User talk:Finx/Archive 1

Fair use disputed for Image:Tom Waits-Night on Earth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tom Waits-Night on Earth.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard user notification

Has been done for you but in the future ....

You must notify any user you report. You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so.

Moxy (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I think I submitted my notice right as you made this post. Finx (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul on Template:Libertarianism

On Template:Conservatism_footer, Ronald Reagan is included. Ron Paul is the single biggest cause of the growth of the libertarian movement both in the United States and around the world, so it makes sense to keep him in the libertarian sidebar.--Jay942942 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you realize that libertarian "around the world" has meant anarchist (meaning, socialist/anti-capitalist) for over 150 years. The US has a "Libertarian Party" and libertarianism, in jaw-droppingly ironic thrust of neoliberal ideology, has taken on the opposite of its meaning since the 70s. Also, North Korea is a 'Democratic People's Republic.' Why do we care what political parties call themselves? I just don't understand what Ron Paul's laissez faire liberalism has contributed to libertarian philosophy. Finx (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Libertarianism Venn Diagram

Hi, I was just wondering whether you would consider editing your libertarianism Venn diagram. I think it might be more accurate to rename the 'objectivism' circle as 'classical liberalism', and then put 'objectivism' as a smaller circle inside it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.71.207.142 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Biased comment

Your comment in my Talk page is ideologically biased, in extreme. You should edit taking the principal use of the term, that is market anarchism = anarcho-capitalism. --Sageo (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, it concerns me very little whether you believe me to be 'biased.' It concerns me a lot more whether what I'm saying is factually accurate. The evidence does not support your assumptions. Finx (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Finx, loaded remarks against you made by other users I've encountered have compelled me to examine your contributions. I want to say that I appreciate your efforts on behalf of this encyclopedia, and hope you continue to make them in the face of adversity. Steeletrap (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Original research template

The templates are justificated in talk page. Please use sources in talk page, not opinions. You shouldn't remove them until a consensus benn achieved. Another remove of template and I will denounce your attitude. I think we can dialogue without troubles, only you should avoid use Wikipedia as political forum, please. --Sageo (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I told you about remove templates, I don't want to get to a critic point and have to denounce you. Better, continue discoussing in talk page. At least we get to an agreement of make a disambiguation page.--Sageo (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning & ANI posting

Posting the "level 4" edit warning message and bringing the issue to the ANI at the same time is not appropriate. 1. The heavy handed warning, posted without the lower level, more gentle warnings, was too much. Why? because 2. you brought the issue to the ANI. Warnings should serve to remind editors of guidelines, not serve as ammunition for an ANI discussion. We go to ANI only after warnings have failed to resolve the issue. Also, I suggest you look at other dispute resolution sources WP:3O would be a good one because only you and Sageo were involved in the discussion. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User was warned here about two weeks ago regarding the same ongoing edit war. Thanks for the WP:3O link. I'll look into it later when I have time. Finx (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. It looks like the EW dispute is about the same article, so the next warning should have gone in the earlier section. When the polite warning does not work, you best post one from the next higher level, not the 4th level. In any event, there is nothing wrong per se with the templates. They get indexed into categories, etc., and serve to alert interested editors to take a look at the page and work on problems. I'm not concerned with the particular OR/SYN problems in the article, and hardly looked at the debate you've had. I was more concerned about how this matter got into the ANI realm so suddenly. – S. Rich (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't immediately yank the templates down out of spite. There was a discussion on the talk page and it seemed obvious that no real objections existed, except for the fact that the redirect was taken down -- and IIRC not by me, at first. My patience wears a little thin after having citations ignored and being accused of writing an essay about my political opinions the third time. I went to the noticeboard only because the discussion yielded nothing but vague threats and accusations. Finx (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your tireless efforts to make difficult Wikipedia articles more encyclopedic Steeletrap (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Take to 3O?

Have you two thoroughly discussed the issue? Are you at a standstill? If so, I suggest you post the question at WP:3O. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from wikipedia for a while, I think the other editor hasn't developed the article since, so it looks like it's at a standstill. That's probably a good idea. Thanks for the reminder. Finx (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm referring to Talk:Libertarianism#Can_we_please_stop_confusing_state_.22government.22_and_.22state.22.3F. I'm sorry that I was clearer earlier. – S. Rich (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I think there's enough people actively working on the article that it shouldn't be necessary to call it to anyone else's attention. If there's no resolution, we could probably give a try, I guess. Thanks again. Finx (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You are appreciated

Hey, just wanted to stop by and say I appreciate your input on the Libertarianism page. It is extremely frustrating talking to right-libertarians, so I understand needing some time away... but make sure to come back! Your knowledge on the subject is valuable and I'd hate to see the capitalists own the article, as they are wont to do. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I know you've put a lot of work into the article. I've just noticed that after beating my head against an impenetrable wall of irrationality long enough, I tend to lose focus and start lashing out at the wrong people. I don't how you put up with so much fight-every-letter-tooth-and-nail resistance to just giving anything some definable features, let alone making things clear and comprehensible. I'll come back cheery and positive, I promise. Finx (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Undoing my edit in "Libertarianism" article

The sentence I deleted: "While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management[14][15][16][17]" is not supported (in fact contradicted) by the one reliable source listed (Stanford's listed as both [15] and [17]. It is supported only by the source authored by Noam Chomsky, which hardly fits Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. At the very least it gives grossly undue weight to Chomshy's position, while minimizing the position presented by the reliable source (Stanford's Encyc), as well as many other reliable sources (Encyc. Britannica, etc) by referring to it as "certain libertarian currents".

