Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:55, 9 September 2007

A tag has been placed on Lucy baker, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Xtreme racer 04:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no sources in this article or any reason to believe the person in question exists as your word is simply not good enough to prove this person even exists or if they are notable. Unless some can be provided the article will be deleted according to Misplaced Pages policy. Xtreme racer 04:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

hello

hello! welcome to wikipedia and all that :) just noticed your comments on Talk:Anarchism - if you want to sign your name, you can write ~~~~ insted of typing it out every time :) -- infinity0 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks..was wondering about that. Operation Spooner 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:The Match!

You are ultimately correct in removing the contested material, but practically the entire article is unsourced and your rationale is highly questionable. Anarcho-capitalism is a fringe offshoot of Libertarianism; for example, the Libertarian Party (United States) is the third biggest political party in the U.S., with over 13 million votes cast for it in 2006. In American circles, Libertarianism refers not to an oblique strain of anarchism, but to the popular political philosophy. You yourself implicitly conceded this was true by pointing out that an anarchist without adjectives would not criticize any form of anarchism. Ipso facto, he must not have been talking about anarcho-capitalism. It's not rocket science hombre. Skomorokh 18:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is when anarchists read an anarchism-related article they tend to take "capitalist libertarianism" to mean anarcho-capitalism. It's not clear what is meant. Here's a reference: "Right-wing anarchism, is a branch of a modern political theory sometimes called libertarian capitalism. Capitalist libertarians usually want a minimal state, but a few are anarchists and want no state at all." - Teichman, Jenny. 1999. Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide. Blacwell Publishing. p. 108 Operation Spooner 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Granted, but this is not Anarchopedia and we are not writing for anarchists, but for the general public. Your reference seems to validate my claim that capitalist libertarians are minarchists. Would you be opposed to restoring the phrase you removed and using this reference to clarify what is meant? That way the article is more informative, avoids contradiction (a without adjectives vs. ancap), is is supported by references. Skomorokh 18:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The source says most capitalist libertarians are minarchists but some an anarchists, otherwise known as anarcho-capitalists. I personally took "capitalist libertarianism" to mean anarcho-capitalism when I was reading that article. I can't be the only one. If you look at the discussions in the Fred Woodworth article I think that the person who wrote that into the Match article was talking about anarcho-capitalism as well. I don't trust that it's the newspaper is critical of even libertarian minarchism. I'm sure as an anarchist, Woodworth opposes minarchism, but whose to say without a source that the Match had articles written in opposition to libertarian minarchism rather than just ignored it? I don't want to risk putting out misinformation. I think this is why referencing is important. Operation Spooner 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there seems to be reasonable doubt. I concede the point. Skomorokh 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Concnerning anarchists without adjectives, I have seen people argue that anarchism without adjectives necessarily opposes anarcho-capitalism for the reason the say that anarchism by definition is anti-capitalist. Operation Spooner 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I realise this, but let's take our cue from Woodworth here - "I have no prefix or adjective for my anarchism. I think syndicalism can work, as can free-market anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, even anarcho-hermits, depending on the situation."

From an essay by Fred Woodworth in Avrich, Paul (2006). Anarchist Voices. Stirling: AK Press. p. 475. ISBN 1904859275.

Ronald Reagan

Hi there. First off let me say that I am wwith you, not against you. Reagan should be prtrayed in a truthful light, but because this is Misplaced Pages we have to abide by Wiki's rules. Let me go through what you recently added:

"He was an advocate of economic liberty, advocated enterpreneurship, opposed redistributive economic policies in favor of private charity, and believed that people should be allowed to keep most of what they earned."

Believe it or not, the left-wingers will demand that what you originally had (I shortened it slightly) be removed because it was POV. I am already engaged in a fiere FAC battle with two users and trying to make the article sound more netural. Like I said in my edit summary, we have had long, engaging discussions about the lead in the past. For the good of the article, please do not change the lead. Make edits anywhere else, but you addition about his philosphy belongs in the philosophy section. Maybe move the philosophy section...

Again, I am supporting you efforts to help the article, but it's been through some rought times and please just trust me on this one. Get back to me on my talk page if you disagree. Best, Happyme22 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm a friendly guy; I'm with you, not against you and getting mad at me isn't going to solve anything. It doesn't belong in the lead because:

• I know from experience that it will not pass in an FAC (I've nominated it 6 times; all have failed)
• Length is an issue in the lead
• People want to know about his life in the lead; in the article, you can have a sentence like that because it deals with his philosophy.
• You added something about the sharp decline of income tax rates, something that is covered at length in the "Reaganomics" section. It will not pass an FAC like that because other users will feel that you are giving the good and not the bad so then you will have to extend it again and make it say about the negative effects of Reaganomics. That's why we had to add about the Iran-Contra affair in the lead.
• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an outline of the article and should try to mention something from each one of the sections/subsections in breivity. That sentence was not breif so it belongs in one of the sections/subsections.

