User talk:Nikodemos

About AEQ
I think your analysis of article quality sounds quite reasonable (for articles on a topic without the possibility of new developments, that is), and it would be interesting to see it backed up with some research. If we assume that this hypothesis is correct, though, it is still possible for the kind of protection you discuss to have a negative impact on the whole of the encyclopedia, even though it would be best for any given article. One thing that could have that effect is if the edit rate of unprotected articles and/or article creation rate slows down (or doesn't accelerate as fast as now) when the rate of protected articles goes up. That might sound a bit strange, but I think this hypothesis can be justified: Wikipedia grows as fast as it does because we get an influx of new editors proportional to the number of readers we have. A percentage of our readers also help out by editing our articles. This is consistent with the exponential increase in articles we have seen for the last few years. However: By increasing the percentage of protected articles, more readers will experience not being able to improve the article they want, and this will probably discourage them from editing. Thus, raising the percentage of protected articles could reduce the percentage of readers who become editors, effectively increasing the doubling time of Wikipedia's growth. Effectively, the > AEQ articles are protected at the < AEQ articles' expense. What do you think about this hypothesis? Amaurea 23:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Salut! vreau sa te propun admin. Ai dori? -- Bonaparte  talk  08:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the negative effects I described depend on the number of protected articles, or more precisely, the visibility of the protected articles, that is: the ratio of articles an average user sees that are protected. As long as it is unlikely to encounter a protected article, like it is now, this isn't anything to worry about. On the other hand: If only a tiny minority of articles are going to be protected in this way, the relative benefit of this policy would also be tiny. It seems to me, then, to be unlikely that this policy would only be used for 1 article a day, like you suggested. It is true that only one article is featured every day (though more articles can get featured article status per day than that, they are just not displayed more than one at a time), but with exponential growth of the Wikipedia, we must also expect the number of fleshed-out good quality articles to increase in the same way, and probably to make out a fixed ratio of the total number of articles. These articles, then, would be the ones it would be logical to apply this policy too. It is, after all, being proposed to protect "finished" articles. To summarize: I do not think the ratio of protected articles will fall off, but rather (after this has had time to get going) stay at a fixed level, and that the articles that end up protected will be some of the most visible articles, making the effect even greater. (I also believe that none of our articles should be considered finished, since we are tracking a moving target, but that is beside the point for this argument). Amaurea 12:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Who would judge the "quality"? Some elitist board? I recommend you read "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill --he explains the value of interminable controversy. If you want something that's permanent, write a book. A closed article is for closed minds. RJII 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not have a regonised expert to review the quality of an article? It does not have to be some elite board. An archived quality article that has passed an elite review does not prevent further editing, does it? If wikipedia does not care what the elite think, why the big rush to change the errors in Wikipedia that nature magazine highlighted? David D. (Talk) 02:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. Jimbo Wales is very "anti-credentialist." Wikipedia is about decentralization and individualism, with as little centralized authority as is necessary to maintain law and order. RJII 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, wikipedia is all about centralization. We are centralizing the internet. Before wikipedia, if someone wanted to read about X, he would do a Google search for X and come up with a bunch of more or less related webpages. He would then have to read a number of them to get the information he was looking for (and, as the case may be, get a glimpse of the various different POV's). Now, thanks to wikipedia, less people read a multitude of webpages and more people read a single article - the wiki article about X. That's centralization. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's centralization of information. You should have known I was talking about decentralization of power. There is no elitist board that decrees an article as good or bad and then forbids anyone from editing it. Judgement of good or bad is left to each individual. What you're suggesting is the anti-thesis of the philosophy behind the creation of Wikipedia. If you want to build you own little fascist internet nation where an elite group determines good or bad for everyone, feel free to, but Wikipedia is not the place. RJII 01:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The primary goal of wikipedia, overriding all others, is to build a good encyclopedia. If dogmatic adherence to some mystical "Wiki Way" fails to achieve that goal, then we need to revise the Wiki Way. So far, the Wiki Way has worked pretty well, but there is room for improvement. Of course, I wouldn't expect an ideologue like yourself to understand pragmatism. And I find it very amusing how you imply that every other encyclopedia ever made is "fascist". -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He may be anti credentialist but there are plenty of people in wikipedia with credentials. You could have fooled me with the "as little centralized authority as is necessary". Have you seen how much effort is put into RfC and Arb com, AfD and RfA?  It's a complete beaurocracy just wasting editors time. And why is that required?  Because any individual can write anything they want. So, in fact, letting anyone edit actually creates more beaurocracy. David D. (Talk) 02:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Article quality is already judged when making the decision to promote articles to featured status. As for Mill's notion that continual and unrestricted public debate will favor the truth, it is ridiculous and laughable. Continual and unrestricted public debate does not promote ideas that are true; it promotes ideas that have the largest and most dedicated team of propagandists advocating them. Wikipedia greatly suffers because of this. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 02:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All I can say is, I'm glad that you'll probably never head a real life government. I can see it now ..all published material would be subject to a "board of quality" and no books could be revised until the "experts" OK'd it (See fascism). But, if you want that kind of a thing start your own website --what you propose will never happen on Wikipedia, as it's essentially contrary to what Wikipedia is about. RJII 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All published material is already subject to various boards of quality composed of experts - see peer review. This doesn't mean that you can't publish anything if the experts don't OK it; it means your claims won't be taken seriously unless the experts OK them. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about a government??? this is an encylopedia. I've also noticed this loudest voice/biggest bully wins in wikipedia. Of course if wikipedia wants to remain the second choice to credible text books I suppose we could go with Mill's view. I also might pont out that a real thinker can always be critical of a book. To say that "A closed article is for closed minds." makes no sense at all. 02:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)David D. (Talk)

