Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:30, 30 March 2006

1. Archive 01 2005-09 to 2005-11
2. Archive 02 2005-12 to 2005-02
3. Archive 03

Testing

infinity0

-- infinity0 22:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

infinity0

-- infinity0 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Hello again. The "flaunting knowledge" problem is a rare one, don't take it too seriously. I'm probably worse on that one actually, even though I'm not an expert either. Another interesting section from the link I gave you is the one on Pariahs, which I immediately think of anytime people start insisting on banning, which happens all the time. Also read the politeness section, which is probably my biggest problem. I tend to be too polite and expect other people to be as well. CJames745 02:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Misspellings

I understand your proposition, but there is a redirect message at the top of all redirected articles. Therefore, the user is being advised by such redirect that their spelling was incorrect, and shows them both their incorrect spelling and the correct one (as the title of the proper article). If you wish to learn more about the policy for wikipedia redirects, please read Misplaced Pages:Redirect. Themindset 21:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Hi, you violated 3RR at anarcho-capitalism. Because this is your second 3RR violation this week I have blocked you for 48 hours. Please discuss your differences with other editors on the talk page instead of starting pointless revert wars. Cheers, —Ruud 02:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is User:RJII unblocked even though he violated the rule too? He seems to be arguing based on a technicality, that one of his reversions contained one different word. -- infinity0 18:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I was not arguing based on technicality. I pointed out that ONE alleged reversion was technically not a reversion. That's not what the argument is based on. Even if you do count that as a true reversion, I didn't violate the 3RR. I did not violate the 3RR rule. RJII 18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You violated the spirit of the rule. . Which one are you saying isn't a reversion again? 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

- bad faith editing. -- infinity0 18:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You've got to be kidding. RJII 18:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Kidding with what? You've been trying to discredit that source for ages. -- infinity0 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... if I got blocked for 48 for "same week violation", you should be blocked for 72 hours for "same week violation" too, plus 24 hours for violating your probation. -- infinity0 18:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't violate my probation. I didn't violate the 3RR. The first adminstrator that looked at it made a mistake. He's only been an administrator for a few days. RJII 18:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A second admin agrees. What about those 5 diffs above? -- infinity0 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Everything you need to know is on my Talk page. RJII 19:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't explain anything. All you said was a few excuses about those reversions being slightly different. -- infinity0 19:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I don't think this is what 3RR is for. 3RR is to stop edit wars, in particular edit wars of the form "Is too!" "Is not!" "Is too!" "Is not!". Adding information to bolster a position is not edit warring, it is responsible editing. So at least one of RJII's edits was not a revert under 3RR. On the other hand, Infinity0 freely admits his was a 3RR violation in email to me, so there's no controversy there. I've been asked to reblock; I appreciate being asked, but I still don't think the block was appropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to include sources too, after 3 of my reversions, in an attempt to reach consensus. RJII then proceeded to add comments discrediting those sources . I only reverted back when it became clear RJII was not going to allow my source to stand against his. RJII is knowingly adding biased sources, without even trying to make it NPOV. -- infinity0 19:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Biased source? Pretty much all sources are going to be baised. One of the sources I provided was an article in the MS Encarta Encyclopedia by Carl Levy. Is that biased? I don't know. What matters is the article in it was written by respected political historian. Also, I provided a source from a pro-capitalist. And, I provided a source from a socialist. I put a mixed back there precisely to avoid complaints of bias. How dare you lodge this accusation. RJII 19:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The MS Encarta argues that a-capitalism is related to ind-anarchism. You said ind-anarchism was another word for a-capitalism. You could alternatively include sources from different views, not just your own. I had to clean up after you. -- infinity0 19:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Marco Ferrero a socialist? The paper is on socialist economics. Does he represent all socialists? Most anarchists deny anarcho-capitalism is anarchism at all. Why are you discrediting their sources? -- infinity0 19:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing more to say to you. RJII 19:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My points remain valid nonetheless. -- infinity0 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Borders thing for FrancisTyers

国界是猪想出来的！ - "borders are thought up by pigs". -- infinity0 18:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

It is with regret that I must inform you that your nomination for adminship was unsuccessful on this occasion. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to seeing a nomination with your name on it again in the future! -- Francs2000 23:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Now it's my turn. :) I'd appreciate a support vote! Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/AaronS --AaronS 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Good luck :) -- infinity0 22:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmemail

