

Similarly, individualist anarchists were also opposed to this split between the separate classes of labourers and employers in capitalism (but were not opposed to private ownership of the means of production). For example, Benjamin Tucker argued for this distinction to be "wiped out" so that "every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers". He advocated a deregulated market where he felt wages would be driven up to their "natural rate" on four occasions. The violation occurred over the following edits: , , ,

I would also ask you to respect WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with regards recent edit summaries and comments on the talk page. If you continue edit warring on this page longer blocks will be considered. Steve block talk 13:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The guy said "grow up" to me in his edit summary. That's the personal attack. I don't consider my responding, "Who needs to grow up?" as a personal attack. But, at least you blocked him; it was well deserved. But, you blocked me for "vandalism"? What?! ] 15:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I just found out on his user page that he's only 16. That explains a lot now. RJII 15:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're blocked for violation of the 3RR. It appears I used the wrong template, and have amended that, I apologise. I will rectify that anon. You have made numerous comments on Talk:Anarchism which to my mind violate WP:CIVIL. I would also note retaliation is no defence.Steve block talk 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should start reporting Infinity for personal attacks and 3RR violations. I feel like such a baby reporting things like that, because I can handle it, but if that's what it takes to keep myself from being blocked maybe that's what I have to do. RJII 18:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not blocked because of incivility or personal attacks. You are blocked because of violating the three revert rule. I am advising both you and Infinity0 to be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Calling someone's edit bunk and a distortion isn't nice, nor is implying someone can't read. But I can accept you don't believe you are being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, I can accept the two of you are robust enough to argue in such terms, I would just advise you to refrain from retaliating or escalating such comments, then you should have nothing to worry about. I hope you will accept my minding you of the two policies as a well meaning attempt to keep the temperature cool. Steve block talk 20:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from. It was definitely getting out of hand with all the back and forth editing. RJII 01:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I am starting an arbitration case against you for violation of NPOV, NPA, and CIVIL. Requests_for_arbitration#RJII (3) Infinity0 18:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. I'll start one against you as well. RJII 18:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the edit warring at Anarchism

If the edit warring does not cease at Anarchism I will have no option but to block the two participants. Do not blindly revert: discuss and build a compromise at the talk page. Steve block talk 22:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Banned from anarchism

I have banned you from Anarchism for two weeks, per your recent arbitration ruling. --Phroziac _. o º 03:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally unjustified. You are banning me based on a mere REQUEST for arbitration from "Infinity" who has been edit warring. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? You're out of line, buddy. RJII 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And, then you let that "Infinity" kid who has been causing all the disruption go scot-free. What a joke. How do I appeal this? RJII 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I decided to block you for 48 hours for incivility over there. --Phroziac _. o º 03:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What "incivility" are you referring to? I demand proof. RJII 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And, I resent what you put up in the Anarchism talk page: "The user...has edited this page inappropriately." It's not true. RJII 04:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The admins are often arbitrary in their decisions and or often they listen only to the one first making complaints. In all likelyhood infinity requested assistance first. It has also been my problem that people delete without discussion, insert highly pov unsourced or uncitable material, and delete anything you put in...which causes a great deal of hostility...and then it only gets worse once an admin comes in with a crappy biased ruling and provides no evidence for the course. (Gibby 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Image Tagging Image:CapitalismUnknownIdeal.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:CapitalismUnknownIdeal.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover

Yes, thank you. By the way, you do good work. Thanks Hmains 04:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. RJII 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