I happened to read this year-old discussion today. Nikodemos, has your opinion changed after having to deal with some so-called experts on certain wikipedia pages? I think you know who I am talking about. :) I don't think I have ever seen an article that is "finished" or that couldn't be improved. I thoroughly understand the frustration, though, that you express in this discussion. What I like is when admins RAPIDLY use semi-protection for awhile on disputed articles to stop the vandalizing by anonymous readers. That seems to solve most problems. I also like it when admins RAPIDLY intervene in edit wars. The problem is when they drag on without resolution because of one editor refusing to follow wikipedia guidelines. I wish admins would step in early and point out the appropriate wikipedia rule to the offending editor. This would solve many problems quick. People could still appeal the admin's decision, but they wouldn't be able to delay everybody else in the meantime. --Timeshifter 16:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that a simple comment by an admin on the article talk page would solve most problems. I don't mean a final decision by the admin. This way people can ask questions right away of the admin. The current method of dispute resolution can take forever. It usually involves editors quoting from this and that wiki guideline for days or weeks until they finally find the appropriate ones. Or people just walk away from a page and stop editing it altogether. Some pages are still orphaned because the dispute was never resolved. Admins could cut the dispute process down to a few minutes since they are much more familiar with the wikipedia guidelines. They can quote the appropriate guidelines, and oftentimes can go directly to the most relevant parts of the guidelines. --Timeshifter 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Socialism and sexual orientation
I notice you have put an NPOV tag on this article. I agree it would benefit from work - there has been a recent discussion on its talk page; I wondered if you could highlight the particular problems you see with it. Thanks, Warofdreams talk 00:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia on the soviet university system
Thanks for cutting that stuff from the ML page. I was mistaken to have added it. --DuncanBCS 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comments on Stable versions
I found this to be very interesting and well thought out! I think you've hit the nail on the head with regards to how quality improves over time, though I don't agree with locking articles down. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I too found this interesting. Another variation is to lock down a copy of an article when it peaks but allow the main article to be edited. A link on the main article could highlight the locked down version for readers. The reason for maintaining a live version is that new information could be added even as the quality erodes but the later, inevitable, peak could be an even higher quality. If that point is reached it may replace the locked down copy if there is a consensus that it is no longer the better version. David D. (Talk) 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good suggestion. I think (hope?) that the community is arriving at some sort of consensus around the idea that high-quality articles should have both a live ("dynamic") version and a snapshot ("stable") version. The live one should probably be on top, with a large banner linking to the most recent stable version. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 02:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please cease your reverts of my edits, particularly at List of political epithets. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please cease your groundless allegations of vandalism. My moderate edits made in good faith to correct obvious pov are not vandalism. WOOKIEwantMEDAL 20:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * State your objections on Talk pages before reverting. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberalism
Please see my question at Talk:Classical_liberalism. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that it is sometimes irrational to vote! Just thought you should know. (Gibby 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Chair
Notice the article's reliance on words like "sometimes" and "commonly". --Christofurio 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Altruism
Thank you very much for your answers on Talk:Altruism. I largely agree, but since I have a deadline to meet, I can't provide a detailed answer at the moment. I'll continue next week. --DenisDiderot 01:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Communism
that had to be one of the lamest excuses for deletion I have seen. NPOV does not mean we have to give EVERY estimation of death. That is the most unreasonable excuse! 2 have been provided with a range of 95 million to 144 million. I'll find the high end if you'd like...and yes there are higher estimates...I'm assuming you don't want any of it on the page so just quit while your ahead at only 144 million dead thanks to communist prefrences. (Gibby 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

From that webpage you keep posting everywhere:


 * 1) Rudolph J. Rummel, Death By Government

* "Democides" - Government inflicted deaths (1900-87) o 169,198,000 o Including: + Communist Oppression: 110,286,000 + Democratic democides: 2,028,000 * Not included among democides: o Wars: 34,021,000 o Non-Democidal Famine (often including famines associated with war and communist mismanagement): + China (1900-87): 49,275,000 + Russia: (1921-47): 5,833,000 * Total: o 258,327,000 for all the categories listed here.


