User talk:Maziotis/Archive 1

 P ROFILE • T ALK  • L INKS

Welcome
Hello, Maziotis, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dick Clark 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Portals
Hi, just fyi, portals need to be fully constructed before they're added at Portal:List, see more info at Portal. Thanks :) --Quiddity 23:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

V for Vendetta
How exactly is this movie anti-modernist? Gdo01 10:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-primitivism
Regarding the sentence you deleted from the Derrick Jensen entry on 19:16, 6 December 2006, I don't disagree that it is accurate to label Derrick Jensen a primitivist. However, I find it amusing that you assumed I know nothing about primitivism, and based on that removed the sentence. It is amusing because Derrick Jensen wrote the sentence himself. I posted it on his behalf, which you may confirm if you like by emailing him.LC | Talk 00:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How did I assume that? I changed because I thought it need to be change, and i gave my justification on the discussion page. The reason why i suggested those reading were because in fact they regard those themes as part of anarcho-primitivsit theory. Peace.Maziotis 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do believe, however, that Jensen is a brilliant author and writer. If he says that his wrting on misogyny and racism are out of his anarchist interests, than it must be right.Maziotis 00:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:TKaczynski.JPG
Hi, I noticed you tagged Image:TKaczynski.JPG with PD-self. Are you actually the photographer who took that picture? If so, I'd like to move the image to Commons so it can be used by other projects. Thanks! —Angr 14:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's definitely mistagged then. Cropping an image doesn't give you creative rights to it. Could you add the source of the image and an appropriate image copyright tag? —Angr 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. at this point it's probably better to look for a different image whose source you can identify (such a press photograph from the AP or Reuters or the like), and upload that instead. It's unlikely anyone can find or make a freely licensed image of him, so we have to use a fair-use image or none at all, but there are strict rules about fair-use images, including that we have to be able to name the copyright holder. —Angr 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism messages
Thanks for reverting vandalism to Leo Tolstoy. Remember to place one of the vandalism templates from the WP:VAND page onto the talk page of each person who vandalises. This helps to stop them vandalising, or else to provide evidence that vandalism has continued in the midst of vandalism warnings, prompting a message to WP:AIAV and the eventual blocking of a continued offender. Cheers, keep up the good work! Jpeob 01:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Kaczynski
Hello Maziotis! It's alright, I suppose, to disagree with either term I added, but, quite clearly, Kaczynski is a bit more than an average anarchist. I would think that as he is insane, a mass murderer -- if not a serial killer, and a terrorist -- in the tradtional sense of the term mention immediately in the article's header is warranted. How do you suggest this information be added or phrased in order to incorporate it there? 67.101.243.74 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find my impressions on this matter in the discussion section, which is where you should participate and find consensus.

Regarding your position, I must say right away that the category "mass murder" is clearly not suitable, while others might be very controversial. Ted Kaczynski killed three people on separate occasions, which technically leaves him out of that definition.

If you want my opinion regarding your personal message, consider this: Do you believe that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist? Do you believe that he is insane? Well, to wikipedia neither what you believe of Osama, nor Kaczynski, matters. If you go to Osama article you will find that he is labeled as a "militant Islamist". That article has high traffic and it was asserted for some time now that, following the wikipedia’s guidelines, he should not be classified as a serial killer, mass murder or even a terrorist. Now, have you read kaczynski's manifesto and the justifications that he gave to send those bombs? In what way would you consider Kaczynski's actions to be less political in nature than those of Osama bin laden's? So, answering your question, how about "militant anarchist" as for the initial category in the article?Maziotis 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing redeeming about either person; I think, simply, that the basis of their criminality should be made clear as that is undoubtedly the most obvious aspect of both figures when one would look for either's article, which is, after all, the foremost use of an encyclopedia. 67.101.243.74 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Who defines that? Will you change "osama" article according to those (yours) principles? I understand that you might find this way of argument to be a form of absolute relativism and, as such, unacceptable. But these questions I ask are not rhetoric ones. They are honest straightforward questions. I would like to know what would you do to both of these articles, and what is your position to the issue I raise, regarding the applied wikipedia's guidelines in osama's article, in order for you to be consistent.

Personally, I believe that Theodore Kaczynski is a political prisoner. But my political and moral views on this subject are irrelevant, no matter with how many people I share them with, just like yours.Maziotis 13:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read your arguments on the discussion page for the article since writing my reply to you. I find your position on the matter indefensible and ridiculous, but, as you would agree, that is neither here nor there.  With regard to the "Osama" article, according to my principles, which almost certainly correspond directly to the principles of every sound beneficiary of contemporary civilization -or, at the least, the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking peoples for whom this encyclopedia is maintained- it should make immediate mention that he is a terrorist and a mass murderer.  To suggest otherwise goes so far beyond moral relativism as to make the sentiment simply demented.  There is such a thing as a terrorist and there is such a thing as a mass murderer.  If there were not, the terms would not have use.  There is, to-day, no more widely acknowledged example of a terrorist than Osama bin Laden, who is, by consequence of his activities, a mass murderer.  Yet, we digress, as I have not seen that article nor have I, at present, any want to edit the "Osama" article, but only to ensure that the "Kaczynski" article is undistorted and legitimate.  You have asked "who defines that?"  Who defines what?  I suggested nothing that should not be self-evident and I did not put forth some term that is vague or undefined.  A terrorist is one who engages in acts of violence or fear-mongering that resultantly causes terror.  By all accounts, and from what I have read on the discussion page, even his own account, Kaczynski is a terrorist.  It does not matter whether some insensible editor has applied his efforts to remove that language from the "Osama" article or any other article because it is an irrefutable fact that Kaczynski is a terrorist.  One can always engage in word-play and conjecture to affect the removal of a correct and legitimate term, but it is rather a show of incompetence than an act of scholarship.  Also, as Kaczynski has murdered --that is, knowingly and premeditatingly killed-- multiple others, he is a multiple murderer.  I would consider him a serial killer, but again, that would be a personal determination.  The fact of the matter is that he is a multiple-murderer.  If one chooses to split hairs, one can say that "mass murderer" is inappropriate based on number of those killed, but because the term "multiple-murderer" is definitely lesser applied than "mass murderer," the latter would seem more natural in expressing that quality of Kaczynski.  The position you have taken, regardless of my belief that it is indefensible and ridiculous, is to employ semantic concerns to the fact that he is a terrorist and a multiple-murderer, if not a mass murderer.  Those concerns, and the insistence that he not be labeled with those quite correct terms, immediately demonstrates a personal insecurity with your ideology.  That is, is your belief in Kaczynski's ideology authentic or is it simply awe with the terrible crimes he has committed, disguised by exercises in intellectual discourse, such that you must refuse to recognize the fact that his acts were terrorism and murder? 67.101.243.74 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have moved this discussion to Talk:Theodore Kaczynski so that it is accessible to a wider participation. 67.101.243.74 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have never argued that Kaczynski should not be called a murderer or a terrorist, in the beginning of the article. You said that you have read my posts, but in it I discuss, technically, if his profile fits the common use of the term "serial killer". Since this term, as the term "terrorist", are widely identified as controversial in themselves, I do not understand why would you assume with such a clear voice how these terms are applied in an "evident" way. Another person changed the consensus that was reached by the end of that conversion and, from there, other people came and changed it to the way it is now, without a different consensus being made again.

All that talk about civilization values are just your own view on how wikipedia should be use to reaffirm what you perceive as common social values, just like television, radio, and mass media in general, has done in the past. I am not saying that is wrong, I am just looking for the wikipedia guidelines that define clearly that objective, and in what way.

