User talk:Albamuth

Tooling around with Anarchism
[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits to Anarchism
I only moved the anarchist economics link because I was afraid I had accidentally reverted it, sorry about that ;) Kev 06:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Responses to Survey Answers Talk:Anarchism
"I moved these responses to respondants of the survey here. Sorry! I want the survey to be nicely formatted"
 * Was there a reason not to move my replies? q;-/ Beta m (talk)


 * I moved the replies to your replies to the survey questions because I don't want the survey cluttered like most threads tend to become. One answer for each person. --albamuth 20:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism Survey
Several other editors have basically outlined the same position I have, I wanted to avoid repeating them. I was thinking to add my voice on exactly what elements of each persons proposal I think would be best during the synthesis and compromise phase =) Kev 08:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but repeating them serves to reinforce the count of who's backing what--the purpose of the survey. Please, please, please! --albamuth 08:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Okies. Kev 22:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism
Oi! I've put this cloned nonsense up for deletion.. interested? -max rspct 21:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article should be deleted. It is misnamed. Hogeye 17:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye on RFC
Please help out: User:CesarB/RFC/Hogeye. --Tothebarricades 19:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I defended Hogeye, for some reason. His/her enthusiasm for wikipedia should not be fogged by our disagreements. --albamuth 08:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

capitalist destruction wikipedian style
Hey thanks for you insightful comments, you started this article and get much respect from me for all your work on it. I understand what you're saying about beating them at their own wikipedian game, however I have a real problem with compromise in cases where the other side is vehemently wrong. The capitalists are (probably unknowingly) deploying a tactic not unlike the tactic in boxing in which one is much weaker than their opponent but tries to get their opponent tired so that they get the upper hand. I feel this is that path we're going down if we give respect to things that are simply not true at all. These users have already gone beyond their misunderstanding of anarchism to show truly how ignorant they really are about the subject, actually questioning whether Emma Goldman was for or against capitalism!! What the fuck?! At the moment of writing this and in the past I've been trying extremely hard to see how, through the wikipedian perspective, one could justify putting this ideology no bigger than a high school fanclub into a position where it looks like it's a dominant and legitimate ideology (or in this case really the issue is the labeling of it "anarchist"). One must remember that by sheer logic if someone is looking up Anarchism on wikipedia, they most likely want to know more about it or know nothing about it and want to learn what it is. If someone previously oblivious to Anarchism comes to this article for information and they get the impression that anarchism is not against capitalism, the article's purpose has just ended in self-defeat! You can only be "fair to all parties" and "flexible" and "respecting of other's opinions" to a point where it makes sense. To make another stupid example, as I like doing, if someone has the opinion that milk made in the right fashion is not white, should this really be put on the article about Milk, let alone become not only a major part of it but give respect and decree to that belief? Or, should someone with common sense say "Are you fucking stupid?!" and invalidate their knowledge about milk? I would certainly choose the latter. I have to disagree with the assertion that we should not decide this based on sense and on facts. However, I do agree with you that such arguments will not work for the time being against people who don't care about facts, history, or reality, but only care about what they say to be true, based on ignorance of what they are talking about. Furthermore strictly on just the subject of being a good wikipedian, it is in Wikipedia's best interest to be factual. Surely user editability is the biggest thing that sets wikipedia apart from every other encyclopedia, but what I have found and almost everyone I talk to who likes wikipedia, is that on wikipedia you (supposedly should at least) get the truth. When you look up an article in Britannica, it's written by one person who has a general overview knowledge of what they're talking about, especially in politics, philosophy, and the like, and have errors all over the place, but that's accepted as okay because errors are called "inevitable." Know why they're inevitable? Because you have a one man dictatorship defining the definition for EVERYONE to follow! Wikipedia was created partially on the basis of rejecting that approach to article writing, the goal being to result in fairer more accurate articles. It is much more important to be accurate than to be "fair" or "include everybody". Many times, the majority is wrong! However, in this case the minority is wrong. This is a true example: out there somewhere on the internet, there is (i'm not kidding) ONE guy that made a shitty little site about combining anarchism and monarchism. Seriously, I wish I was kidding. Luckily though, like a lot of stupid people, he's an extreme minority and no one else on Earth besides himself(maybe not even him!) respects such a claim and combination. SHOULD THE ARTICLE INCLUDE THIS VIEW OR GIVE IT MERIT? Should it be written that "some people believe this, some poeple define anarchism as this.." in relation to that idea? Of course not! It's insane to do so and one doesn't need to get into the factual inaccuracy of something like THAT. :) It truly is the same situtation.  It is a case of a five-year-old jumping up and down saying "Me too!! Me too!" to the anarchist movement and I don't think wikipedia should be an example of catering to those who don't know what they're talking about.  We can't start buckling our knees now and saying "enough already!  okay okay have it your way."  We can't let that happen.  --Fatal 02:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeo, yep. I still believe the A/C's to completely without merit and would like to see them defined as a Libertarian-party faction that is latching on to the popularity of anarchism, which is exactly what they are. I feel confident that if this goes to arbitration, the arbitrators will see quite plainly how weak the A/Cs' arguments are. --albamuth 05:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moving forward with anarchism
I proposed a disambig header at Talk:Anarchism, I've tried all sorts of techniques, summaries, surveys, arguments, summaries of arguments, and plain reasoning, but nothing seems to deter the libertarians from their crusade the claim the word "anarchism" as their own. We need to have some sort of mediation from a third party, since I am obviously biased and they just won't listen. Any ideas? --albamuth 16:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I ran out of ideas before you did. You might want to ask the Mediation Committee for help. --cesarb 17:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye on WP:ArbReq
I've never done an arb-req before. Is there anything I should know? --albamuth 6 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)