 * 1) Me (Matthew White, Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century, 2001):

* Deaths by War and Oppression: o Genocide and Tyranny: + 83,000,000         o Military Deaths in War: + 42,000,000         o Civilian Deaths in War: + 19,000,000         o Man-made Famine: + 44,000,000         o TOTAL: + 188,000,000   * FAQ: How did you get these totals? * (Note: It's commonly said that more civilians than soldiers die in war, but you may notice that my numbers don't seem to agree with that. Before you jump to any conclusions, however, remember that most civilian deaths in war are intentional, and therefore fall into the "genocide and tyranny" category. Many others are the result of starvation.) * My estimate for the Communist share of the century's unpleasantness: o Genocide & Tyranny: 44M + (incl. intentional famine) o Man-made Famine: 37M + (excl. intentional famine) o Communist-inspired War (for example the Russian Civil War, Vietnam, Korea, etc.) + Military: 5M + Civilian: 6M + NOTE: With these numbers, I'm tallying every combat death and accidental civilian death in the war, without differentiating who died, who did it or who started it. According to whichever theory of Just War you are working from, the Communists may be entirely blameless, or entirely to blame, for these 11M dead. o TOTAL: 92M deaths by Communism. o RESIDUE: 96M deaths by non-Communism.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... (Gibby 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Yes, as I explained, the page lists all the different estimates of death tolls, including the ones you cited above but also including many others. The lower estimates put the total number of victims of "communism" at less than 30 million. In the article, we should either provide a fair selection of estimates or none at all. Since you rejected the latter option, I'll get to work on the former. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That is the dumbest statement ever. If everything can't be in nothing will be? Give me a break. First of all that guys personal scholarship states 92million by communists. I said, go ahead and add other cited numbers for the death toll. To date you have added nothing. If you dont want to include other figures, dont delete the section. Live with it. (Gibby 03:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.html#Stalin take a look again, he says Stalin's regime was responsible for 20 million deaths that is about 17 million more than you said when you sent me this link. (Gibby 06:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

Left-Libertarianism
I posted a comment on the talk page of the Left-Libertarianism article. Could you read it/comment on it in the next day or two? Thank you. Bloodsorr0w 04:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And again? Bloodsorr0w 23:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you ever going to reply? Bloodsorr0w 21:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Need your help with List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945
Hello, I noticed that you have made some contributions to List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945, since your contributions, there has been over 5 pages of deletions by apologists. Your additions were probably deleted too. I listed most of  the 5 pages of deletions here, in the entry on the talk page, "The memory hole". This page has been vandilized so much, I can't possibly do this alone. I was hoping that you, and others who contributed can help rebuild the page, adding back the information that has been deleted, but this time citing the information that you put back to avoid future apologist's attacks. Thanks in advance for your time.Travb 06:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you for telling me who lurked behind Nikodemos. What's up? I have been involved with a pointless quarrell with DreamGUy, so I haven't caught up with everything. Septentrionalis 01:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Email
I changed my preferences, so you should be able to contact me, now. Go right ahead. --AaronS 15:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I get a lot of spam, and I wasn't expecting your email, so I might have accidentally deleted it. Please send it again with the subject line "WIKIPEDIA: DON'T DELETE". Thanks, and sorry! --AaronS 04:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Got it a while ago. Been swamped. Thanks! How should I reply? --AaronS 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

User:RJII
I've run across RJII when editing the article Capitalism. A libertarian, he has repeatedly attempted to place fringe views prominently into the article, in violation of WP:NPOV. I looked over some of his other "contributions", and noticed that you've also run into his intransigence. I was especially concerned with this edit: which shows blatant bad faith. I have serious concerns about RJII's repeated violation of basic Wikipedia policies like WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Apparently, another editor (User:Firebug) has a request for arbitration currently active on him, but that individual is no longer on Wikipedia and it may be dismissed! This is the second RfAr against RJII (the first one was brought by User:Slrubenstein). The first RfAr was also dismissed by the overworked arbitrators on what I think are insubstantial grounds (blatant POV-pushing was characterized as a "content dispute"). I'm amazed that nothing has been done yet about such a blatant bad faith user. If the existing RfAr does indeed fall apart, would you be willing to assist me in the dispute resolution process? This nonsense cannot be allowed to continue. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Settle down. It's not the end of the world. RJII 05:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see it's not just me. I've been having trouble with RJII on the Anarchism talk page. The Ungovernable Force 06:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tags
Nikodemos, I read the complaints about this article, the complaints are all about comparing fascism to the new deal. Thus a tag, which I put there, is more approrpriate than the entire article. Delete that tag please. And if you want it on the entire article, try making an excuse for it by giving specifics...stop being a lazy angry bum.(Gibby 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Criticisms of Communism
Regarding your request that I hold off any major edits until I see my rewrite, my answer is an emphatic yes! I haven't been looking forward to that daunting workload. I'm confident that you will do an excellent job. Thanks so much! I'll keep track of the article. In the meantime, let me know when I can be of any additional assistance. 172 23:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