Some people do feel confuse on exactly what constitutes a neutral and factual point of view, and on how further powerful technological tools, as the easily accessible wikipedia, could be promiscuous in the way we have discussed and find time to reflect on our own, in the past. For some people, nothing of this is obvious. I do not find challenged in any way by your comments as to how "ridiculous" and “indefensible" I am.Maziotis 14:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Ted Kaczynski, he did not send bombs to establish a sense of terror in the community, to further his political goals. Or at least, that expression is not "evident". According to his argument, he was trying to eliminate concrete targets, as calling for others to join in the movement, to participate in a revolution against Industrialism. Some people look at this facts and say, like you, that clearly he is a "terrorist", others might say something like "revolutionary".Maziotis 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the last discussion we had reached the conclusion that multiple point of views should be expressed in the article itself. Like the suggestion: "Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an anarcho-primitivist and terrorist who some have called a serial killer who gained notoriety for sending mail bombs to several universities and airlines from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, ultimately killing three people and wounding 29."Maziotis 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How about how it is now, with SqueakBox last change? It states that his campaign was murderous and infamous. Further Classification, such as "terrorist", is perceived by wikipedia as a word to avoid, as SqueakBox made it clear.Maziotis 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unabomber

 * "Suffice to say that Fight Club isn't merely a bloody buddy movie. Uhls' script, based on a novel by Chuck Palahniuk, delves into avenues of Marxist ideology, Fascist motivations, psychological dilemmas and Unabomber answers. If that doesn't make potential viewers squirm, the genially dark humor Fincher injects into the issues may do the trick."
 * "I thought it fell apart when the fight clubs began to metamorphosize into a fascist urban militia and I think its agenda goes a lot deeper. The Unabomber might have written it. The twist is still a cheat."
 * "Soon, Jack is back where he started, and on a flight home from yet another business trip, he encounters Tyler (Brad Pitt), a nutty character reminiscent of The Mad Hatter, William S. Burroughs, and The Unabomber all rolled up into one." (may not meet reliable source criteria)

I have not found any other news articles using Access World News or Google News Archive. This is the best I can do in terms of authoritative sources. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't had much time to work on my project due to school; reception and interpretations are secondary right now. I'm focusing on production and themes as presented by the director and actors.  Take a look here.  It's still a work in progress; I haven't tied everything together in the proper format.  Feel free to find out what I've been learning myself about the film.  Hope it helps you understand the reason why I haven't agreed with you on the anarcho-primitivist theme. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Please don't give out ridiculous vandalism warnings as you did to me. What I did wasn't vandalism: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fight_Club&diff=prev&oldid=118833512 In fact, all you did was readd vandalism (see your edit). Dlong 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I made a mistake, thinking your edit was the add of that sign. Sorry.Maziotis 18:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

more Kaczynski talk
Hey, figured I'd move it over here, hope that's OK. as to Ted being more towards the "individualist" spectrum of anarchism, from the way I've always understood it, even individualists thought (think) that their way of doing things was (is) better for humanity as a whole, not just a "dog eat dog" (as Ted advocates) way of doing things, right? Murderbike 19:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way exactly do you believe that Ted's view of ending institutions and the state is less "altruistic" than does of other individualist anarchists? The fact is that Ted argues how his struggle is in the interest of all of us. It is the struggle for true freedom. This is a message that seeks identity in all of us; otherwise you would think that his manifesto is just some sort of intellectual exercise.

This takes us to other philosophical discussions on what constitutes a true finding of an individual, author in search for what is best for others. It is hard to define “altruism” as it seems to be your issue when you talk about the fact that “even individualists thought (think) that their way of doing things was (is) better for humanity as a whole”. The fact is that he identifies himself as an anarchist ("We are an anarchist group calling ourselves FC.") and his manifesto argues on to why we all should fight against social institutions.


 * I guess to me it seems like Ted's concern is solely for the planet, and not for the better of humans at all. the situation that he describes in the GA interview as preferrable, seems to me no more or less desireable (for humans at least) than the "dog eat dog"ness of capitalism. I must admit that I haven't read the manifesto, only that GA interview, but really, it seems even more relevant since it is more current. he seems to toss aside ideas of equality for "minorities", in favor of a strongest survive ideal, which to me is anathema to anarchism of any stripe. ugh, i don't usually get caught up in what is or isn't anarchism, but this is a totally fascinating subject to me. cheers! Murderbike 20:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that if you read the manifesto you will see what I mean when I say that his struggle is for what he believes to be the true freedom. I don't want to answer this question for him, but I don't see how a man can defend beauty in this world if not trough his own human eyes. I believe that in the struggle for freedom of Ted is implied that it is one of human nature. In his manifesto there is a part in which he says something like "some of us rather die an horrible death than to not have the chance to be truly free." There are many parts of the manifesto where he speaks of the "human indignities" in the industrial society. I really recommend this reading if you find this interesting. Maybe we can talk about this later or about other anarcho-primitivists. :) Maziotis 20:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future


 * yeah, hopefully i'll have time tomorrow to read the manifesto, and get back to ya. I've been pretty into Derrick Jensen lately, after a bunch of years being convinced that organizational anarchism (though not as crazy as Platformist ridiculousness, just not completely anti-civ) could actually save us. i'll get back to ya tomorrow. Murderbike 03:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you like Derrick Jensen, I may suggest you to read John Zerzan, who Jensen has described as “The best anarchist thinker of our time". I don’t know if you are familiar with this author. Have you read the interview he did to Zerzan, called “Enemy of the State”? I think it’s a wonderful sort of F.A.Q. that gives an overall perspective on anarcho-primitivism. http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/enemy.htm Maziotis 13:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't read that interview. I read a couple of articles that Zerzan wrote a few years ago, but I've kind of ignored most anti-civ stuff the last few years. i'll try to find that interview. Murderbike 23:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fake vandalims charges

 * Dont make fake vandalism edits in your edit summary. Such a charge is unacceptable and violates WP:AGF, SqueakBox 18:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how can I assume "good faith" when you are obviously interested in beginning a edit war. Please discuss the changes of the article. I have written my reasons on the discussion section.Maziotis 18:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No I am not, I am trying to edit the article. Your claim that because I want to edit the article I want to edit war is frankly ridiculous. I have edited the iopening a lot and been editing this article for years. So please calm down! and read WP:3RR, SqueakBox 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That rule also apllies to you. And curiously, you have reached the third change first, in what this change is concerned.Maziotis 18:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that cant be so but I am not interested in edit warring. I am interested in an accurate article. If you must re-add anarchist you need to source it or it will be a WP:BLP vio which is not subject to 3RR. Then you'll need to talk opn the talkm page explaining why he is notable to everyone primarily as an anarchist. Merely because some anarchists look up to hiim doesnt make him on and if you read is you'll see he primarily claims to be an anti-technologist and not an ideologist of any sort. I am very happy to discuss him with you but not in an atmosphere where you are wholesale reverting my edits without even even using the talk page, SqueakBox 18:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have used the talk page more than you.

What does make a man to be an anarchist, then? He proclaims to be one and he is refrenced has having original ideas in anarchist ideology. Please see references given in discussion page.Maziotis 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does he proclaim to be one? Not in IS, except for some very ambivalent note at teh end of the text which is hardly notable and includes one false clue (FC) and a recognition that many anarchists wont see his alleged group as anarchist nor can I see any reference to it in his wikipedia article. Because certain anarchists claim he is an anarchist doesnt meet notability nor is it fair to him if he doesnt support that as a living person in a much clearer way. I would say to call him an anarchist is to misunderstand his ideology which is concerned with breaking down technological society not with creating an alternative ideology. His only and explicit ideology was anti-technology, and his crimes reflected this because he targetted technologists not hierarchicalists, SqueakBox 20:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It shows he is not commonly recognized as an anarchist, which he isn’t. I gave you four sources from mainstream media in which he is referenced as an anarchist, and you gave me only one in which he isn't. So I don't understand how you can give this conclusion.

The fact that he focuses with the technological issue is part of his branch of anarchy. He might not talk about attacking people that represent hierarchy in terms of security, but he is still for the destruction of the state and all social institutions. His whole argument, in favor of wild life, deals with this primarily green anarchist critique of the relations of power in authoritarian society. This vision is shared by his particular view of anarchy. Clearly, he is more than just respected in "some circles" as you call it. Please do your research. Please read the references given above. He is an author of the green anarchy movement. Most anarchists don't reference themselves constantly as anarchists. The same applies with any ideology. HE merely explains in his manifesto is ideals for the destruction of the state, on the grounds of how he believes it is built, assuming a definition for his political doctrine in a brief statment.

You judgment of anarchism is not only poor as it is unnecessary. You have no authority to judge if his ideas are anarchist or not. The fact remains that he is both a self-proclaimed anarchist and recognized as one in the media. I believe that pointing out this category, in the beginning article, definitely helps us to understand who he is and what he did. If you have no other factual reasons to contest this category, on what grounds do you deny this possibility? It seems to me that we are also dealing here with a matter of style, in terms of writing an encyclopedic article. I don't see how you should have the final vote on this matter, as I also point out that this issue is highly subjective.Maziotis 00:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think caling him an anti-technologist is the highest compliment we can give him. Please understand I am not anti-Kaczynski (one of the brightest living minds its been my pleasure to come across), and I do know about anarchy (albeit not recently, I am more of a capitalist convert from anarchy), SqueakBox 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC) That shows how POV you are. We are not dealing with insults and compliments here. I am interested in describing the reason for his motives from the start.

