User talk:Jneil/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed that the article J. Neil Schulman contains an exact copy of the text available at. If you are, in fact, J. Neil Schulman, please put a notice on that page releasing the document under a GFDL-compatible license, or verify that the inclusion of that information is not, in fact, a copyright violation.

If you're not J. Neil Schulman, you'll have to obtain permission from him to include that text here, or we can't keep it.

Here are some useful links, which might help you with some questions:


 * Welcome is a good place to start.
 * How does one edit a page gives editing help.
 * Manual of Style gives formatting info.
 * Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
 * Help covers a broad range of useful topics.
 * Village pump is a place to ask questions.
 * Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

Thanks! If you have any questions, comment on my user talk page here: grendel|khan 23:45, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

Show us proof
You have an obligation to post evidence that you are in fact Neil J Shuman, if you wish to make such claims.

That's "J. Neil Schulman," not "Neil J Shuman." If you don't even know that you haven't been in any branch of the libertarian movement to qualify yourself for editing anything of substance.

Proof? Go to my website at http://www.jneilschulman.com/. Scroll down to links, get my email address from there, and email me at that email address. That will verify my identity.

Additionally, in regards to this quote from the agorist article:

Schulman: "Agorists are divided on the question of intellectual property rights in that Konkin wrote the article "Copywrongs"in opposition to the concept and I countered SEK3's arguments in "Informational Property: Logorights.""

If Shulman differs from Konkin (and ALL other agorists), on this issue then he is obviously not an Agorist.. He is in fact likely closer to AnCapism, please do not continue to make claims that he is an agorist. Agorists are not divided on copyright legitimacy, Shulman differs from agorists.

First of all, who the hell are you to be judging who and who is not an Agorist? I'm the author of Alongside Night, the 1979 novel that introduced the concept of Agorism to the general public. I was an editor on all of Samuel Edward Konkin III's magazines beginning in 1972, and SEK3 assigned me Membership #4 in the Movement of the Libertarian Left. I organized the first conferences on Counter-Economics, CounterCon I and CounterCon II in 1974 and 1975, which were the first venues in which SEK3 spoke about counter-economics and Agorism.

As for your claim that "Konkin (and ALL other agorists)" agree on the question of intellectual property, then that statement alone disqualifies you from knowing enough about the history of the movement to be editing articles on Agorism or counter-economics.

SEK3 and I founded the Agorist movement. Tell me who you are and I'll tell you whether you are one or not.


 * sorry, I have read quite a bit of libertarian theory, and I never head of "JNEIL" before your edits, so I admit my mistake in not understanding how you name is correctly typed... this, however does not make my edits, or knowledge on the subjects of libertarianism, anarchism, ancapism, or agorism any less available. you can make arguments from intimidation, but the fact remains that you have yet to show evidence of your identity. ~
 * "SEK3 and I founded the Agorist movement. Tell me who you are and I'll tell you whether you are one or not." I never claimed I was, in fact I do not enjoy labels, as too often the label is corrupted by less than honorable people, for less than honorable reasons. Thank you, but I know what I believe, and I do not need your blessings. ~

Agorism
It is completely improper for you to continue to use the Agorism article as a vehicle for self-promotion or for the pushing of your particular interpretation or POV on the matter. Please refrain from such behavior. --- Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  21:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is completely improper for the surviving founder of Agorism to have his contributions to the main article on the subject continually deleted by Johnny-come-latelies who don't have the credentials to do so.

This is not "self-promotion." This is mounting a defense against an Orwellian re-writing of history by persons attempting to hijack the term to redefine it according to their own narrow prejudices. -- J. Neil Schulman
 * ironic that you dont see how you are attempting to hijack the meaning from Konkin.~

Warning regarding addition of POV to articles
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --- Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to be dictating terms regarding the article on Agorism? I have a name and a face. Before I prove to you that I'm J. Neil Schulman, how about you prove to me that you're not a software program?Jneil (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI he is not dictating the terms regarding the article on agorism, he is dictating the terms for WIKIPEDIA. Self referencing is frowned upon, let alone your lofty claims that you helped Konkin found agorism. I see a little man, attempting to secure his legacy on the coat-tails of another.~