Thanks! --AaronS 16:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Apologies, I shouldn't have claimed the problems were deliberate. I was surprised how much the page devolved in a few hours. My objections toward your changes are the "intro clean" which gave an etymology unsupported by the reference. I feel that removing the explanatory text about ancap insistence on the modern usage of "anarchism" was done in poor taste for purely POV reasons. -GRB

H2G2

Yeah, it doesn't make that much sense as an abbreviation, but it's one that Douglas Adams himself used on occasion. See h2g2. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of capitalism

Hey, you seem interested in this article. Could you help restructure it so it flows properly? There's some discussion on its talk page already, see what you can input, and make any changes to the article as you think fit. Thanks :) -- infinity0 12:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting it in a separate paragraph makes it seem like Ravi Batra is as significant as all those above authors put together. -- infinity0 14:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ramayan, please stop adding that paragraph. At least write two more paragraphs on Marx and Bakunin, and one paragraph on Naomi Klein, THEN add the paragraph. Otherwise it's unbalanced. -- infinity0 14:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity0, you have a point that the paragraph is unbalanced. It´s this imbalance the reference to Sarkar & Batra fixes. That said, critics shouldn´t all be lumped together. Sarkar & Batra are coming from a very different angle - the idealist episteme with new concepts about class dynamics and exploitation. While they are striking at the roots of Capitalism, they are also showing the shortcomings of Marxism. Even if the ideas only emerged in the second part of the twentieth century, they are every bit as important as other major contributions. That said, I am not interested in arguing about it - nor do I accept spurious work assignments. Peace. Ramayan 19:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, you shouldn't revert that, that's quite a vandalism... --84.249.252.211 14:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Sorry :p but I live in Europe, too, and I was not at the premiere. But I think that something is better than nothing! So let the ones who don't care about being spoiled edit it? :) --84.249.252.211 14:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Asian fetish

First this use of "East Asian" may be common in the U.S., but not everywhere (not here in the U.K., for example). Secondly, the two names are clearly not Middle Eastern (unless that term is also being used in a very non-standard way.

Admittedly, the whole section (and article) are ridiculous in the first place, so perhaps it doesn't matter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then a term should be used that will be understood by all readers. In this country, "Asian" would normally be understood, in the absence of any contrary context, to mean someone from the Indian sub-continent; "East Asian" isn't really used ("Oriental" would probably be the commonest term). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The source doesn't mention the girls — why does that not surprise me in this article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal

I've already moved about 12 of the Eastern and Western articles to /Featured Article/CURRENTDAY, CURRENTYEAR. So we're all set up to week 22 or so. The rest are all listed somwhere in my contribs. That's the only way I know how to find them. --Lacatosias 08:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Political Project

Hey, sure, feel free to use it (you had the correct source). Jim62sch 00:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The first is the economic. Wage Labour needs to be expanded...if I get done arguing on the Human and Adam and Eve pages, maybe I'll add to it. I'd like to get the cosmological argument page straightened out, too. It's looking pretty good, we just need to figure out how to get the last discussion into the article (unless you and Kenosis have given up on it). Jim62sch 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

box

This user thinks people who refer to themselves on their user pages in the third person using stupid boxes that take up too much space and is bad layout and design, especially on a website, instead of talking about themselves in normal text, need to learn conversational skills. ;P

Agreed. ;) --GTubio 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mongoloid

I'd not be the person to do it, as I've edited it a little too often — but in any case, an edit every couple of days wouldn't be seen as good enough reason for even semi-protection. If it gets worse, though, I'll see if anyone esle would do it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous articles; Problem of Evil

Thanks for your message. I think the Problem of Evil article lacks perspective at present. Any thoughts?Kenosis 08:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Now the format of Problem of evil begins to make some sense. Excellent work...Kenosis 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I need some more time to work on the History of this. Augustine's the main man, so to speak, and of course a few others to a lesser extent, but it runs right across theodicity, and I can see the inevitable POV stampede if it is not well documented, precise, and concise...Kenosis 03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing and sockpuppeting

Hi, Infinity0. Sorry, I've been very busy, recently. No, that wrestler isn't me. :-P Anyway, I explained my reasoning behind tagging User:Vision Thing as a suspected sockpuppet on his talk page. Feel free to check it out and add your thoughts. --AaronS 16:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you for real?

"All other editors endorse this version", "Why do you insist on reverting to your own version and working from that?" "Please respond on the talk page before making any further edits"

?!?!?