Probably you should learn more about green anarchism.Maziotis 00:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Err green anarchism was what I was into, I was always the peaceful type he criticises. Can you please chill out and stop reverting all my edits. Unless you are very on-wikipedia they arent going to last very long anyway and you are much better off negotiating with me instead of calling me POV etc. He was motivated by what he saw as the evils of technology not the evils of hierarchy and it is clear from IS that anti=technology is what motivated him. can you deny that? My issue with you is that you are using this article to promote your own anarchy ideas, SqueakBox 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, I do. I do not accept that criterion. His anti-technology motivation is itself anarchist, the same way as other anarchists deal with social equality from an anarchist point of view. The discussion of who is anti-hierarchical is part of the anarchist philosophy, discussed on all branches, from different points of view. Your analysis, however brilliant it may be, is not called for here. The fact is that he describes himself as an anarchist, as does the media, and his views makes him respected as an anarchist author. I believe that this is very significant in his life. The fact that his ideas in terms of political definition, which he himself as assumed, lead him to make what he did.

Please answer my previous arguments. I have sources and you haven't provide me with a single proof that distinguishes him from any other commonly referred "anarchists".Maziotis

4 sources? I am only aware of one, SqueakBox

Look for them in that section. Since they are links, you can spot it really easy. Maziotis 10:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesnt matter who put it there, to claim without a sourc e that he is an anarcho=primitivist, as you keep doing, is a WP:BLP violation as by restoring this info you are making claims you cannot source. Your ref is neither a secondary source nor more importantly does it sday he is an anarcho-primitivist. Please desiost making claims based on your original research or that of others, SqueakBox 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an edit made on false claims. You cannot acuse me of violating anything. I can only understand and react to the reasons presented for an edit. I am not obliged to guess what they might had been thinking.

It is not original reasearch. Thedore Kaczynski is an author that fights for a stateless primitive society, therefore being aknowledge by anarchists of this branch, and others, as an anarcho-primitivist. Check out for example the first result on a google search for the words "Theodore Kaczynski anarcho-primitivism"

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:ZAifEuN7k0kJ:www.corrupt.org/data/files/unabomber/+theodore+kaczynski+anarcho-primitivist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1


 * You are in viollation of BLP, pleaserer ad that article and see the difference between an addition and a subtraction. You are also pushing your anarchist POV, SqueakBox 23:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain exactly how I am pushing my political POV and you are not pushing yours. Is it because I define myself politically in the same way as the author whose article I wish to edit?Maziotis 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * He hardly defines himself as an anarchist so no it is because you define him as having the same political belief as you. If it were easy to find a good secondary source that he as an anarchist you would have done so, SqueakBox 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And lets face it mainstream sources call him an anti-technologist and not an anarchist, SqueakBox 23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claiming to understand my reasons in not defending my position in a certain way really shows a lack of arguments for a rational debate.

Excuse me, but I don't understand what it means for a person to "hardly" defining himself as anything. Clearly you are taking this personally on another level. How many times does a person have to claim to be an anarchist, in order to be considered one?

I already gave you two top references in the anarcho-primitivist movement (John Zerzan and Kevin Tucker) addressing his anarchist ideals. Do you have an alternative reading of the manifesto? Exactly what is the criterion in terms of writing style and public recognition does one has to have? Are you an authority on the subject?

This is simply absurd. I already tried to explain you how I believe that his whole manifesto is not at all ambiguous in his anarchist orientation. But not only you do not answer that, as you try to overcome top reliable sources in anarchism to defend your position, without any justification.

And lets face it mainstream sources call him an anti-technologist and not an anarchist. Lets face it? I gave you four in which he was clearly described as an anarchist. And what does that prove, anyway?


 * Its not me who needs the referencing, it is our readers. Right now you have made a statement (regardless of whether you inserted it originally) and you havent referenced it so a lot of readers are going to be dubious and may think "wikipedia got it wrong again" because he is known as an anti-technologisty and not an anarchist. As Is aid before even if some claim he is/was an anarchist that doesnt make him so whereas the whole force of his argument is in favour of being anti-technology. Given that every time I include this much more notable info perhaps you could explain why he isnt notable as an anti-technologist, because this is what you appear to be claiming, SqueakBox 00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

and you havent referenced it so a lot of readers are going to be dubious and may think "wikipedia got it wrong again" because he is known as an anti-technologisty and not an anarchist. This is just your POV. The fact is that he is known as an anarchist in the media, as I have already shown you the four media references. On the other hand, I do want to stress out that we are not obliged to reflect the way the mainstream media describes a person. This is an encyclopedic article and I believe that the way a criminal defines himself politically and in justification for his actions is very important to understand who he is. This alone is a justification for how most activists are described in media and encyclopedic sources.

I did not say he is not known as a person that is against technology. I do think that the term "anti-technologist" is not very common. That perspective can always be present in the article.Maziotis 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Peltier and...that band's song laughing about him in jail
Hey there. I noticed you reverted the [|inclusion of a reference to Leonard Peltier] in the song of a band as being "inappropriate." While the placing of the quote and the style of writing aren't up to Wikipedia standards, the reference itself is legitimate, and the band has their own page. I'm not really agitating, as this is the first I've heard of it, but it looks like this is notable. --Edwin Herdman 04:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That is what I thought. But I decided not to move it to the right place and merely deleting it for not following wiki standards. If you want, you can do it yourself. I believe it should be in a "popular cuture" section, with the reference being that the song "mentions" Pletier instead of "makes fun of".Maziotis 11:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Tribalism
I added a new link to the references section - I think it sets out the basic concepts of the "ideology" from a proponent's viewpoint, including what link is seen to evolutionary theory. Check it out. Mjk2357 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any evol. biologists have endorsed neo-Tribalism - at least not to my knowledge. All the articles state is that neo-Tribalists *believe* that E.B. supports their theories. Also, check out the RAND white paper I added - quite interesting if you're into the "cycles of history" stuff. Mjk2357 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

questions
I really am interested in why you support anarcho-primitivism. (This is unrelated to the discussion on the I was looking for a question about a particular issue. You seem to find "confusion" in my explanations...Maziotis 17:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain to me what benefits you feel these societies have?--Urthogie 18:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I find myself very limited to understand the benefits of primitive societies trough the eyes of a modern industrial man. Above all, I feel that our modern world does not have a future and I do not share the values trough which man has described himself within civilization.

There is so much that we could discuss here, but I don't know exactly what you are looking for.Maziotis 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What makes you think tribalism has a future, though? Every tribalistic civilization eventually becomes a kingdom when its population grows long enough.  If anything, tribalism has the smallest future of all, no?--Urthogie 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if we assume that civilization is the cyclic inevitable result of all tribal societies, I must point out to the fact that, from what I have read, my “future” is our reality for most of the time (some say around 95%-99%). In reality, there are many cultures that have not followed this path and I can only guess that this is an anomaly, much in the same way as other species, in some particular point of their history, in a particular geographical point, have grown beyond their balance with their natural resources and found disaster.

Every tribalistic civilization eventually becomes a kingdom when its population grows long enough. There is a circular logic in this assertion. The eventuality of a population growing and adapting to a non-civilized way of existence, in order to fulfill different needs, is the description of civilization itself. I believe that you are wrong about that being the rule, though.Maziotis 23:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please name a civilization which has remained economically and politically tribal after its population grew to the size of a medium sized town.--Urthogie 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely why I said that your logic is circular. My point was that not all tribal societies become civilizations. Now, you generalize the necessity of this development by describing a step of a tribal society that becomes a civilization when you speak about the growth of its population to a medium size. I don’t believe this happens to all hunter-gather societies. Why in fact do some of these tribes go trough these changes has been studied, and, of course, as always, there is a debate with many sides to this issue. You should not dismiss the positions of some authors so lightly. And, again, even if we consider that there is this inevitable cyclic development into a civilization stage, that would not refute as being a very temporarily and undesirable fraction of a moment.