Just wanted to understand the objection to what I consider the removal of obvious bias. Note that I have no interest in trying to hide Chomsky's position, despite it's ("Libertarian Socialism's") anti-libertarian components, just in presenting it where it belongs instead of in such a biased and misleading way at the top of the "Libertarianism" article.

Also, please forgive me if I go about this the wrong way, I'm still not sure of the proper way to address this. Lockean One (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you're going about it the right way. Wikipedia generally encourages making bold edits, and then discussing them if they don't stick.

In the case of that introduction, like I said in the talk section: it is a matter of fact, not point of view, that Libertarian Socialists, including Libertarian Marxists and anarchists / Libertarian Communists, reject capitalism as an authoritarian system of class domination and want to abolish the capitalist mode of production. In fact, as the article already explains, the origin of the word "libertarian" as a political label comes from an anarcho-communist - Joseph Dejacque. Please take time to read the respective articles. There is no POV issue because it isn't a matter of perspective.

Furthermore, I can think of few sources on contemporary political issues more consistently trusted and reliable than Noam Chomsky, who's repeatedly pronounced the world's "most important intellectual alive today" wherever he goes, having spent most of his long life writing and lecturing about geo-politics. As he's pointed out neoliberalism is a very recent addition to the libertarian label, contrary addition to what's been called libertarian everywhere in the world for over 150 years. There's dozens of sources to back this up throughout the article. If anything should be called anti-libertarian... -- but, see, that would not be NPOV, so we don't do that. Finx (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded to your first part on the article talk page, but just wanted to respond to the etymology of the term "libertarian" here, since it would qualify as "soapboxing":

Yes, I understand that anarchists first used "libertarian" in print, but it's just a simple combination word that already had an established meaning prior to being "coined", since it's base term and suffix had pre-existing meanings that pre-determined the meaning of it, according to already established rules for adding the suffix. The term "liberty" had an already established meaning, as well as the suffix "-arian", or in French "-aire" (a person who supports, advocates, or practices a doctrine, theory, or set of principles associated with the base word). Hence "advocate of liberty". Using a known suffix with a known word using known rules for their combination to form a combination word hardly constitutes anything significant.

Dejacque was merely calling himself an "advocate of liberty" using a pre-existing word and suffix with established meanings and an established way of combining them. He in no way used it to refer to some new and different concept. It certainly doesn't mean that the word itself means "like Dejacque".

I'm not disagreeing with the etymology, or it's inclusion in the article (although I haven't scrutinized it). I'm only disagreeing with attaching too much significance to it. Lockean One (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand what it means, I'm just pointing out that left communists saw themselves as advocates of liberty by calling for the abolition of private property. Contemporary capitalists would, of course, disagree. Finx (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, just as a question, is there a solution to that section on the article's talk page being derailed with irrelevant responses (some by me in response to others)? IMO, the only relevant responses there are by you (relevant even if I disagree with them), and my responses to yours. But those are hidden in a swarm of surrounding nonsense. Lockean One (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. It gets that way sometimes on contentious topics. I don't think it's too bad, but there's a lot of repeats. The same things come up over and over and some people get impatient, I guess. If it's off-topic, I would try to just ignore it and not pay it any mind. Finx (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that section has become useless, so much so that I'll probably give up on it. Lockean One (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstandings, though. I never referred to opposition to state capitalism as anti-libertarian, since all libertarians oppose it as far as I can tell. I only used the term "anti-libertarian" to refer to advocating prohibition of "free enterprise" capitalism. Surely you're not suggesting that non-socialists are obligated to equate the two on the basis that socialists oppose both.

I also never referred to proponents of state capitalism as libertarian, or even suggested that advocating capitalism itself constituted libertarianism. It would seem that much of your disagreement with my statements has been based on misunderstandings.