Its very hard to respond to this in a polite manner... Sam Spade 22:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Infinity0. Sam Spade 22:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Responded. is interesting - it's hypocritical of you, since you are the one refusing to discuss the reasons behind your reversions of my edits. -- infinity0

I find talking to you upsetting. Sam Spade 22:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? I remember you vaguely from last September when we edited Existence of God, but can't think of any other things I may have upset you with. -- infinity0 23:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean always, I ment at that time. I removed the 3rr thing, and will slowly try to discuss this w you, now that I'm less pissed off. Sam Spade 09:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you use any IM's?

I have had a really hard time communicating w you recently (not the least of which because of edit conflicts), and I am pretty sure were stuck in a rut. In the past I have found changing the means of communication can make all the difference in situations like this. As you can see Nikodemos agrees. I'm willing to give it a try if you are. Cheers, Sam Spade 11:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you use IRC? -- infinity0 11:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't seem to do very well w IRC (altho maybe I should try again, do you know agood free client?). I use google talk and MSN. Sam Spade 11:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mirc.org/ - free client, still useable after 30-day trial. If you have problems with it, send me an email and I'll go install googletalk. -- infinity0 11:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm on irc://irc.freenode.net/ -- infinity0 11:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm logged in, now what? Sam Spade 11:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What's your nick? -- infinity0 11:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

SamSpade

Sam Spade 12:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Game? What Game? ;->-2006-03-26T18:21:00.000Z">

You can lose the Game too, you know.

Do you really want to dress your link in red, and be treated like a newbie?

With concern Septentrionalis 18:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)"> ">

Asymmetric controversy

Yes, we should definitely have a page for it. A related problem is what I call unbalanced citations - creating a well-sourced article that only cites sources from one side of the controversy, under the excuse that "it's not my responsibility to write for the enemy". This is technically not against NPOV, though I believe it should be. At the very least, we should have a specific warning tag that should be placed on pages with unbalanced citations as long as the imbalance remains. -- Nikodemos 18:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I know Sam personally, so I believe I should be able to broker a way out of the current confrontation. I'll begin by rewriting the intro, which I have been meaning to do for some time. -- Nikodemos 19:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead. User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy seems like a good place. -- Nikodemos 20:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been dealing with an assymetric controversialist over on Democracy (and liberal democracy. Wanna go have a look? Septentrionalis 21:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists and democracy

Hi. Pmanderson/Septentrionalis is now trying to argue that anarchists are opposed to democracy or direct democracy! See his strange edits on democracy. Very strange when the anarchist FAQ speak repeatedly of direct democracy. I suspect that this is part of his campaign against the democratic peace theory and democracy in general, he is trying to get anarchists to support him. Please oppose him, the many advantages of democracy apply equally well to left-wing democratic societies. For example, research shows that more direct democracy makes the democratic peace stronger, so the theory is not an argument against socialist direct democracy. While we may disagree on the economic system, I do not think that we disagree on the benefits of democracy. Septentrionalis:

Anarchists generally oppose actually existing democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt. For example, see Alexander Berkman's Prison Memoirs and the historical introduction to the 1970 edition, explaining his refusal to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. It may be possible to regard their desired stateless condition as a democracy, but many do not regard it as being of the same class as the systems discussed in this article, and decline even the formal and coercive process of direct democracy; but agreement by consensus, as in News from Nowhere or The Dispossessed. As may be expected among anarchists, there is disagreement: Peter Kropotkin approved of Renaissance Florence in Mutual Aid; and some modern anarchists speak of association as direct democracy. Ultramarine 21:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The DPT is actually accepted by most of the researchers studying it. As stated, it is not an argument against socialism, but may actually be an argument for more direct democracy. I would be very happy to discuss any objections to the text here: user:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another" Ultramarine 21:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The anarchist faq seem to speak frequently of direct democracy. I do think that all the advantages frequently mentioned for liberal democracy would apply to a system with more direct democracy.Ultramarine 21:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The faq seems to speak frequently of voting? Ultramarine 22:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think democracy implies that or any hiearchy. This seems not be argued in the faq, it seem to speak only in positive terms of democracy. See also this .Ultramarine 22:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this: "Anarchists oppose existing state democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt. For example, see Alexander Berkman's Prison Memoirs and the historical introduction to the 1970 edition, explaining his refusal to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. Most anarchists support a non-hierarchal and not coercive system of direct democracy where everyone has a say in the decision " Ultramarine 22:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this: "Anarchists oppose existing state democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt. For example, see Alexander Berkman's Prison Memoirs and the historical introduction to the 1970 edition, explaining his refusal to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. Most anarchists support a very different system, a non-hierarchal and not coercive system of direct democracy where everyone has a say in the decision " Ultramarine 22:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Anarchists oppose existing state democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt. For example, see Alexander Berkman's Prison Memoirs and the historical introduction to the 1970 edition, explaining his refusal to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. Most anarchists support different system from that of the liberal democracy discussed in this article, a non hierarchal and not coercive system of direct democracy where everyone has a say in the decision. As may be expected among anarchists, there is disagreement: Peter Kropotkin approved of Renaissance Florence in Mutual Aid; and some require consensus, as in News from Nowhere or The Dispossessed. " Ultramarine 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Your editing