FDR

Please stop wasting your time and mine by putting your grossly ideological and irrelevant stuff in this article. It will always be deleted, if not by me then by someone else. I don't think you have much understanding of what NPOV means. Adam 22:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your time trying to stop me. I'm putting in sourced and important information. Truth is not POV. And, there's more to come. RJII 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Truth most certainly *can* be POV, if facts which advance an ideology are systematically emphasized and those which detract from it are deemphasized. --Jasonuhl 22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well, that's not what I'm doing. I'm just bringing forth information that isn't in your college textbook. RJII 23:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Hi, you violated 3RR at anarcho-capitalism. Because you used a deceptive edit summary in the fourth revert I will block you for 48 hours and consider blocking you for up to a year for violating your probation. Cheers, —Ruud 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A "deceptive edit summary"? What?! It was a truthful edit summary. I was noting that I was adding the word "sometimes" as a caeveat so the information could be put in, as was discussed on the article's Talk page! You can only put so much detail in the edit summary. It explained the edit FULLY on the talk page before making it. RJII 04:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm challenging this. I reported infinty's violation, in order to avoid an edit war. It seems whenever I fight back against his disruptions I'm penalized for it, so this time I chose to simply report his violation. And, you're penalizing me now. This is a travesty of justice. I challenge you to provide the diffs proving that I violated the 3RR. RJII 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have provided the diffs at WP:AN/3RR. —Ruud 03:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hhere is what you provided: "Here are the diffs: previous version, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. —Ruud 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)"

Those diffs do not indicate a violation of the 3RR. They clearly show 2 reversion --"3rd" and "4th (that last one is even technically not a reversion --I added the word "sometimes" in the last to help accomodate Infinity's complaints). The 2nd alleged revert is not a revert, but the addition of 4 sources to back up what Infinity deleted. The 1st alleged revert is an insertion of something a full 4 days after it had been deleted!! RJII 03:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is bullshit. I even left his last edit there in good faith, just so I could avoid edit warring and breaking the 3RR. I was trying my best to do the right thing by reporting the violation instead of edit warring back, as I had done in the past. And, you want to ban me for this?! Who can I appeal this to? RJII 03:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that from Ruud's Talk page that he's only been an administrator for a few days. Maybe that's why he making this error. Maybe he doesn't understand what reverts are. Also, he should check the article's Talk page. He's dead wrong is saying that I made a "deceptive edit summary" --the edit summary was truthful and I even explained it in more detail on the Talk page before making the edit. RJII 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Somebody give me some assistance here. I've clearly been wronged. RJII 03:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

REQUEST ADMINISTRATOR ASSISTANCE

Please unblock me, as I have improperly blocked by an administrator in regard to the above matter. I clearly did not do what I was accused of. By the way, this came about as a result of ME reporting someone else for violating the 3RR. Thank you. RJII 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jpgordon, thanks very much for the unblock! But, it still says I'm blocked when I try to edit. Maybe you did something wrong? RJII 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's working now. Thanks again. I was starting to lose what little faith I had left in the system. RJII 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't get back to you; I was doing this peculiar thing called "sleeping"... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

FDR 2

Don't think I've lost interest. I'm a bit busy atm, but when I get time I will come and remove all your silly edits from this article. Adam 05:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't put in "silly edits." You need to back off and stop harrassing me. I will continue putting in sourced information. If you want to try to censor it, that's your prerogative. But, mark my words. You won't win. RJII 05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Adam 03:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages community. RJII 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages community had you indef banned, then you made a sockpuppet, so unless we're talking about a different wikipedia, not sure what you mean--205.188.117.14 03:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell falsehoods. I'm never been banned for anymore than a like 24 or 48 hours for 3RR and minor things like that. And, you could count them on one hand. I have a great record on Misplaced Pages for such a heavy editor. RJII 03:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're clearly the sockpuppet, not the origional--205.188.117.14 03:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The original? Everyone is an original at the RJII. RJII 03:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, it seems many people disagree with you, and think many of your edits are POV. Can't you just sit back and realise that maybe, MAYBE, you ARE being too POV? They can't all be wrong. -- infinity0 17:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My edits aren't POV. They'e truthful and sourced. Nothing POV about that. The problem is that there are a few who would rather certain information be shielded from others, and they can't stand me bringing information to light. And, if you want to talk about POV, look at your own writing. Don't you dare accuse ME of POV pushing. RJII 17:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop being so defensive. You are on probation FOR POV editing. And since when are POV and truth mutually exclusive? I am trying to help you; you're too stubborn to admit your own mistakes, but to think that everyone else who attacks you is wrong is unrealistic. -- infinity0 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm on probation because a few people got together to try to ban me from Misplaced Pages because they couldn't get around my honesty and sourcing. They failed. You tried to get me banned as well. You failed. So, you're "trying to help me"?! LOL! I don't need nor want your help, kid. I'm doing just fine. From the look of your recent attempt to become an administrator, it looks like you're the one that needs help. The Misplaced Pages community overwhelmingly rejects you: Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 RJII 17:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As an admin, for now. If you read the oppose votes most of them are quite helpful, actually. "A few people got together to try to ban me" - and why would they try to ban you if you hadn't done something wrong? -- infinity0 18:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why else? To prevent me from preventing them from POV pushing. If all other attempts at censorship fail, try to get the person bringing information to light banned. And, if that fails, try to become an administrator. Your attempt to become an administrator failed because the vast majority agrees that you are very disruptive. We in the Misplaced Pages community don't trust you to hold any power whatsoever. RJII 18:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII, you are the only person I have ever been in an edit war with. "To prevent me from preventing them from POV pushing", is a very paranoid attitude, as is thinking my request for adminship was to try to get you banned :S. Read There is no Cabal. -- infinity0 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I was rejected for biting vandals and the two 3RRs. Nothing about power abuse. -- infinity0 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Look. The Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 clearly shows that you've very disruptive on Misplaced Pages and you should NOT have administrator power. The consensus is that you would abuse your power. We don't trust you. Case closed. Now stop bugging me. RJII 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Set theory