There are in fact many cultures, worldwide, that have not developed into civilizations. Some authors talk about the influence of our own unique corrupted civilization as having influenced changes trough out the world, most of the times violently.Maziotis 10:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How can my logic be circular if I'm merely asking a question? Can you please name a civilization which has remained economically and politically tribal after its population grew to the size of a medium sized town?  If the answers a no, that doesn't mean I'm right you're wrong, it simply means that the discussion can move on without you avoiding this question.--Urthogie 20:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You are asking me to give an example of a person who has remained alive after they have died. That is a strange way to prove that there is no life after dead.

The growth of a community to what we now consider to be a "medium size" is a step in the process of civilization. That tells us nothing about the possibility of a community remaining primitive. The reason why I am saying this and calling your logic circular has to do with the fact that I have made an interpretation concerning the intention of your question that is related to this last issue. I may be wrong, though.

I cannot give you the name of a civilization that has remained economically and politically tribal after its population grew to the size of a medium sized town, since only civilizations that grow to the size of a medium sized town can sustain not being economically and politically tribal. My point was that not all human communities experience this process. Experts give several explanations as to how they can remain in groups of small number of individuals. A part of the argument of this anthropologists that refute the idea that primitive societies are sources of scarcity and brutalization is to dismiss the idea that this is due to high death rate, but for other reasons.Maziotis 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, well thanks for answering that question. My next question is this:


 * How do you propose that the population of the tribe can be kept below the size of a medium sized town inevitably?--Urthogie 02:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not proposing anything, since I have no economical and political plan to apply. I am not mother nature. I am an anarchist; remember? I don't believe in economist theorists that promise wealth as a product of their own thinking. I believe in natural law. I know about all of these arguments about the brutal ways of the primitive world, but, above all, I believe that whatever rules there may be they are appropriate to the values of our nature.

I think that some of the sources that I provided can satisfy you intellectual curiosity, though. Some experts have in fact propose explanations about how population does not grow to the point of being a mass society, without being trough high death rate.Maziotis 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are so long-winded and yet you refuse to answer my question once again. Please answer it, thanks.--Urthogie 13:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When I don't give an answer that you are expecting you just say that I have not answered it...Maziotis 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was expecting an answer that addressed the question, rather than a two paragraph unrelated rant, yes. Please answer the question rather than ranting?  If you can't answer the question just say so.--Urthogie 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am saying that I address the question. If you think that I just rant, than don't talk to me.Maziotis 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your answer was that you can't propose an answer: "I am not proposing anything, since I have no economical and political plan to apply." Correct?--Urthogie 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My answer was that I cannot propose a political and economical solution. ...you really like to try winning debates by using semantics, don't you?Maziotis 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Next question:


 * Why do you hold a political philosophy for which you can offer no coherent political or economic justification or plan?--Urthogie 14:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it that I cannot offer a "political or economic" justification for what I believe? And what exactly do you mean by "plan"? Since I do not take the position of a ruler I am being incoherent with my anarchist political philosophy?! There are political currents that dismiss the rationalization of economic "plans" from its roots, in contrast with several economical developments in opposition. Your idea of "economic plan" is highly subjective. The left versus right has a long history of debate where conservatives value "nature" over rational social solutions, for example.Maziotis 14:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

~ I am not planning any society. You seem to dismiss the fact that I may even holistically accept the hypothesis of high death rates being an exclusive factor for the process by which tribal communities are sustained in low number.Maziotis 15:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By plan I meant some sort of coherent narrative of how your proposed society could exist without becoming the size of a medium sized town. With that definition specified, please answer my question.--Urthogie 14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were planning, I asked for a coherent narrative. Please provide one.--Urthogie 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Or else you won't be convinced of the benefits of the said society? Or else people may be afraid to "step in"? We have very different values, indeed. I have answered your question directly, but you insist in treating me as if I were a politician giving speeches. I do not give coherent narratives on demand.Maziotis 15:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Most people who aren't politicians are able to speak on their views with some sort of coherent narrative. You apparently aren't, presumably because your views are irrational and stating them out loud would be embarrassing.--Urthogie 15:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I do have the habit of talking lengthily about an issue close to my heart when I meet someone interesting to talk to. Someone with a view of their own with which I can have a dispute on a certain matter.Maziotis 15:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a habit of talking a lot and saying nothing concretely. It's a sign that you wouldn't exactly be suited to working in the fields-- you're a man of (too many) words.  Could you please answer my question?  I'm not saying you're a politician, I'm merely asking for a possible narrative of how your idea could ever work.  You don't seem to understand the difference between ruling a society and understanding how one could work.--Urthogie 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I find hard to have a meaningful discourse with someone who does not participate in a debate and is as insulting as you. So, I am also not all that happy with you as a discussing partner. You have this nasty habit of engaging in semantic arguments and making demands for which you have no right. You want to lead the discussion without presenting constructive rebuttals. I can definitely agree with you as to how dry this conversation really is. And your pretension to be able to understand how I am unsuitable for scientific investigation is frankly ridiculous.Maziotis 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * None of my questions have been semantic. They've simply been attempts to get an understanding of your view.  Why do you not want me to understand your political views, and how do you think we could discuss them if you don't elaborate them?--Urthogie 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You realize of course that right now we are not discussing any politics and this is one of those discussions that get us nowhere, don't you? You keep making accusations about what are my real intentions and about what I know and don't know because I am not following your criterion. If you would really want to understand my political views you would show some real honest interest. You strike me as one of those guys that want to win debates by trying to portray the adversary as being weaker. I don't have much respect for that kind of people.Maziotis 21:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Most people give a reason for why they support murderers such as the unabomber.--Urthogie 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I really must say quite honestly that I have no interest in discussing with you. You have no idea about how I support the unabomber to make such superficial remarks. Indeed, I have had discussions about this, including in wikipedia, where I have mutually enriching conversations in which I have explained in what ways I think the Unabomber had a point, with the proper context for my own personal feelings and political beliefs. I seem not to be able to have the oportunity to ever have that with someone like you.Maziotis 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

3rr
WP:3rr, please read it and dont break it in future, SqueakBox 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You have broken it in the past. You should not lecture about what you cannot follow.Maziotis 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly can follow it, watch me, and I am not lecturing I am pointing out, SqueakBox

Me too. And any one of us, most of the times, respect that policy. You would have to be a vandal not to. But the point is that you have not respected at some point in the past. And in fact, there were many times.Maziotis 19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that is so, please provide diffs, SqueakBox 19:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Just randomly choose a page of the last weeks.Maziotis 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a diff, SqueakBox 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)~

This ,for example.Maziotis 20:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that is one revert, and I claim a BLP exemption which I am entitled to do re avoiding 3rr but you arent because I am removing and you are adding, SqueakBox 02:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a third revert within 24 hours.

I have also claimed some justification in every edit. I don't believe that rule says anything about adding and removing. I am the one who is keeping the article as it is and you are the one who wants to change it.Maziotis 09:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the policies then and especially but not only WP:BLP which makes clear there is a huge difference between adding material and taking it away, SqueakBox 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying that. But you have claimed that the 3rr does not apply to you because you were taking material away. There is no policy for which you can base that claim.Maziotis 20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

growing in the forest is pre-agriculture
Study your sources, you'll find this to be true. It's what societies do before agriculture. Secondly, the section is on tribes in general, not just hunter gatherers, so the point is irrelevant anyways.--Urthogie 20:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What does the critique to hierarchical tribes has to do with anarchy? That section is inherently concerned with anarchy, and it starts because of the reference made by some anthropologists concerning those primitive societies that had no state and no rulers. That does not mean that it should not have criticism regarding those societies, though.Maziotis 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:13 b.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:13 b.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
Long time no talk, I just figured I'd drop by and invite you to join the recently created Anarchism Task Force. I'd be stoked to have another anti-civ leaning editor around for balance, if you have the time and motivation. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, one of these days I'd love to get around to cleaning up Anarcho-primitivism, maybe you'd be interested? As well, I think that just a balance of anarcho-perspectives in the project is a good thing. Murderbike (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, I wouldn't mind helping you with your userpage at all, what would you like to have on it? I put my navigation template (which I stole liberated from some other user) on your page. Are there other things I have that you would like? Just let me know and I'll see what I can do. As well, you can just rip the code for any feature right out of my page by hitting "edit this page". Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that little line, I messed around with the code for a bit, and couldn't get it to go away, it's really weird, I don't know what that could be. Sorry I couldn't help. Murderbike (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Userbox
Hi, I see that you have an anarcho-primitivist flag in your userpage. I have created some userboxes on anarcho-primitivism you can find in User:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Userboxes. One of it is present in Userboxes/Politics. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

CrimethInc. ideology
Yo, do you contest the notion that CrimethInc. espouses post-left anarchy or did you just remove it because it didn't have a reference? скоморохъ 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it doesn't have a reference and because, given t~he situation, that demand is critical. Crimithinc defines itself as not having any political platform and we should be careful in pointing out links to ideological influences so as to not let the article be the political forum of some.Maziotis (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems like a well-considered approach, thanks. Do you think, in light of your reasoning here, that we should explicitly attribute the claims of ideology to the sources? I.e. Instead of "Crimethinc is an x y z anarchist group", "Source A calls Crimethinc an X group, while Sources B and C call it a Y group". скоморохъ  18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If such sources can be found, than yes, it is at least legitimate. But I also believe we can maintain the current criterion. They are not mutually exclusive.

