Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:14, 29 May 2009

Invitation

WikiProject Objectivism Salutations, Karbinski. I've noticed your interest in articles relating to Objectivism and would like to invite you to join the freshly resuscitated WikiProject Objectivism, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. Yours in enlightened self-interest, Skomorokh 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts WP:AYN WP:RAND

Philosophy

I notice you made a change to the lede of the philosophy article, which I have reverted. Perhaps you were unware that a number of editors are discussing the lede on the article's talk page. If you wish to propose a change, please look at the talk page and make your point there first; we welcome all considered view backed by arguments ande citations. We are currently only accepting revisions which are supported by a consensus of contributing editors. --Philogo 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

I have placed the above warning here because you are not engaging with the other editors on the talk page. The prior consensus recognised that there were multiple definitions of philosophy and it was this necessary to agree a form of words that provided a NPOV. This has been achieved. You have subsequently proposed an alternative phrase which is clearly linked to a single school of philosophy (a POV) without providing any citations. Your constant insertion of the "fact" label appears to be an attempt to overturn the consensus indirectly without engagement. --Snowded (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Evil monkey-2151.jpg

My response

Without reading the above, it should have gone without saying: It would be unlikley for your clique to get me banned for being stubborn about verification.

After reading the above, I most certainly did, absolutely did, leverage the discussion page. The result was that other editors did the same and a further result took place: the lede sentence has been at least partially sourced. The discussion page as it is today may be Quoted For Truth. Karbinski (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Objectivism

I was noting how Rand herself used the terms "morality" and "ethics", not what mainstream philosophers think the terms mean. DAGwyn (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In particular, Rand never used the term nor the concept "meta-politics". DAGwyn (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations in edit comments and for your recent edit to the "politics" section of the article. — DAGwyn (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Philogo's Questions

I am curious: do you think ALL countries should act fully in their own interests and people in their own selfish interest because it is the morally right thing to do or only the USA and its citizens? In particular should Belgium and its citizens so act, and if not why not?--Philogo 23:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is in the self-interest of every individual to be moral (be they living in Belgium, USA, Iran, ...). If I ignore further debate, don't take it personally. Karbinski (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That is interesting but do you think is an answer to my question? If you ignore the question I will not take it personally but conclude that you have no answer to give.--Philogo 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, let me try this: I think ALL countries should act fully in their own interests and people in their own selfish interest because it is the morally right thing to do - not exclusively the USA and no particular exceptions for Belguim. This begs the question of what is morally right/good and what is morally bad/evil. Please don't post your personal philosophical views on my talk page - I'm not interested (not saying you were going to, just wanted to be clear on my end). Karbinski (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not posted my own view and I will not. I am interested in your views, and I know you like to sahre them becasue you have published them. You say that everybody should, it being their moral duty, pursue their own self-interst and it is in everybody's self interst to kill thier enemies. Presumably then it is your enemies duty to kill you (as you them). In partictular you say that the Iranians are your enemies and therefore it is their duty to kill you. Now this leads to a certain problem. Since you and your enemies have a moral duty to kill one another do you have each a moral duty too help one another? If so presumably the first should not kill the second because that would prevent the second doing his duty by killing the first. This is an obvious consequence of your position and I am sure it has occurred to you, so I wonder what solution have found to this apparent paradox.

No where did I say it is in everybody's self interest to kill thier enemies. Such a premise is utterly false. I stopped reading there. End of thread. Karbinski (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You said publically : "Let us take our enemies chance to nuke New York City away from them forever. Let us destroy our enemies now. All it takes is for America to act fully in its own interests. That means we the people must not only act in our own selfish interest, but understand that it is the morally right thing to do." and "I think ALL countries should act fully in their own interests" ergo all countries should bomb their enemies, ergo enemies of the USA should bomb the USA and your enemies should try and kill you as you them. Does that not follow? Is that not what you are saying?--Philogo 22:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The view you have published of course is very close to that expoused by Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic and presumably you have found a fault in Plato's refutation of that position. If so do share it and don't be selfish by keeping it to yourself.--Philogo 20:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Forum Shopping

