User talk:Endlessmike 888

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Just H 00:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi
Hi, I'm glad you came to Wikipedia. The way you get in contact with people is to write on their discussion pages, like this. You can sign your name on discussion pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ) in a row. LaszloWalrus 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New pages
Let's say you want to create a new page for Edwin Locke. Type in his name into the search, and click "Go." No page will come up, but you will be prompted to create a new page with "Edwin Locke" as its title. Write basic information about Locke and back it up with citations (ideally from the internet). For example, to cite the Locke's article on the University of Michigan's racist admissions policies, start with an opening bracket [ put in the url then end with a closing bracket ]. It should look like [url], or. Finally, remember not to put in anything that violates Wikipedia's neutrality rules. For example, you shouldn't put in "Edwin Locke is the greatest industrial psychologist in the history of the world." Good luck. LaszloWalrus 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Pseudophilosophy
A number of editors are introducing poorly cited material about Objectivism on the pseudophilosophy page. You might want to keep an eye on it and revert the nonsense from time to time. LaszloWalrus 06:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nathaniel Branden Article
Hi. I saw your note on my user-page. I've often thought that the article on Nathaniel Branden needed a re-write because after the split with Rand he focused almost entirely on psychology. He has spent nearly 40 years of his life working full-time on psychology compared to the 16 years with Ayn Rand. It should be almost like there are two people that are being written about - Branden the Objectivist and then Branden the psychologist. There was a little overlap and he remained interested in Objectivism and philosophy, but his full-time occupation was that of psychologist. The article doesn't get that at all - yet it is the major fact of his life.

The other point is that all of the articles on anyone related to Objectivism are like battle-grounds more than articles - some of the attempts to smear Rand or Branden are disgraceful. People ignore the fact that this an encyclopedia. I think that an article about Branden should just be about him and disagreements and criticisms should be contained in a section with that label. You make a good point about the Barbara Branden article - I'd never seen it before. The Rand-Branden split is mentioned but what exactly is disagreed with isn't - making that reference to Valliant's book seem strange as part of the body. It should go into a separate section or there should be more detail put in the body so the reference makes sense. I'd suggest opening a section in Barbara Branden's article labeled "Controversy" or "Criticism" and put a short paragraph in there stating there were strong disagreements that continue to this day over the nature of the break-up, what the disagreements are, etc., etc., and put the reference there. Best Wishes, Steve 16:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy being changed to Core
To report this to an Admin I'd use either the link for the general notice board or for vandalism (which requires that you give notice first and then they continue after being noticed). It might not be vandalism - technically - and I wouldn't call it a content dispute since they won't come to the talk page and dispute or answer your request for why they keep making that edit.


 * WP:AIV To report persistent vandalism to the Administrators
 * WP:AN/I Administrator's Noticeboard - Incidents needing Admin attention but don't fit the admin requests above.

My user page has lots of useful WP links - I added a section on Admin Request and that's where these are from. Good luck, Steve 06:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent conversation
I turned on my 'Email this user' link on my User Page (in the left margin). If you have an email address you would be willing to use in sending me an email, I have a spreadsheet I could return that you might be interested in. Steve 01:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Objectivist movement
Good work. It's a LOT better. LaszloWalrus 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Very nicely done! Kukyona 17:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

there are more philosophies of objectivism than rands
there are predecessors and people of other traditions. this is why her philosophy is marked off as 'ayn rand' and isn't the sole version represented on wikipedia. that is why she can only be one version of objectivism, hers is but one of many.--Buridan 03:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Buzz off.
Don't you touch my page! Its mine, not yours. FreddyTris 18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ethics
Unless you can find some citable reason that establishes rand in the same class of the other people listed in the ethics template, I do not see how you can include her without including thousands of people. There are reasonable limits to what she is and is not comparable too, not a rawls, not an aristotle, but perhaps a hare, though i suspect his supporters would disagree. --Buridan 20:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your vandalism.
Reverting my rational change to Ayn Rand wasn't just vandalism, it was a bait to trick me into violating 3RR like your buddy, Steve. See you in 24 hours, dummy. FreddyTris 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment.
I am not amused by your harassment. You would do well to leave my user page intact. FraisierB 22:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Twins
The twins are at it again, trying to cover their tracks by editing. Reality isn't budging though. I'm trying to stay on top of it. Ethan a dawe 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Institute
I am having a bit of an argument with ThAtSo on the Ayn Rand Institute page. I thought you might want to weigh in. LaszloWalrus 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lancombz
I agree that it seems entirely possible that he is back. He posed as an Objectivist before, so it would fit. Can we get it checked out?Ethan a dawe 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, this is great. First I'm accused of being Nathaniel Branden in drag, now you're questioning whether I'm a "authentic" Objectivist just because I've corrected anti-Branden bias and starting a witch-hunt to say I'm yet another person. Go ahead and launch whatever investigation you like. When it turns up nothing, I expect your full apology, but I'm sure I'll never get it. ThAtSo 23:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU is the proper place to order a check. I'm too busy right now at work to fill it out. As for the above comment, I will certainly apologize if you turn out not to be LancombZ. You should look into that case though to understand what goes on around the Objectivism articles. It's not pretty, just silly and pathetic. So, we've become sensitive. I'm glad you've said it's ok to check your ID out.Ethan a dawe 00:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that what you're doing qualifies as "silly and pathetic". I doubt you need my permission and I don't endorse this nonsense one bit. Mostly, I want this to end so I can get back to more interesting things. Maybe you should just save some time and use Reed's magical text analyzer to see that my writing style's my own and not anyone else's. Just don't let Endlessmike 888 calibrate it, because he thinks all of us "snippy" people sound alike.

For the record, I am not Nathaniel Branden, a brand of contact lens cleaner, or anyone else; just little old me. Sorry you're too paranoid too accept that. What's really funny is that the only reason I found out about this was that I was going to thank you for your contributions on the article. I think my thanks was premature. I do have one question: Do you and your no-no-anything-but-a-cult do this to all "suppressive people" or am I being singled out for some reason? ThAtSo 00:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This response even sounds more like LancombZ. I'll be sure to start the RFCU if no one else has when I'm done with what I'm working on. So, if you're not LancombZ, all is well and I'll say I'm sorry, if you are found to be LancombZ though, I'll expect not to hear an apology. He didn't apologize last time and then just kept vandalizing my user page in fits of pathetic behavior. I, for one, hope you are who you say you are.Ethan a dawe 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've found that all people who get accused sound just about the same, regardless. You do what you have to do. I'm not Lancombs or the other three and I don't care what you think or whether you apologize afterwards. This is just dumb. ThAtSo 02:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Query
I'm sorry, I currently don't have the energy to deal with this matter. --Otheus 05:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Objectivism template.
Just a reminder: I'm waiting for your reply on the Objectivism template. ThAtSo 00:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RfM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Arbitration
A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at []. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
Note for you here, Mike. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

New Arbitration Request
A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Arbitration. Idag (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to delete Gotthelf's book
Take a look. --Steve (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.


 * is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * and are banned from editing  and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
 * is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
 * and are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
 * is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)