I am going to try to add both previous references with a source.Maziotis (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean the ones that are already there. It currently reads "CrimethInc. draws from situationist thought,[14] dadaism[14], anarcho-primitivism[15], as well as post-left anarchy[16]". Should it say e.g. "Joe says it draws from situationism, while This Book detects dadaist influences and Anarchist Organization has classified it as primitivist"? скоморохъ  18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I understood what you meant. The fact is that I don't believe either way is wrong. Please remember that not all sources can provide such a criterion.

What do you think of the way it is now? If there is a problem with any source, I will try to find another.Maziotis (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree that "Your Politics Are Bourgeois As Fuck" and Harbinger are examples of post-left and primitivism respectively, our opinions don't carry any weight as it needs either explicit self-identification or a secondary or tertiary source. I've left them in without sources for now, because I don't think any reasonable editor will contest them. If you can help expand the article in any way, I'd really appreciate it, because I think it's getting close to Good article standard. скоморохъ  13:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Antired.PNG
Thank you for uploading Image:Antired.PNG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Does John Zerzan really uphold "embodiment"?
I saw your comment on Talk:John Zerzan and i have a possible answer to that question John Zerzan could perhaps be called a Transtheist rather than an atheist or a believer in organized religion (and or theism).--Fang 23 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be an interesting approach, but I believe we should avoid referring to him as such in the article, unless we find a source where he claims to identify himself with it.Maziotis (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anarcho-primitivism
Hi, the Population subheading in the criticism section tells "Primitivists assert that humanity has exceeded the limits of its resource base and that consequently the earth is now overpopulated .... Many believe this will be inevitable due to the peak oil crisis." I think a source is needed for this. And the The Anarcho-primitivist critique of language subsection states "Primitivists reject this line of argument, replying that it isn't necessary to destroy ... step outside of it". These two primitivist reply need reference. I am a bit afraid that anti-primitivist propagandists may try to remove these information. I tried to find some sources for this, but they are not readily available. If you find any source for these, add in the article. Cheers.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If I find anything, I will reference it. Although I have to say, I don't know if I can do it soon. Best Regards. Maziotis (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

References for Theodore Kaczynski
Since you are one of the primary editors of the article, if you have references available for the uncited information in the article, feel free to add them. Please keep in mind that only reliable references should be added. Gary King ( talk ) 04:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

To all members of the Anarchist Task Force - about improvement of the AI-Wiki-page
I have just joined the Anarchist Task Force, and I have had some problems with publishing of my Anarchist International Wikipedia page, see my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International for the present version/proposal. This page needs improvements to reach Wiki-consensus, and this should be a somewhat collective project to avoid a "COI"-template. As I am new to editing here on Wikipedia I need help with the page, I hope for your cooperation with this improvement. As an introduction to this cooperation, feel free to read this note on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Quist#Message_to_all_anarchists_on_Wikipedia_-_Anarchy_is_cooperation_without_coercion.2Fdestruction.2Fdeletion_-_about_the_deletion_of_the_AI-Wiki-page_and_cooperation_to_achieve_an_updated_AI-page_with_general_Wiki-consent.

Any contribution, matter of fact criticism, to give input and advice, or even contribute to new sections, will be helpful, and is much appreciated. Please join in the project...

(Anna Quist (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the Correction
I have learned something new. Clearly, you know what you are doing. When I removed the "age 78" from Gary Snyder I assumed that number would need to be changed after each birthday. The code you entered will take care of the problem. I will use that code should I run into the same problem in the future. Terry1944 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC).

Yup, I got that code from someone else myself. Cheers. Maziotis (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Omniarchy article
Your note on omniarchy is nonsensical. It is not research; that text is a description of a form of governance, and fit for an encyclopedia article. The fact that I wrote the source and the wiki article is meaningless. You state that it is not verifiable, yet I provided references. Your contempt for the wiki guidelines is getting old. State a real reason why you removed that article. RipplingBeast (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

See discussion page of the article. Maziotis (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Nathan Cohen
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mark Nathan Cohen, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.plattsburgh.edu/academics/anthropology/faculty/cohen.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I reworded part of the page, and deleted part of his list of books, so as not to violate copyright. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bruno Masse
Heya, I've noticed you've been contributing to articles similar to mine, i.e. related to activist/anarchist people. My article on Bruno Masse is threatened of deletion, could you please vote to keep it? You can vote [| here]. I really need your help, please spread the word! In solidarity! Lkeryl (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning
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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Warning
It appears you are involved in an edit war on 2008 Greek Riots. Please refrain from reverting each other's edits; rather, pursue discussion on the article's talk page. A further violation will result in a block. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Maziotis: I have blocked you for a 24 hours following your fifth revert (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_Greek_riots&diff=259261078&oldid=259249297 here, after: 1, 2, 3, 4) within 24 hours of the same information. Two warnings were given, and the dispute was not resolved on the talk page. This block will expire shortly; please continue discussion on the talk page of the article before engaging in repeated reverts. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, about greek protests, Wikipedia isn't a primary source. The media cover of some anarchists don't become popular protests -that were previus to riots- in the History of an ideological movement. You have to recognize that self-proclaimed anarchists are very few and they aren't the center of the protests if we compare them wiht socialists movements and unions, they should be a lot because of the lot of red flags and public calls, they also think they are very important players. Also there is a bigger number of people that is not represented by anyone, that protest but reject violence. In anyway, it's not necessary for anarchism become in a vanguard, you know, I´m also anarchist :D, and I think that era of vanguards of the people, ideologicals or organizationals, is gone. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that. But we don't need to speak about the Greek riots of 2008 as an anarchist revolution to hold this event as an important moment in the history of anarchism. Please check my latest response in the discussion page, where I adress this issue. Maziotis (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: I don't see how I am using wikipedia as a primary source. It's a straightfoward category, and it looks like everybody is spooked about the idea of the common internet user to stumble upon the article about anarchism. People are ussually very careful in avoiding references to anarchim, in order to stop a bias anarchist agenda, but often fail to see how they can be being biased for a anti-anarchism. Maziotis (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, when you use a cat, you are also giving information to the readers. About influence, I remember in 2006 there were anarchists that support Oaxaca (Mexico) take of city. In Oaxaca there was popular assemblies, there wasn't central governement representation, and there were a lot of leftists organizations behind, but majority of people haven't an ideology or a party (someones of them becomes to semi-apolitical town and peasant associations).

The more mediatical group was a -very- minority of anarchists in Internet, radio and in Oaxaca campus, that support the rebellion (and in some cases denunced what they belived was wrong). But this don't become Oaxaca rebellion in "History of anarchism", it haven't a anarchist program (non anarchist ideas neither anarchists organizations), the principal players in real world were people that -right or wrong, because there were a lot of errors- tried to organized themselves, and leftists organizations haved a better grassroot political structure. Like in Greece protests, what anarchists had is the media influence, but that was the people History of Oaxaca, not of anarchism at all. Remember that Internet make easy to follow current events (I also supported that events by media).

In any case, these events aren't "History of anarchism" -ideology and organizations- but make a footprint in the personal story of someones that identify ourselves with the (A). Also remeber that riots per se are only "spectacle" and don't reveals the reality (that remember me that the title could be changed to "riots and protests in Greece"). --Nihilo 01 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. I don't believe there is an anti-anarchist agenda -Wikipedia is very open with our ideas-. We should recognize that in many times we believe ourselves the center of the world, and we aren't. I learned that when I begin to edit in Wikipedia -in another lenguage- few years ago.


 * I suppose by your words that you aren't so old in this :D (but I could be wrong, like anyone!).