There I have outlined five (5) reasons why it doesn;t belong in the lead nd why the lead should stay as it was. Again, I respect you and I want your input (like you provided), but it was just in the wrong place. I'll ask for a third opinion. Best, Happyme22 23:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all I'm not mad at you in slightest. I just think you're caving in to false claims of POV. Yes, people want to know about his life in the lead. Advocating laissez-faire was a huge aspect of his life. It's the vision he devoted himself to trying to further (though he wasn't entirely successful). I don't see why you say that I'm "giving the good and not the bad." It's just straightforward facts. That is what he advocated. If you're a conservative you think it's good. If you're a left-winger you think it's bad. How can it be denied that what he advocated is bad in the eyes of the left? Operation Spooner 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I put in for a third opinion. But they're going to call POV. I've been through 6 FACs and they've called POV on all of them. Tell you what: We can compromise. I'll work the page a little bit more and see what you think, ok? Give me 5 or 10 minutes then look. Happyme22 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

See what you think now. I worked with it a bit and tried to keep the gist of your idea. Why don't you add the full thing with the advocation of entrepreneurship and all that into the Beliefs and philosophy section? If you like it, I'll tell the third opinion guy not to bother. Happyme22 23:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - the welfare state opposition is fine to include. I think the section looks good now; nice woring with you! Best, Happyme22 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - would you consider supporting the article in the FAC? Happyme22 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I don't have that much of a problem with it as long as this is included. I'll have one last look at it. What bothers me in some accounts of Reagan is his economic philosophy is ignored. He wasn't just about preaching optimism and hating communism. That ignored the whole other side of him. He advocated laissez-faire capitalism. He was the opposite of FDR. Compare the two inauguration speeches. FDR blames capitalists and preaches more government. Reagan blames government and preaches more capitalism. This does need to be developed more. His advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism ought not to obscured, though some would like it to be. I don't see any reason to give in to the attempt to censor it. I don't even see the point of it having Featured Article Status if this is not explained. Operation Spooner 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Reagan, revisited

I've reverted your partisan edits, once again, I am beginning to find AGF harder to apply to your edits, specifically when you have pointedly ignored the requests of at least three different editors to discuss your edits on the Discussion page., As it stands, you ar at your revert limit for the day. s much as I would hate to do so, I will report you if you revert even the slightest bit again.

You are going to learn how to work within a community, or you are swiftly going to find yourself ostracized from that community and likely expelled from it as well. It doesn't matter what version was there before the FAC review, as concensus can occur at any time. Evryt time you revert the article, it risks de-listing the article as unstable. I must insist that you discuss your reasoning and seek a new consensus on the article Discussion page. I know you haven't been at this all that long, but the intelligence I sense in your edits will not help you if you ignore any opinion that differs from yours. - Arcayne () 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You were warned about violating 3RR. Stand by for the block, okey-doke? :) - Arcayne () 03:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You're really worked up. It's just Misplaced Pages. Relax. Operation Spooner 04:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll just wait for the appropriate time to revert then. No worries. Operation Spooner

No, seek to change our minds. Try to tell us how your edit is a better Lead than what was substituted. As for your above post, are you suggesting that you intend to revert any edit that isn't your own? - Arcayne () 04:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether you change your mind. This is how Misplaced Pages works. Someone puts something in, someone takes it out, someone changes this, someone changes that, and so on. I'm fine with you deleting what I put in because I can simply put it back. Operation Spooner 05:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Consensus. In particular, pat close attention to the flow chart presented there. You are not seeking a new consensus; you ar trying to enforce one that no longer exists. The present edit reflects the body of the article, whereas yours attempts to cram as much of the Republican political platform as you can into it. In view of that, what makes you better than the ultra-liberal who comes to the page and (incorrectly) accuses Reagan of being a warmongerer, etc. Please, set aside your clearly strong political views, put ont he Neutrality hat and take a better look a tthe edits. Just becvause you didn't violate 3RR this time doesn't mean you cannot get blocked for edit-warring over the same point day in day out. Try to convince us that your edit is better than the one in place. Otherwise, you are just going to be frustrated and disappointed. I am not your political enemy here (although your behavior is starting to be a bit annoying); I am aiming to make the article better, not more political. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, you are certainly proving that they may be. - Arcayne () 05:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Did I hear you right? You're saying I'm going to get blocked for "edit-warring" for putting information back in the article when you delete it, when you're doing the same thing in reverse by deleting it when I put it in? How would I be edit warring and you not edit warring? Something doesn't add up. I'm perfectly fine with the article being a way that I don't like it for one day, or one hour, then back the way I like it, the next day, or next hour. I hope you're not so delusional as to expect the article to stay the way you want it, because to seek that would be one insane quixotic quest. Operation Spooner 05:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reagan edits