Aside from the ad hominem attack, the situation has not changed. Proof of my identity as "J. Neil Schulman" is available by going to my official website at http://www.jneilschulman.com, using the contact page, and emailing me. My authorship of Alongside Night is not in dispute, nor is its publication date. Anyone can look at the masthead of SEK3's magazines going back to 1972 and see my name on them. Anyone can verify that SEK3 first spoke on Agorism at the CounterCon conferences I organized -- the tapes of SEK3's talks on CounterEconomics at CounterCon II were marketed by Robert Kephart's Audio Forum. You can do a Google search on the AnarchoVillage where SEK3 and I lived as neighbors for ten years from 1975 to 1984. You can check out that I'm moderator of the Left-Libertartain Yahoo Group founded by SEK3. You can do a Google search on the SEK3 memorial and you'll find that I was its organizer. And you can check with SEK3's brother, Alan Konkin, and you'll find that I'm executor of SEK3's estate.

As I said before, my contributions to an encyclopedia article on Agorism from Wikipedia articles on that subject, and from the Wikipedia articles on SEK3 and myself, are from a primary source. I was there at the birth of Agorism and helped midwife it. SEK3 and I outlined his manuscript on counter-economics on our 1975 automobile drive cross country when we and two others moved from NYC to Long Beach.

Charging me with being a little man interested in self promotion when I am simply correcting the historical record is Orwellian.Jneil (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neil, there is no question that you are an authority on Agorism. The problem is that Wikipedia does not publish original research, even from experts. Wikipedia is primarily a tertiary source, and never a primary one. Given that you are notable enough for your own article, content from publications by you can be used to reference Wiki articles. So it would be very helpful here if you could mention which of your essays the content is coming from, so that we can cite them. Regards, Skomorokh  incite 13:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture
I notice you recently added an external link to this image to the infobox of the J.Neil Schulman article. Wikipedia typically only uses images that have been uploaded under a fair-use or free licence to Wikipedia or Wikicommons. For info about how to do this, check out Image use policy, Uploading images and fair use rationales. Regards, Skomorokh  incite  19:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I am J. Neil Schulman and the external link has been provided by me to content on my own website. obviously, as copyright owner of that image, I am authorized to publish it or a link to it on another website. This is a trivial challenge designed by someone who is merely being annoyingly obtuse.Jneil (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely that you have the right to use the image as you wish on your own websites, but Wikipedia has a policy that images cannot be remotely linked - but have to be uploaded to Wikipedia itself. This is so that external websites don't have to pay hosting fees for readers of Wikipedia, and so that the image cannot be changed by operators of the external site. It is a non-negotiable policy. I'd upload the image myself, but the copyright owner needs to explicitly release the copyright or sanction Wikipedia to use it, and I don't own the copyright. Skomorokh  incite 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Counter-economics
Did you coin the term or was it Konkin? Quiet Bird (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Konkin coined it. His first major exposure of it was at CounterCon I, which I organized in 1974. On our August 1975 car trip across the U.S. from New York to California we outlined a book that we intended to co-author titled CounterEconomics. After our proposal was rejected by major New York publishers, I used the term in Alongside Night before he did in The New Libertarian Manifesto. Later Sam finished the manuscript of CounterEconomics by himself, and Victor Koman is in possession of that manuscript. Jneil (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

COI
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Rainbow Cadenza, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page The Handmaid's Tale do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edits have been brought up for discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 20:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have belatedly signed several of my older comments today.Jneil (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Rainbow Cadenza
I posted a followup on Talk:The Rainbow Cadenza today. Guy Macon 08:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lady Magdalene's. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Alexf(talk) 19:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Vandalism
The article about Lady Magdalene's appears to be under a concerted attack by one or two persons using the pseudonyms User:CasanovaFrankenstein and User:Truthful Additions. The Lady Magdalene's is the only article they have edited. My understanding is that correcting vandalism is not a violation of 3RR. Earlier today I asked for admin help in dealing with this problem, which only resulted in User:Jneil receiving a remarkably rude letter from User:Alexf, also reproduced above. Could an administrator working in good faith and good will please place the Lady Magdalene's article under protection? -- Davidkevin (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Lady Magdalene's. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You are using personal analysis of the reviews to draw a conclusion. Doing so is original research and is not permitted in Wikipedia per WP:NOR. Do not continue to add that material unless you have a reliable source that confirms the claims you are making about the reviews. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll repost here what I posted on the article talk page, restating what I told CassanovaFrankenstein:
 * Involved parties are allowed to do some editing to articles with which they are involved - although Jneil does appear to have crossed the line on what level of editing is permitted under WP:COI, I haven't taken action for three reasons: A) I'm an involved editor now, so my taking action would be a conflict of interest, and B) I feel that to some degree he has been baited by multiple single-purpose-accounts who oddly have had no interest in editing outside this one article, and C) some of his reasoning is legitimate, although he over-compensates by restoring to his version with its extreme positive bias.  Note: I'm not endorsing his actions, he has crossed the line of WP:COI and needs to back off; but in this case, there are extenuating circumstances.