 * You need to fill the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" section. Put on it a link to all the previous attempts at resolving the dispute (discussion on talk pages, the RFC, the RFM, and anything else you can find).
 * I believe you should also have waited to warn him on his talk page after you created the RFAr (you can go back to his talk and say "ok, it's done now, go there put your answer" or words to that effect).
 * Also rename the "Statement by party 2" section to include his name; not really needed, but it's nice.
 * One thing you must know is that the arbcom will look into the behaviour of all listed parties, so they won't be looking at just his behaviour, but yours too.
 * --cesarb 6 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

--albamuth 6 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Hogeye's latest incarnation
Thanks for the revert. I would have done it myself but I don't want to go over. The good news is that Hadal has already banned that IP, so next time he will have to use yet another new one. Kev 07:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

antagonize
No problem. I never felt you had ill will. It's all in good fun. RJII 22:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: 67.15.119.25 (Hogeye)
I agree: User:67.15.119.25 (talk • contribs)'s edits are consistent with User:Hogeye (talk • contribs)'s hellbent crusade. This IP is also from the same ISP as a previous Hogeye sock, User:67.15.54.56 (talk • contribs). Accordingly, I've blocked the IP for 18 days&mdash;I will reblock it (along with his user account) if he does not moderate himself. This will only be for an additional month, since the ArbCom have (disappointingly) decided to reject the case. Thanks for the head's up! -- Hadal 03:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Wondering
Hey.. miss your edits on Anarchism. You, kevehs and che have disappeared at the same time. Why? And why you leave wikipedia - summer thing? -max rspct 17:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved, and I didn't have internet access for a while. I'm back, though! --albamuth 04:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back
Nice to see you around again. I thought you might be interested in looking at the current anarchism mediation, seeing as you suggested the first one and you're one of the most knowledgable people on the subject and the article history in general. Sarge Baldy 18:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ensuring consistency
I have edited the intro of this the anarchism article to point to anarcho-capitalism and removed the section on anarcho-capitalism. This is an attempt to mirror the status of the libertarianism article in regards to the lesser known libertarian socialism, please take a moment to look at each article and compare. It is my belief that given the featured status of the libertarianism article, its relative stability compared to this article, and the clear similarity of the subject matter, this is a road toward a legitimate compromise. I would ask that the two major catalysts of the ongiong edit war of this article (RJ and Hogeye), both of whom have also edited the libertarianism article, please ensure that you are consistent in any standard you apply to this article. Hopefully this will help us reach the point of stability that the civil editors of libertarianism have been able to do in the relative absence of constant antagonism.

This message has been posted to the user pages of all the current major contributors I could find, if you know of someone I have left out please feel free to forward it. Revkat 16:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Hogeye
I notice that you, as I understand it, re-listed the RfC on User:Hogeye. It is not obvious to me how someone might go about adding their endorsement to it, whether it needs another party to certify, or where that other party might do so, etc. I also note that there is no mention of it at USer talk:Hogeye. Can I ask what your thinking was in the hopes of moving the RfC out of limbo? Thanks. Jkelly 20:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a good idea to ressurrect an old RfC; I've created a new RfC page at Requests for comment/Hogeye 2 and moved your initial comment to it. Please complete the creation of the page (feel free to remove my copy of your comments from it if needed). --cesarb 22:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism and society
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Anarchism and society, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Anarchism and society. скоморохъ 00:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

afd of street medic
street medic notes several "jargon" type titles to persons in the field but this article doest meet WP:N and WP:V and thus I have nominated it for speedy deletion

Speedy deletion of Street medic
A tag has been placed on Street medic, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

does not meet WP:N and specifically WP:V

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page 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 its subject's notability under the 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. Medicellis (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism and capitalism
I have nominated Anarchism and capitalism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Anarchism and capitalism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Article being discussed on talk, please participate, thank you.Soxwon (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Buddhist anarchism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Buddhist anarchism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Buddhist anarchism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Semitransgenic talk. 22:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)