Also, it seems that "Libertarian Socialists" view the need for property protection as a consequence of capitalism, as if they would have no need of it. Why would socialism have any less need to protect "means of production" (or products) from harm, theft, disruption, etc. than capitalism? Lockean One (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Portal image discussion

Thanks for the hat. Yes, the project gets little discussion on the talk page and the portal talk page gets even less. I, myself, brought up the idea of changing the Project Banner image in late 2012. It did not go far, but I did not pursue because I did not think it was a big issue (and the technical aspects concerned me). So, if you've got a better idea for the portal image I recommend that you post the idea on the portal talk page and see who salutes. Post a notice on the Project talk page about your proposal and notify some of the more active Project members. If no one salutes (or moons it) after a month, then WP:BB and make the changes yourself. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for the help. Finx (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please stop your disruptive editing on the Libertarianism article

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Lockean One (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

AC

Hi, was wondering if you'd like to comment here. Thanks! — goethean 12:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism

I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st / User:Blue Eyes Cryin

I think we've got a sock / meat puppet [1]. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Look at his contributions [2]. All he does is support Darkstar1st's views on talk libertarianism.

What do you think? I think I will got to WP:SPI but if you have any evidence or views I would be grateful. If he's clever he will cover his tracks, but I don't think he is clever. --Mrjulesd (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea. They're both saying the same thing (there's no such thing as libertarian socialism/communism/marxism, so Wikipedia should remove it) and it's near impossible to get any thought across to either user, but then again numerous people have fit that profile as well. Only the admins would be able to say if it's likely. fi (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

OK what I'll think I'll do is go to WP:AN and get an admin to look at it (hopefully). I think he's more or less admitted it at ANI , and certainly hasn't denied it. If I get an admin opinion on where to go then that would probably be the best thing. He's accused me of " false and dishonest accusations and bullying tactics " , I've had enough. --Mrjulesd (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, my "bullying tactics" earlier consisted of pointing out the problem with saying that B ⊃ A ∴ B = A in an article's lead. I tried half a dozen times and failed. The only reasoning offered: it says right here balloons are round so round things must be balloons, case closed. I don't know if there's any sockpuppets involved, but it's like talking to a wall either way, so I'm going to stop talking for a while. fi (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Well anyway I've reported "them" to WP:AN hopefully I'll get a reply. I can see why you're cheesed off, he certainly succeeded in doing that to me. When you argue with someone who show no signs of goodwill it can be pretty infuriating. At least the other editors seemed a bit better. I looked at the history of talk libertarianism but i couldn't see any other obvious socks. But if you see anyone who seems to fit the description message me and I'll give you my view. --Mrjulesd (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Finx. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

February 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Libertarianism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Finx (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Several editors have explained to User:IWillBuildTheRoads that there was no consensus for his changes, resulting in his prior noticeboard warning (which I did not take any part in). Since I'm not the one ignoring consensus and administrator warnings, I don't understand the reason for this block. Please explain. fi (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block no longer active - procedural. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The issue is that you participated, continuously, in a slow-moving edit war (with full knowledge of the policy against it). The three-revert rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times, or towards a specific version (except in specifically established WP:AC/DS cases). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Should I have let the abusive edits stand when the editor showed no interest in justifying them on the talk page? If you believe I'm partly to blame, fine, but how does 24-hours a piece make any sense at all, when the instigator was already involved in a noticeboard report and warned to stop spamming the same crap in the lead repeatedly? fi (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I count 8 reverts by you out of the last 50 edits in the article history alone... all of which were to undo IWillBuildTheRoads's actions. Do you not think that you should have made a WP:ANEW/WP:ANI report much earlier? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do. But that doesn't make the rest of what I said false. You decided to give me and somebody stomping his foot to get his edit in, after being warned to stop repeatedly, by multiple people, the same reprimand. fi (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved administratory, reviewing the unblock request. Here's what I see. Both editors have been discussing edits on the article's talk page. Good. A separate editor, Toddy1 (talk · contribs), has started a section for discussion called "The lede", which is excellent. I strongly hope both Finx and IWillBuildTheRoads discuss their edits and build consensus there. However, on the bad side, I do see a slow edit war here, as, apparently (and I'm not trying to put words in his/her mouth), does Toddy1. Toddy1 says, "Let us discuss the two rival versions of the lede that various people have been edit-warring over." So, is this a straight-forward case of reverting vandalism? No. Is this a straight-forward case of a 3RR violation? No. Is Finx attempting to improve the article? Yes. Is an edit war going on? Yes. Is the block permitted by 3RR? Yes; 3RR isn't an entitlement to 3 reverts in 24 hours. So, I'm not choosing to lift the block, but I'm also not choosing to decline the unblock, because if I do so, it's unlikely any other admin will review it within the window the block is active. Okay, so this is a lot of text. Finx, I end up in this position: I believe this block was placed on you to strongly indicate edit-warring is inappropriate, and instead you must work harder to build a strong consensus for your version, on the talk page. I see you have engaged in discussion there, but I don't see you have built a strong consensus. You are welcome to disagree on that point. But, I believe Toddy1 has explicitly gone out of his way to enable you to build a clear consensus and I hope you'll contribute to the discussion in "The lede" once your block expires. I believe everyone involved sees this block as, roughly, "hey, enough, stop with the edits until this is hashed out once and for all on the talk page", rather than as "massively abusive editor acting in bad faith". --Yamla (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Finx. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)