Please read WP:COI, particularly the section How to avoid COI edits. You need to back off on your editing of the article, and pursue legitimate avenues for addressing your concerns as outlined at dispute resolution. Continued edit warring will likely result in a report to WP:COIN or WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lady Magdalene's with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cst17 (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alongside Night with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cst17 (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Lady Magdalene's with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Cst17 (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~ Red Rover  (Talk to me!) contribs  10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article "J. Neil Schulman" is a biographical article on a living person. That living person is me. Wikipedia editors have made it quite clear that my contributions to this article are unwelcome. Wikipedia editors have allowed vandalism of this article by trolls with the intent of maliciously defaming me. The article in its current form is defamatory. Until such a time as Wikipedia publishes an article which in my personal opinion is not defamatory, I am removing all links to Wikipedia and I shall have nothing whatsoever to do with editing it.Jneil (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Favonian (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Favonian beat me to it. I was just posting a message telling you that you were blocked for disruptive editing, including personal attacks, removal of all content from articles, edit warring, attempting to exert control over articles, violation of the policy on neutral point of view, and using Wikipedia for promotion. I am not a lawyer, but I think it is very unlikely indeed that you are in a position to "forbid Wikipedia to use [your] name, [your] image, or any reference to [you] whatsoever". My understanding is that United States law has a pretty wide-ranging concept called "freedom of speech", and that such blanket prohibitions on publications are not supported. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that, since I posted that message, Jneil has edited the comment it referred to, and the statement that Wikipedia is forbidden to make reference to him is no longer there. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this mean he is no longer blocked? (Truthful Additions (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC))
 * No, but the block doesn't cover edits to this talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But does it mean he's only blocked for being litigious and not for all the other offences? Cause I find his constant abuse of Wikipedia as a springboard for his promoting worse than threatening to sue(which I guess was something he said in the heat of the moment and didn't mean it).CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I misunderstood you. I thought you meant "does the fact that he is able to make changes to this page mean he must have been unblocked", but from what you now say I guess you meant "has the removal of the legal threat resulted in an unblock". The short answer to that is "no, he is still blocked". The reason given in the block log for the current block is "Making legal threats: Disruptive editing". I deliberately wrote out the reasons I had intended to give for blocking (above) to make it clear that there were substantial reasons for blocking, not just the legal threat, so that a retraction of the threat would not automatically lead to an immediate unblock. Personally I would not block now if he were to request an unblock, but it would be up to whatever administrator assessed the request. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have another question regarding Jneil. I noticed that he's been promoting himself across various articles on Wikipedia but I don't want to make a personal vendetta of it and go around cleaning up his articles. I noticed he's been in similar COI with editors and made himself look grander(without any citations) in the Agorism-article. But is it really prudent that I take a look on that article as well(to begin with, I know nothing about Agorism, and then I have already been in conflict with Jneil)? At the least, I would like to put the COI-label on it. But I'm new here and not sure how to proceed? Could you take a look at it or is there some notice board for this kind of matter?CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

CassanovaFrankenstein has inserted unsourced and inaccurate information about Life Enhancement Products into the articles "J. Neil Schulman" and "Lady Magdalene's."Jneil (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

CassanovaFrankenstein is the notorious IMDb troll/spammer, Discerning_Taste, as a cursory examination of the IMDb messaage boards for J. Neil Schulman, Lady Magdalene's, and Alongside Night clearly demonstrate.Jneil (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)