Hi. I know you feel strongly that your proposal with respect to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) should have achieved consensus. As you know, it didn't. I am a little concerned that you have now raised the issue, directly or indirectly, with the Mediation Cabal, twice at the Village Pump and on the Disruptive User Talk Page. Please note the policy on .KD Tries Again (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Fair enough to point out that policy. At the same time the consensus policy lists a number of ways to try and draw in editors such as the Mediation Cabal (and the village pump for that matter). As for disruptive user, its a policy proposal, the fact that my inspiration was the article move debate doesn't link the two issues. The way it stands, that policy proposal is a non-starter, and I think I mis-used the Mediation Cabal, as I didn't ask for any mediation, I asked for input. I learned a little more about wikipedia, and in terms of the article move debate, havn't changed anything. Karbinski (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the request to move proposal, I don't feel strongly that the move needs to happen. I proposed the move because I think it makes sense. What I feel strongly about is that the move is legitimate according to the policy that represents the consensus of the wider community. The fact that such a move is not easily achieved, and then after some effort still not achieved, is somewhat enlightening about the nature of wikipedia. Again I've learned a little more about wikipedia. Karbinski (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag

Re this: you have it exactly right; sorry it was lazy tagging of me. Regards, the skomorokh 01:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move: Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticism of Objectivism

There is an ongoing discussion about moving Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticism of Objectivism. So far only me and one other editor have participated in the discussion. You voiced an opinion on this matter on the talk page, so I though I should let you know. The discussion is here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks Karbinski for the Barnstar ... figured that Misplaced Pages should have a quality KM article and really it was just wading through and deciding what sentences were worthwhile, could be improved, or could be tossed. Merci beaucoup! Harvey the rabbit (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You may find it of interest

- or, you may find it distasteful - but a consensus has developed to open up Ayn Rand for full editing except for one issue pending arbcom, the use of the word "philosopher" in the lead which several who support the term like myself are leaving off in good faith. See current discussion which started approximately

Thanks, Kjaer (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged Article

Hello! As a member of Wiki Project Objectivism would you please see my post on the excessive coverage of fictional technology, etc. in Atlas Shrugged and my proposal to replace it with more coverage of the meaning of the events in that novel. Thanks. —Blanchette (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Question for administrator

{{adminhelp}} This template is intended to be proliferated accross alot of talk pages, and the template content is to be considered *discussion* for the articles its included in. Question: any known issues with this usage of templates? --Karbinski (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Not an admin but I'll answer. I have never seen a template used to link talk pages, and can't imagine why one would be necessary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a very helpful otter Karbinski (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What else is there to say? I said, I've never heard of this kind of template before, so it might be better to ask at another venue. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying nothing at all *is* an option. You win the next time you null it out - go ahead, embrace being an otter. Karbinski (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I'm the only one who can answer these freaking things 90% of the time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions such as this which do not require any administrator tools but just knowledge to answer can be asked using {{helpme}}. There are thousands of highly experienced users, of which admins are just a subset and you'll get a larger spectrum of users to answer using the more inclusive helpme template.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks Karbinski (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted twice!) Firstly, many people answer helpme, so there's no need for TPH to get agitated. Secondly, most importantly, this is the first such template of this kind I've ever seen. There may be some policy regarding it, there may not be, but I think the latter is more likely. I doubt there will be issues with this kind of template, especially if it's useful, but given that I have never seen such a thing before, this is definitely not guaranteed. Sorry I can't be more help. Stwalkerster 22:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think you might be better off opening up a thread at the proposals section of the Village Pump rather than seeking to snare the smaller pool of users who monitor the help categories.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks again =D Karbinski (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You are in a clear minority on the Is-Ought problem. Also 3RR is not a right, nor the 24 hour limit, without consensus on the talk page further reverts wiill be reported as a 3RR violation. --Snowded (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Never doubted it for a minute --Karbinski (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Evil monkey-2151.jpg

you should listen to snowded...he knows how to be banned from editing. now go back into the ayn rand kerfuffleBrushcherry (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