Set theory. If claims A and B are mutually exclusive, then when P claims A, they do not necessarily claim B. In this case,

• P is me
• A is "AaronS has good judgement".
• B is "The other votes have bad judgement".

A and B are mutually exclusive. Me saying AaronS has good judgement does not mean I say everyone else has bad judgement. -- infinity0 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny, the word "disruptive" doesn't appear in that text. "abuse" comes up twice, and that is me promising specifically NOT to abuse power. Most of the oppose votes were because of the two recent 3RRs I had with you. -- infinity0 20:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, can I borrow your time machine? Funny how your "reply" to my second "comment" above has a signature date earlier than my comment. :| -- infinity0 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Look. The Requests_for_adminship/Infinity0 clearly shows that you've very disruptive on Misplaced Pages and you should NOT have administrator power. The consensus is that you would abuse your power. We don't trust you. Case closed. Now stop bugging me. RJII 18:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And, now you're buddy is trying to become an admin. We can't let that happen. RJII 21:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Utilitarianism

I think you may have the wrong idea about Utilitarianism, which is the leftist view (not that you are a leftist)...its just utilitarianism has been distored from that line "greatest utility to the greatest number"

Basically, and originally, this was achieved through limited government and free trade, not centralized authority and restricted trade (which they would have argued lessened utility to the greatest number and would have benefited fewer people.

Utilitarianism was originally used to argue free markets.

Free market thinkers kind of abadoned it after the hijacking but we still keep one important thing, an understanding of what utility is.

Think about it, do you increase societies happiness by protecting jobs with trade barriers?

Absolutly not, at best society is no better off (But that is assuming zero transaction costs which is an impossibility). Society most certainly improves its utility when you open up to free trade where consumers have the greatest access to the greatest number of goods at the greatest competitive prices.

To them the greatest number benefit and only a few are hurt (aka those who used the coersive arm of government to control and protect their capital through protective measures...)

See utilitarianism aint ALL bad :P(Gibby 16:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

But, utilitarianism doesn't necessarily protect individual liberty. Mill realized that. That's why he explicitly stated that individual liberty shouldn't be violated. Bentham and Mill are in a different league on this. As far as I know, Bentham never expressed concern about the majority violating individual liberty for the greater good, so to speak. RJII 16:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well thats because the greater good was free market limited government where the ability, so they would have assumed, to violate individual liberty was extremely limited. Basic violations would simply include the ability for the government to remove peoples ability to coerse one another while also removing the ability of the government to coerse or to protect the coersion of others. If i'm correct on the interpretation Mills' dispute was more rhetorical or then a misunderstanding (or perhaps a realization that this view could be abused...as is what occured.(Gibby 00:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Oh and I'm not a utilitarian...i don't believe that free market limited governments will cause much harm, if any at all. If we entered free markets no one will be harmed...as I do not define the loss of ones ability to coerce others as harm, but rather such people are being made equal to others. Thus thoughs who use government to protect and achieve their ends at the expense of others own prefrences (tariffs etc) are not harmed because we end their ability to harm others. Thats not exactly utilitarian but I do believe free markets increase societies utility/happiness (Gibby 07:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Right, I get your point. Utilitarianism COULD align with protecting individual liberty, there's just no necessity that it prescribes protecting it, and that's why it can be dangerous. Utilitarianism says: maximize good consequences for society. That could conceivably requires sacrificing the individual liberty of some for some subjective "greater good." And, that's where welfare liberalism starts coming in. Mill was on the cusp of that turn toward collectivism, but he was still a classical liberal because he did explicitly advocate unviolable individual liberty --which is essentially what classical liberalism is --individualism. RJII 07:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism tag