Again, I don't think that this is merely a case of anarchists looking at themselves in light of the recent riots. In the news, experts and journalists are speaking about anarchist groups starting and maintaining the events. In this sense, I do believe that this is different from Oaxaca. The latter being a perfect candidate for an example of an event that can be related to an ideology such as anarchism, but not a cornerstone. Maybe in a few years you will believe I am right.

I am getting the feeling that perhaps you are not getting the same information as me regarding the connection with self-identified anarchist groups, from the beginning of the first newsworthy events. I was following the Greek scene for some months, and I think because of it nothing of this has shocked me.

Perhaps we can continue the discussion in the discussion page, "Anarchism removed", where all can get access to it.

I am not ashamed to say that, even thought I have been into politics for many years, I have only considered myself an anarchist for 3 years. But I don't think that should matter at all. You shouldn't turn this into a cult thing. Maziotis (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In Oaxaca some experts and journalist also spoked about "anarchist influence" or even anarchist event ("Commune of Oaxaca"). But what we know is that real players were the people and a lot of non anarchist organizations. I believe that the title of the article doesn't help a wider undestand what I'm trying to say, it could be "2008 Greece riots and protests" to speak about a more complex situation than visible -but not so representative- riots (remember that Athens have 3,7 millons of persons). Have a good day, I'll be back. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand this obsession with "who has the ideological control on the streets". If this is a big event for the history of anarchism, then it should hold a mark in the category "History of Anarchism". This is not mutually exclusive with other categories such as "History of communism" etc...
 * So, my question regarding Oaxaca is, did Oaxava witnessed a big event in terms of how the world sees anarchism or how anarchists see their future. If so, then I believe people should find the article when they are going trough a "history of anarchism" list. Maziotis (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mmm I not speaking about who have the ideological control of the streets but that is very interpretive use categories in that way -like a primary source. In subjective terms any popular event where anarchists participate is important, I think, but it doesn't make it an anarchist one in objective terms (is better to use categories in a taxonomic order, like A "belongs" to B, etc).--Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what is the "ideological control of the streets". I used that expression in reaction to your argument. I do feel that this A belongs to that B, for the reasons I have exposed. Perhaps you could be more clear on why I am being subjective. I don't think we really need to consider this an "anarchist event" to include it in the category, "history of anarchism". Only, that the anarchism movement played a big, recognizable role, and that the event is important to anarchism itself. Like what I have said in the discussion page, I suppose this is a question of looking to future sources to be included in the article. Either this belongs to the category, or it doesn't. If it does, it is a part of a taxonomic order as anything else. Someone could argue that it is subjective to include this article in the category, "History of Athens", since, even though it's not disputed that it took place in Athens, it is not notable enough for its history. I don't want to sound picky, but that is something that wasn't very clear to me.


 * Also, I would like to understand your reference about the time I have been involved with anarchism. It's hard not to interpret this as an ad hominem attack. Maziotis (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No no, it wasn't about anarchism but about Wikipedia, excuse me if I sound offensive, sorry. Also excuse me because these days I will be in another things. In few words when I say taxonomical, I mean "A belongs to B", not "A relates to B", some anarchists could be (minority) players in this events, but the event don't belong them. Anyway I also believe we need time to see this in a better perspective, and also we might be careful because of reputation of all actors of a current event. Happy holydays! --Nihilo 01 (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Anarchism
Hi. It was probably a mistake to refer to Costho as a fascist. Please consider refactoring your comments in the interests of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right. On the other hand, he does seem to enjoy such type of provocations. I will try to remain cool in the future. Don't worry. I hope we can sort out all of this peacefully in the near future. Cheers. Maziotis (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
The rally that you add to the 2008 Civil unrest in Greece article was done as an act of solidarity to the attack against Kostantina Kouneva a Bulgarian labor worker it was not connected with the unrest caused by the death of Alexis Grigoropoulos. Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph in the source reads: ATHENS (Reuters) - Anarchists threw fire bombs and clashed with Greek police in Athens on Saturday during a march to parliament by more than 1,000 demonstrators protesting over the police killing of a teenager last month.


 * So, either the rally or the anarchist clash is connected to the death of Alexis. It's a reference with a notable source. Maziotis (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * you know it is possible that reuters is mistaken let me research this in Greek media's newsites and i'll get back to you (i just need 5 minutes). Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * there you go :http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=el&u=http://www.enet.gr/online/online_text/c%3D110,dt%3D21.01.2009,id%3D39016828&ei=M0qCSdvDLdWV-gbDorA-&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25CE%25A0%25CE%25BF%25CF%2581%25CE%25B5%25CE%25AF%25CE%25B1%2B%25CE%25B3%25CE%25B9%25CE%25B1%2B%25CF%2584%25CE%25B7%25CE%25BD%2B%25CE%259A%25CE%25BF%25CF%258D%25CE%25BD%25CE%25B5%25CE%25B2%25CE%25B1%2B%25CE%25BA%25CE%25B1%25CE%25B9%2B%25CE%25B3%25CE%25B9%25CE%25B1%2B%25CF%258C%25CE%25BB%25CE%25BF%25CF%2585%25CF%2582%2B%25CE%25BC%25CE%25B1%25CF%2582%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. The clash might still have been about Alexis, but it seems that, at least for now, we don't have any sources for that. Thank you. Maziotis (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * the Eleftherotypia (www.enet.gr) is actually one of the "left leaning" papers in Greece so i'm willing to take their word for it. i.e. they have a "lest" POV and they don't even connect it with the December riots so i think it's safe to say that this does not belong to the article. Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

.
Talk:2008 civil unrest in Greece User talk:Michael IX the White User talk:Sadbuttrue92 --Michael X the White (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary tag
It's probably good planning not to try hard to alienate or annoy your best allies. I'm entirely with you on your wording improvement to the Ward Churchill lead ("some people"). I think we'll be able to work out some reasonable language in the talk page. In fact, I pushed for similar wording in the past, but gave up because there seemed like more important matters to resolve with some pugilistic editors.

Putting on the {POV} tag, however, is disruption, pure and simple. That's is wholly inappropriate for an editing disagreement about a word or two in a long biography. Overall, the article is well balanced (mostly through my exhausting efforts over years). Working out the couple words of the lead is something for normal talk page discussion, and the unnecessary tag just makes the whole thing "go nuclear" and makes cooperation far more difficult. I would very much appreciate if you revert your last edit, and remove the WP:POINT tag. LotLE × talk 21:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That was certainly not my intention. I added the tag because this has been my experience while working in article (latest case with 2008 civil unrest in Greece), where sometimes there is only one term in discussion (Theodore Kaczynski, with the word "anarchist" in the introduction). I really don't see what is the problem with the tag, but I understand your argument. If you or anybody else changes it, I won't revert it. Maziotis (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with tagging the article is that it is far too broad. It might be good if there was a tag like {POV-lead} that was similar to {POV-section}, but AFAIK there is not.  Putting a {POV} on the article as a whole suggests that the entire thing needs a rewrite to respond to the issue, not that one sentence in the lead could be improved.  Doing that just feels like a kind of blackmail against other editors who want to the article to read in a natural (and unobstructed) manner.  If no one else chimes in on talk, I'm just about willing to insert the "some" myself... though I'd be happier if there was at least one more supporter of that change to show consensus.  Trust me, that one word has been edit warred over many years already. The lead is a lot better because of compromises I insisted on than it had been with the anti-Churchill brigades.  LotLE × talk  09:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning
You have violated the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How can I add the information that was already added? Apparently I wasn't the only one to consider such revert a form of vandalism. There was no justification given. Simply, some people figure that there is no right to take down information when there is a proper source to support it. In any case, I think this block is a little bit excessive. I have been given a 3 or 4-day period, not to cool down, but to look at it as if I was some kind of a threat to wikipedia. Obviously, I am not happy with it. Maziotis (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that hard. Make another unblock request, explain that you understand that you violated 3RR, explain in earnest what your next steps are instead of reverting the article again, sound like you mean it, and another admin will most likely unblock you.  See WP:GAB.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't revert the article again. It has already been reverted by some sensible editors. I hope you understood that part. Anyway, to me this should be very clear to anyone that this is a case where a wikipedian (me) acted on a case of vandalism (well judged or not). I don't see where is a case for a "punhisment", when there is not a claim of bad faith. Maziotis (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then make another unblock request. Another admin will review it.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Anarcho-Primitivism
So you think the info I added was valuable? cool, but I'm not adding it any more because I don't see the point if someone else is going to remove it. If you like, you can research the idea and add it yourself, I don't care about the credit, this is hardly a pride thing for me. Nevertheless, I'm happy that you liked my idea, if anything I succeeded in sharing it with someone. All I care is that people learn the evils of this civilization, and that it collapses and you are helping spread the word on wikipedia... keep up the good work. As for me, I will be leaving wikipedia shortly, I don't have time for this. Thankyou and Goodbye. --Ithyphallic Giant (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently drafted a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ethnobotany. proposal for an Ethnobotany WikiProject] ... check out the project proposal for more details. I saw that you are a primitivist, and thought you might be interested. Know anyone else that might want to help out? Tell them to help out too ... big project!