I just wanted to compliment you on how much you have suprised me in your honesty and rigour. Those are hard to find qualities, and they are appreciated. Cheers, Sam Spade 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'm glad that you accepted my compromise - I really hate to work against other editors. I hope we can sort this out as efficiently as possible (ie. without further disputes). -- infinity0 21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I didn't agree w your edits! I was thanking you for your talk page candor, and obvious good nature. Sam Spade 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Meh. -- infinity0 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

ban of RJII

Just noting for the record that infinity tried to get me banned again for no good reason: He wasn't successful this time, fortunately. RJII 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you posting this on MY talk page? Please understand that I finally get some peace for two weeks, then as soon as you come back you insert something blatantly disputive and disruptive; I was not pleased. I will leave you alone if you stop being so aggressive in your editing. -- infinity0 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be as "aggressive" as I want to be in my NPOV sourced editing. RJII 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop harassing other users RJII. You got banned for doing it to me (among other things) and now after only a day or so of being back on you are starting again. Please stop. The Ungovernable Force 04:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not get banned for harrasing you. I got banned as a consequence of reporting you for this. You, of all people, asking me not to "harass" (sic). Very funny. RJII 04:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No one buys your poor victim routine, give it up. I'm merely asking that you stop going and posting past offenses on people's talk pages with no provocation merely to make them look bad. In the end it only hurts you anyways because anyone with background in this conflict can see what you're up to, so why do you continue? And yes harrass (or however you spell it) is one of my problem words with regard to spelling, thanks for pointing it out--not. The Ungovernable Force 04:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it; the OED spells it harass; harrass is obsolete. Septentrionalis 06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL RJII 06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Hi! You recently converted a sectionful of curly quotation marks into straight ones, as seen in this diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pure_Pwnage&diff=44530687&oldid=44529467

Did you do that on purpose? — Daniel Brockman 22:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I generally think it's neater and easier to maintain than the curly quote marks, which aren't directly typeable on a normal keyboard. -- infinity0 22:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it’s okay if you can’t type them, but please don’t change curly ones into straight ones just for the hell of it — especially in articles that already consistently use curly ones. It’s an unnecessary step backwards (unless you actually prefer the straight marks, in which case you should change your font). — Daniel Brockman 22:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it would be easier for everyone else to type - since most people use straight quotes instead of curly ones anyway. I actually think it does look neater, but the main reason was so that in the future it would be easier to maintain consistency with directly typing straight quotes rather than having to copy and paste curly quotes every time. -- infinity0 22:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists and Democracy

Thank you for your (indirect) assistance with democracy. Since Ultramarine was nice enough to credit you when he put his final version on the subject into the article, I found your version, and replaced his version with much of yours; see what you think.

I should have included non-coercive in the description of anarchy; I am indebted.

If he asks you for help again, please consider editing directly. Septentrionalis 04:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"main view"

Also, I'm not trying to push a leftist POV, but only give the main view the importance it deserves. Please stop accusing me of POV. You've done this ever since you started editing this article and at some point or another it will become a serious hindrance to me assuming your good faith. -- infinity0 16:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has POV. I don't think you are trying to push anything, in fact you come across as particularly good natured and honest. I have even complimented you for your rigour (no small compliment from me). The fact is, you are pushing a POV. You clearly have an opinion, and it shows. So much so that it can be frustrating at times, and early on I felt much as you describe above, on the brink of assuming bad faith. You made me pretty mad one night with how hard it can be to push you outside your conceptual box. Thats why I went after you for the 3rr, because I was angry and frustrated. Fortunately I saw the light, and strove for dialogue instead. I can only hope you do the same. Sam Spade 21:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on socialism page

I don't mind you reaaranging comments so much, but please don't remove comments because they are redundant in your view. My comment was somewhat repetitive, but it also elaborated a bit on what I said previously and clarified my position. Thanks. ---WGee 16:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)