Are you ready to remove the top tag from that article? I think it is as good as we'll get it for now, apart from the section I put a npov tag on, which I wish to have someone else's opinion (ie. User:BlackFlag) before we remove that tag. -- infinity0 18:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No way. It's still very much POV. RJII 19:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Banned from Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Because of a large amount of edits that fail to follow WP:NPOV on Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism, per your arbitration case, I am going to ban you from editing the aforementioned article for two weeks. Thus, your ban there expires on March 24. You are, of course, allowed to edit its talk page, and are encouraged to engage in discussion regarding your problems with the article. If you violate the ban and edit the article before March 24, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Cheers. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally unjustified. The complain came from "infinity" right? The kid that's been edit warring. How do I appeal this? The RJII 20:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Leave a note on WP:ANI. The discussion is currently near the bottom of the page. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to look at what infinity has been doing in that article have you? Extreme edit-warring and POV editing without sources. RJII 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity isn't on probation. You are. I'm not going to judge the content dispute; I merely noted that you were on probation for this sort of thing, and did disrupt the article pretty badly.If you have an issue with Infinity's behavior, please follow the proper channels, or contact another admin. I refuse to get any more involved than I am now. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. Because I'm on probation, it's just assumed the complaint is true. It's false. And, I'm going to show it's false by responding to each complaint on that page with evidence. RJII 20:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

What's up with ? —BorgHunter (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Drunk girlfriend. RJII 04:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, two people one of which was an admin I believe already chastised me for that edit. The Ungovernable Force 05:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, you're not ungovernable. Don't ever vandalize my user page again. RJII 05:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I just noticed that myself. The situation should be considered dealt with and closed. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider it closed. I want justice. RJII 05:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't ever done it again and I agreed it was a bad mistake on my part. Anyway, as I said, two users, User:Adrian and User:Herostratus have already commented on that issue and it is closed and over, as borghunter just said as well (making three). The Ungovernable Force 05:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A comment isn't enough. You deserve to be banned. This is the first time I reported it. You just tried to get me banned a few minutes ago. You're out of your mind if you think I'm going to accept your bogus apology (not that it's even an apology). RJII 05:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the community will consider it adequate, I promise you. You'll waste your energy pursuing this petty matter. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Too late. I've made up my mind to pursue it. He just tried to get me banned. I'm not going to sit back and take his harrassment. RJII 05:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I'm done with this conversation until you can either apologize to me, Aaron and all the rest of us for the myriad of unkind things you have said or until an admin comes knocking at my door. If you want to report me, go ahead, but it was a long time ago and I have never made another edit along those lines towards you or anyone else. Everyone makes mistakes, and the reason I tried to get you banned is because you appeared to be threatening an edit war. Whatever, maybe your girlfriend really did get into your account, but anyway, your threats are just retalliation against my suggestion that you be banned (which you have made clear yourself). And stop accusing me of harassment. The Ungovernable Force 05:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not going to stop accusing you of harrassment. You vandalized my user page with a "fuck you." That's harrassment. Why would I be apologizing to YOU? Get real. RJII 05:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Probation ban

Per ] as clarified on RfAr ], I am banning you from posting to the Administrators Noticeboard or Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents, or the talk pages thereof for a period of three months. Essjay 09:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference tucker-pay was invoked but never defined (see the help page).