Cheers! Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Death metal
I wholeheartedly apologise if you feel I have been uncivil to you regarding the re-addition of the "brutal death metal" section to the death metal article. This section has been repeatedly removed from the article following an AfD in which consensus was reached that no sources support its existance as a subgenre. If you have new sources that contradict this, feel free to contribute them. However, a Google search is unhelpful. The phrase is clearly in use, but no-one was able to find sources discussing it as a genuine genre... your best bet is commercially-published print sources (see WP:RS). If, in the absence of such sources (talking about brutal death metal as a subgenre, as opposed to just using the phrase), the material will be removed. Its repeated addition without new sources, I'm afraid, does constitute vandalism. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the archive and I did not see any argument supporting the position that this subgenre doesn't exist. The only comments I found were in regard to the article not being notable enough for wikipedia. That doesn't mean that the subgenre is not real and therefore doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the article. I am aware of the problems regarding bias issues on using Google searches on wikipedia. But I find this category too widespread and used as classifications in bands in notable metal internet sources to be dismissed. Encyclopedia metallum is an example. Maziotis (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Metallum is not a reliable source. Can you point me towards a single article that discusses the existence of "brutal death metal" as a subgenre (as opposed to just using "brutal" as a general adjective)? If you can, feel free to include the section. We certainly have such sources for melodic death metal and technical death metal... but none for "brutal death metal". But feel free to go look... I did, but all I could find was the use of "brutal" as a descriptor. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If "melodic death metal" has sources, you should include them in the body of the text. I understand your argument on "brutal" being a descriptor, but I don't see how "melodic" started in any other way. I would appreciate if you could share your sources with me. Sincerely, I don't know many on death metal. I just find it odd to exclude a description that is very definitive in my experience. Clearly, if this has not been pointed out as a genre by some particular sources, it has been at least largely used as one. http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22brutal+death+metal%22%2C+%22melodic+death+metal%22&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 Maziotis (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: I am now checking the sources on "melodic death metal" article. I am guessing that you meant those. Maziotis (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PS2: I would like to know what criteria did you use to determine sources such as "The Metal Crypt" to be a reliable. Maziotis (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you will find one term to be more established as a subgenre than the other. It depends on what death metal circles you hang and search. Clearly they are both descriptions of branches in death metal. I tried to look for published sources and the results came about the same http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22melodic+death+metal%22 ; http://books.google.com/books?q=%22brutal+death+metal%22&lr=&sa=N&start=0 Maziotis (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the only book referenced as a source in the "melodic death metal" article, mentions both the "melodic death metal" and the "brutal death metal". This seems to be the only real wp:reliable source Maziotis (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, just been over to the melodic death metal page and removed the inappropriate sources (my comment regarding appropriate sourcing for that article I believe came from a comment by Bardin in one or other AfD discussions; I shall check with him); I agree it's appallingly sourced. If you feel like taking it to AfD, feel free; I shall look for better sources. Regarding some of your other comments: the Google trends link is not exactly meaningless but has no weight regarding the existence of these two as definitive subgenres; as has been commented elsewhere, we don't have a page for Satanic metal, although according to Google the phrase is clearly in use. Brutal death metal was deleted at AfD not for notability reasons but because not a single source was provided to demonstrate that it exists (WP:V rather than WP:N); whilst I'm taking on board your concerns re: melodeath, that is still a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The "brutal death metal" section will continue to be deleted unless sources are found. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, Ekeroth, Daniel (2008). Swedish Death Metal. Bazillion Points Books. Maziotis (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Words such as melodic, brutal, satanic, epic, awesome and great are all adjectives. People use adjectives to describe things. The difference between melodic death metal and brutal death metal is that there are reliable sources that explictly identify melodic death metal as a legitimate subgenre, not merely a description of some death metal music. For instance, this recent article on the Sydney Morning Herald, a mainstream news publication, states that "death metal has its own sub-genres - technical death metal, melodic death metal, blackened death metal, deathgrind and deathcore." One would think that if brutal death metal is indeed a legitimate subgenre, it would have been mentioned in the same line. An interviewee in that article even states that "death metal is brutal", which would make the concept of a brutal death metal subgenre rather redundant. I have not been able to find any reliable source that explicitly recognizes brutal death metal as a subgenre. I have only been able to find any reliable sources that use the term brutal as a description, just like other adjectives such as satanic, epic, awesome and great. If you know of any reliable source that explicitly recognizes brutal death metal as a legitimate subgenre, please enlighten the rest of us at Talk:Death metal instead of edit warring. --Bardin (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I already addressed those arguments. Please read this section. Maziotis (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Considering the source and the list, I wouldn't be surprise if it were copied from wikipedia itself. See the problem in your argument? Since this is not an authority on death metal, and the list doesn't pretend to be exhaustive either, the question is: Is there a notable source that makes reference to "brutal death metal" as a subgenre? Maziotis (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And what exactly does Daniel Ekeroth's Swedish Death Metal book says about brutal death metal? --Bardin (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And what exactly does Daniel Ekeroth's Swedish Death Metal says about "melodic death metal"? The point is not just that I was able to found one published source that recognizes "brutal death metal" as a genre, but that I have systematically shown that "brutal death metal" is as widespread, established and supported under wp:rs as melodic or any other subgenre. For the moment, we don't have any sources in the body of the text for either of the genres. Both terms are popular and in use as genre classifications on several magazines, and there aren't many sources on book form. I used amazon's SIP for both terms.
 * As for the apparent contradiction on the mainstream article, I have to say that, unless you are willing to violate wp:original research, you cannot synthesize sources to exclude brutal death metal genre by claiming that the term "brutal" was used as a description, assuming for a moment this was a notable source that is an authority on musical genres. That is just your own reasoning and I don't see how it stands to any logic. Obviously, death metal can be described as relatively more "brutal" than most genres. This doesn't mean that within death metal genre there isn’t a solidified subgenre dubbed "brutal”, and it certainly doesn't constitute any contradiction. I wonder if "hard rock" went trough the same in the 80s or something. Maziotis (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to be less argumentative and more cooperative here. I have no idea what Ekeroth's book says about anything but I wasn't the one that cited it for anything. You've said here that you have been able to find one published source that recognizes brutal death metal as a genre but you have yet to tell anyone what exactly this one published source says with regards to that recognition. If you are certain that brutal death metal is used as a genre classification by several magazines, surely you can provide us with the details as to which magazines, which issue, which author and which subject, let alone how the words are actually being used. Brutal death metal is a common phrase. So too is epic metal or satanic metal. It does not necessarily mean that any of these are legitimate subgenres since it is entirely possible that the terms are being used as mere descriptions. Melodic death metal is a description too but there are sources that clearly identify it as a subgenre. All you have to do here is to provide such sources for brutal death metal too. Stop treating this as some kind of battle you have to win. I'm not your enemy here. I made a similar line of enquiry with regards to pagan metal and when I found sources identifying it as a legitimate genre, I rewrote the article on the subject. If you can provide me with the necessary sources, I will do the same for brutal death metal. Incidentally, that article on the Sydney Morning Herald was published in March when there was still an article on brutal death metal on wikipedia so if the journalist was ripping off wikipedia, brutal death metal would have been mentioned. --Bardin (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, I don't understand from where are you getting this negative vibe. Brutal Death Metal is not a personal cause of mine, and I am trying to just be cooperative in writing an encyclopedia.
 * You didn't cite Ekeroth's book, and I didn't do it either. I merely point out that the book is the only real reference on "melodic death metal" article, and it seems to stand as much for brutal death metal as for melo, since there are no references within the text. My SIB search in amazon seems to indicate that they are both referenced as genres, unless the author is constantly referring to that very "melodic death metal" band or that very "brutal death metal" band. It would be great if one of us had the actual book, though.
 * The magazine sources were given in a previous post, in this very section. Please look at it again. That was what I was referring too. I hope that with this you can look at my points in a different light, and not judge my posts as argumentative. I can honestly say that I am participating in this discussion in good faith.