I would like to ask you to direct your intentions to the Discussion page of the article. By your own statements here, you have stated an intention to keep reverting it back because you don't like what is in place currently. If you do not like it, please seek a new consensus - I believe that particular policy page has a flow chart that you can follow to reintroduce your proposed edit.
That said, your edit without discussion to convince the rest of us of its validity will be reverted each time. You do not have consensus to reintroduce it, so your only recourse is to discuss the matter. Or, you can seek an RfC in the matter; it's up to you at this point. However, I felt it necessary to help illuminate the terrotiry you currently find yourself occupying. The next step is up to you. - Arcayne () 03:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I told you I don't care if anyone reverts, because I can always change it back when I get around to it. In other words I'm willing to share instead of monopolizing. Bedides, one would have to be extraordinarily naive to expect or attempt to make a Misplaced Pages article to stay the way one wants it. That's not the way Misplaced Pages works. It is always in a state of flux with anyone being able to add material whenever they wish. If you want to discuss something on the discussion page then feel free to start a discussion. Operation Spooner 20:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been achieved. You were a part of the discussion. Your edit losst. Pack up and go home, spank your inner child, whatever. Add the edit again, and suffer the consequences. - Arcayne () 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Your threats to try keep me from editing the article are not a good enough reason for editors, including myself, to not note in in the introduction what Reagan advocated economically. You should argue the about the content rather than making threats. Reasoned arguments are what matters...not threats. 2. I've seen at least four people who indicated that they liked the edit, either by putting it back in or saying so explicitly. The little survey was not an adequate determination of consensus, as I explained. First of all, the larger Misplaced Pages community was not surveyed. Second of all, only a few editors of this article expressed their opinon on the matter and you and your friend concluded the survey in one day. Thirdy, most, by default, who view this article don't mind the information being there since they leave it there. It's right there in the introduction, so don't tell me they don't see it when it's there. 3. Even in an adequate determination of consensus, there is no Misplaced Pages policy that says an editor has to obtain permission from a consensus to add information to Misplaced Pages anyway. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." If the consensus doesn't like something, they're free to delete it, and will. I have no problem with that. It doesn't make sense to expect an article to stay the way you, or I, want it permanently unless we plan on living on Misplaced Pages, and consequently having no life, to make sure of that. I don't know about you, but you can count me out on that prospect. I have no interest in wasting a tremendous amount of time trying to monopolize, or own, articles. 4. Your threats are have long gotten old. Either do what you keep threatening or stop the threats, because they're not intimidating me. If you think you can "report" me to forcibly prevent me from adding referenced and neutral point of view information to this article then I don't see what's stopping you. If that helps your extremely small clique to maintain a monopoly over the article, then why not just block me instead of just threatening it over and over? Operation Spooner 01:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement on Ronald Reagan

I have listed the disagreement on the Admin's notice board. You can comment here if you so wish.--Rise Above The Vile 02:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan issues

While it does seem other editors are becoming overly hostile and declaring your edits as vandalism while they are not, it would probably be a good idea not to continue with your revert once a day. Perhaps seeking the overt opinions of other editors would be a better path to take, or searching for some sort of dispute resolution to solve the issue, but it seems on the face to be a sort of yes/no issue that couldn't really be mediated, unless there's some way that you could tailor your edits to address some concerns of the other editors by making the addition less overwhelming in the section? Or cutting it down to the main points. Cowman109 03:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And as a side note it would probably be less disruptive if other editors' reasoning (and yours included) continued on the talk page rather than in the article space itself. :P Cowman109 03:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, reverting once a day like you are doing is indeed edit warring and you could indeed be blocked for it, but the situation doesn't seem to be that out of control yet, at least. Despite the fact that the three revert rule is not being broken, edit warring is still disruptive. :) Generally when someone reverts another's edit, the first step should be to talk about why that is, and then find some way to compromise. Cowman109 03:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Kubarych, Roger M. June 9, 2004. The Reagan Economic Legacy. Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/7092/reagan_economic_legacy.html