... is about to be, has just been, or currently is being snowed --Karbinski (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification

I am requesting that Arbcomm unban me from Ayn Rand-related mainspace. You can see and comment on my request here. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

I've just about ended my efforts here. Being upfront and honest gets you where? It's not the torrent of baseless attacks (e.g., the "self-published" charge) that need to be verified -- they must be refuted first. And even with the (non-Objectivist) editor's endorsement of the book on the jacket. At every turn, my efforts to provide information have been not only ignored, but held against me. Take the effort to "out" me as Valliant himself -- even though he'd be permitted here, wouldn't he? Okay, the attempted "outer" did not realize that all the edits from this IP address were lumped together when I logged in. No warning seemed to come from this effort. He gave IP numbers! So, when information was provided by me about Valliant's unlogged in but high quality (as you must know) edits, that is also out as providing "personal information." And no one here makes a dime on the book, not even Valliant, but, if they can't "independently" verify this fact, since none of those who know can be trusted, it seems, they will assume the very worst. How can this even be proved to them? Despite the fact that multiple scholars have been impacted by the book to the extent that they have changed institutional affiliation, and despite the fact that the internet discussion of the book is denser than discussion of titles from Sciabarra and others, this is "fringe" or "obscure" or "unreliable." Well, the entire field of Objectivist scholarship can be called "fringe" and "obscure" -- so, what standard is being employed here? That a book is ignored by hostile sources? Oh, those "independent" sources, like 'The New York Times' which has slimed Rand hersellf at every opportunity since Atlas was released? But not Kirkus, even if they're positive? And if an academic's work gains about zero assent within the scholarly community, like Sciabarra's thesis, that means nothing, but a non-academic publisher is fatal, even if the book changes lives?

Can you see my frustration?

Is my case here hopeless? Pelagius1 (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pelagius, the attempt to out you was inappropriate. However, you need to read WP:COI and WP:RS. Take a look at the welcome template I left on your talk page. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have and that's part of the frustration - the double standards that seem to be routinely employed. The "aim" here was to improve Misplaced Pages and its usefulness to students. Exactly. Pelagius1 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One line stood out: "Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight." (italics omitted) I have "turned up" on the Talk Page and have shown a willingness to reveal anything about this matter, only to have that willingness apparently used against me. If you can tell me that it would do any good whatever, I'd try to have Valliant "turn up" here, too. You very much could use him. But this episode has hardly been inviting. Pelagius1 (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only do I see the frustration, I know you're right to be frustrated. Even if you are the "famous" IP 160 editor, or lets say even if we credit you with all wiki actions by that IP, in line with what wiki-admin EdJohnston noted - you are entitled to participate on the talk pages. Your conduct there has been fine, the personal information that should not have been posted revealed nothing that stands the test of time - in my opinion. Even if it is a more serious issue than my personal evaluation, it was an honest mistake and should not be leveraged by others to disrupt on-topic discussion. --Karbinski (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As for my position on The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics as a reliable source, my opinion is that its a proper subject for discussion. Now that we have two sides on the topic and some evidence collected, I would recommend, before you close shop, that you read-up and post on the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Feel free to engage me for assistance. --Karbinski (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My advice for navigating the talk-pages is to narrowly focus on the topic, even good-faith editors go off topic if you go off topic (ironically, because -mostly I presume- they want to be fair and address all your points, and then subsequent editors feel obliged to address all points raised, and so on). Its hard to go wrong with exclusively on topic comments. --Karbinski (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. You're great! I've been very busy, but I think I can get on there this weekend. Pelagius1 (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

I don't mind at all. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)