 * PS: I suppose this would be an example. Clearly, in this context the reference concerns elements of musical styles. I don't think that this can be found any more dubious in terms of being a description than the examples you have shown me - Around the same time, new bands began combining elements of metalcore [...] and hardcore with brutal death metal Maziotis (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done a certain amount of digging. Things that do at least seem to regard "brutal death metal" as something distinct from just plain ol' "death metal"... MusicMight. A reliable source owing to having its content published by a third party source (Cherry Red), occasionally categorises bands as "burtal death metal" as well as "death metal" (see, , etc.). Downside: this is all trivial mention as MusicMight doesn't discuss "brutal death metal" as a genre. Kahn-Harris' Extreme Metal (another reliable source) contains the line "In using the band Dying Fetus and the subgenre of Scandinavian brutal death metal as musical reference points..." on p.129 , which again suggests some legitimacy to the POV that "brutal death metal" (or its Scandinavian variant) may exist as a separate subgenre, but again is a trivial mention. I couldn't find anything that describes it as a genre unfortunately; anything beyond saying "it is considered to exist" or "it is death metal some journalists have described as 'brutal'", we can't add anything to the article that isn't OR. This is in marked contrast to, say, melodic death metal, which gets a full two pages devoted to it in Terrorizer (#149, pp.44-45, exclusively on the Gothenburg sound; article by Paul Schwarz). There is simply no such equivalent coverage for "brutal death metal" to be found. I agree the melodeath page is a mess and desperately needs sourcing however. On the other hand, finding sources for it shouldn't be that tricky (the Terrorizer article alone can be extensively mined). Also: it would be handy to get a copy of the Ekeroff book :-) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maziotis, you wrote in an edit summary that brutal death metal is "covered by the" Ekeroth book. In another edit summary, you asked another editor whether he has read the book and furthermore state that "this source is as good for "melodic death metal" as for "brutal death metal"." Now it is clear that you have not actually read the book yourself so you have really no way of knowing how good the source is for either melodic death metal or brutal death metal. The fact that it is mentioned on the melodic death metal article is quite irrelevant. Just because it is there, it does not necessarily follow that it should be there. I can easily remove it. The article on melodic death metal might be in a poor shape but so too are many other articles on wikipedia. Just because there are no other sources mentioned in the article at present, it does not follow that there aren't any sources at all. I've already provided one from Sydney Morning Herald and Blackmetalbaz has provided another from Terrorizer. We just need someone who has the time to help improve the article to incorporate these and other sources. None of this really has anything to do with brutal death metal. The magazine article that you have provided does not indicate that brutal death metal is a genre. It uses an adjective in front of the term death metal. In the same paragraph, the article even uses another adjective, namely "old school death metal". There are many other adjectives that one can find in front of death metal: for instance, this review on Allmusic uses the term "powerful death metal". What separates melodic death metal from "powerful death metal" or "old school death metal" is that we have sources like the Sydney Morning Herald article that explicitly and literally says that it is a subgenre of death metal. If we can find a reliable source that explicitly and literally says that "powerful death metal" or "old school death metal" is a subgenre of death metal, we would recognize those stuff too on wikipedia. Likewise with "brutal death metal." It so happens that "old school death metal" has twice the number of google hits than "brutal death metal" so as an adjective, old school is apparently more commonly used than brutal when it comes to death metal music. Just to let you know, I am currently very busy in my professional life right now so I might not have the time to pursue this discussion much further. --Bardin (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your point about finding other sources for the "melodic death metal" article doesn´t change the fact that if we have just one book that supports the description of two subjects, then it makes no sense to drop one as usupported while claiming that you have kept the other because of that one source. That was just what I was trying to point out. I never said that you can't find other sources on "melodic death metal", or that "melodic death metal" has the same sources that "brutal death metal".
 * I still believe that this book supports both subgenres, namely "brutal death metal", for the reasons I explained in my last post. It just doesn't make sense that these terms are repeated so many times without being in a context of a description that describes a music style. The fact is that I don't see any citation, or reference to any page, in support of "melodic death metal". So, the issue for me here would never be about claiming to also have the inside citation for brutal genre.
 * I would appreciate if you drop the whole adjective argument. I think that is something we all have understood from the start. I addressed that issue in the beginning of the discussion, and I believe that I am trying to find references of the term that are clearly used as a subgenre. I believe that originally both "brutal" and "melodic" have a descriptor quality to it. Maziotis (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: As for the example in the magazine that I gave, clearly "oldschool death metal" is not used in same context as "brutal death metal". I explained why I believe this term was in used as a musical style, and even though I may be wrong in this interpretation, you cannot compare it with the other one. Also, this is all pointless as Blackmetalbaz gave some better examples where "brutal death metal" is unquestionably used as a genre category, in a what you might find as a more notable source (I had already shown that this was widespread in use, with Encyclopedia Metallum being an example). So, the issue here would be about finding a source that describes this subgenre or the need to finding such source. Maziotis (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither you nor I have read the Ekeroth book yet you keep bringing it up. Nobody has ever claimed that melodic death metal is kept on wikipedia because of the Ekeroth book so I have no idea where you got that idea from. As to what you believe this book supports, it is quite a struggle to simply accept your belief given that you have yet to read the book yourself. What do you want us to do here, roll over and say, gee okay, since that's what you believe ...? I'm not trying to argue with you so asking me to drop an argument is rather annoying. All I'm trying to do is help explain things but if you can't be bothered and rather return to edit warring in hopes that you will get blocked from editing on wikipedia for a third time, then go ahead. I'm through with this discussion. --Bardin (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am mentioning the book because you have asked me about it. Again, I didn't claim that this book was the only source for melodic death metal, or that this book shows that in terms of sources we have the same support for both genres. This was all explained in my last post. I think it's good that you want to explain things. I am trying to explain things too. Namely, that we have a consensus here about the difference between describing a musical genre and naming a genre. I think I was very clear on why I believe I have found good evidence on the use of "brutal death metal" as a musical genre, namely in the said book, and you can accept, dismiss, refute, or laugh. I am not asking for you to roll and say gee for anything. Maziotis (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I believe I was blocked one time for edit warring with another user, and in another case I believe it was mishandled by an administrator in a case of good faith vandalism revert. Maziotis (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Death metal. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Check the diff. I didn't revert, but add a different portion of the text. Maziotis (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked all of the various diffs. Removing a solitary sentence from the end of the section does not excuse you from violating WP:3RR. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I took it out to better conform with the sources. And you have violated the wp:3RR rule yourself. I'm not even sure if I am going to archive this. Maziotis (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was pretty much done with this discussion, but am unwilling to allow that to go uncalled... please link to a situation where I have contravened WP:3RR; it is fairly obvious that I have not. I deliberately stopped at three reverts with the comment "I am not going to edit-war". You then proceeded to revert three more times; contrary to your belief that deleted one sentence from a paragraph during a revert constitutes a means of getting round WP:3RR, it does not. If you are going to cite policy, please do so accurately. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please calm down. There is no point in making threats. If you are willing or unwilling to press on an issue is a matter of your own consciousness. I am not going to back down on what I believe, just because someone is angry or I might have made a mistake. I believe you have violated 3RR here. This was your third revert. And I still believe that my latter change was fundamentally different, and not a question of trying to beat the policy with a technicality, which I obviously understand as being a violation. Maziotis (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: After some reflection, I have to admit that the difference on those two edits that I made didn't actually concern the issue at hand. In that sense, I would accept to be in violation of 3RR, and apologize for this trouble. I still believe that you violated the policy also, and that you shouldn't send policy warnings like this talk section, under these circumstances. Maziotis (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey there again. I'm not getting angry here, just wanting to sort things out reasonably. I do believe you contravened 3RR (and am pleased you acknowledge this; I wasn't making threats and have not reported you). I do want to state for the record though that I have not; if you can point out my fourth revert on this page (that I would need to have done to break 3RR), please post a link to the diff here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As you may have already acknowledged from my last post, I have considered your third revert as violating the 3RR, hence the diff provided being linked to that one. I now understand that you only violate this policy on the 4th revert, which would mean that according to the rule you haven't engaged in edit warring. I apologize for my mistake. Maziotis (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)