AEQH
Nice work on the User:Nikodemos, I really liked it, and I agree its a very important point, cogently displayed, and worth discussing, if not now then soon.Herostratus 06:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * One chief question on proposals like this is: what can go wrong? And we both should know. All the Ultramarines of the world will demand it for their "complete and correct" articles (at least those, and there will always be some, where no one is actively resisting them, this week). Septentrionalis 19:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as soon as they nominate their articles, they will open them to scrutiny by a large number of other editors, who are very likely to notice the bias. The requirements for an article to be protected should be very high, and the NPOV rules should be stricter than the current NPOV policy we use for "normal" articles. For example, if a candidate article covers a controversial issue, it should be required to present a roughly equal number of views from all sides of the controversy, with none of that Ultramarine-ish nonsense about refuting every argument you don't like and leaving alone the ones you do like. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 11:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the selection process will have to be better than the present WP:FAC, which displays a magpie-like attraction to pretty articles written to prove a thesis. The Good Articles people seem to have some of the same flaws. Not saying this can't be done; but it will require very skillful mechanisms. Septentrionalis 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I read your hypothesis. It is nice to read and it seems OK in the short term but it misses two points: (a) There is a third axis somewhere in your graph. Since the environment changes, wikipedia allows a shift in the articles to follow the environment, which is a good thing. (b) Wikipedia is not a usual authoritative encyclopedia, nor should it be treated as such. It is different because it is alive, because the user can interact with its content. Do not think of freezing it. Do not expect more than it can offer. It may not be as accurate as your usual encyclopedia (even if it is, most of the times) but it is FUN. There is no such thing as frozen fun.--FocalPoint 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Economics of fascism
I think I have a fix for the New Deal portion of this article, but I can't impose it alone. Please see my last edit; RJII has added an unsupported, although possibly defensible, sentence since. Septentrionalis 04:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * oh, I assume good faith: Both of them have read the literature of their faith, and know it well. They just don't know anything else. (A problem not unknown among Marxists, too....) Septentrionalis 19:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You overlook another strategy in dealing with the sourceful document-pushers. Read their sources carefully, and see what their sources actually say. The actual content is rarely anywhere so extreme as what the PoV-pusher has read into it. On this article, the Austrians are claiming that the NRA resembled what Mussolini was doing, and saying hardly anything about the rest of the New Deal. (As I shall demonstrate shortly, this approach works even with the Black Book of Communism.) Septentrionalis 14:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Somebody has to keep these articles from saying such things as, "March 1933 preceded January 1933." --Christofurio 17:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor
If you are interested in self-flagellation via Wikipedia editing as I am, a input from reasonable users such as yourself is needed on the Holodomor article. Andrew Alexander and Ultramarine are tag-team revering both Irpen and me, trying to drive us away from the article, along with the usual b.s. Sigh. 172 09:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

ultramarine
just FYI, no pov dispute will ever be resolved with User:Ultramarine, he will continue to copy paste not only previously deleted disputed materials but he also will past information out of one article into another to further his agenda, added almost entire demecratic centralism article to dictatorship of the proletariat once, he has already tried to revert your dictatorship of the proletariat edit. I (among others) have been trying to keep his dotp version down for months. please help keep his edits in check, they are so tangental and biased that it is hardly worth sorting through his posts for pearls of wisdom. Solidusspriggan 05:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberalism
I have seen your edits to the Classical Liberalism article. I wish you Good luck in upholding these edits. These texts should also be kept in the main Liberalism article. 159.46.248.226 07:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC) (Elertionworld)

Christian communism
Hey, I looked all over you talk pages for my entry about you removing items unfairly from the Christian communism article back in October 2005. Luckily it can still be found there in the talk pages of that article. Anyways, it looks like our debate was cut short by JK the unwise. I invite you to continue our fun debate on the incompatability between communism and Christianity elsewhere. But we can go at a slower pace with that since it appears that we have neglected the article a little bit. I will admit,that although you and I are far from any agreement on this issue, I have actually learned a bit more about Socialism in general. I believe we can both benefit from this continued debate; as long as it does not get heinous. Let me know what you think. (Gaytan 16:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC))


 * OK. The game is on.  Please continue with me at my talk page.  (Gaytan 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
 * What's wrong? I thought we were going to continue this discussion on my talk page? (Gaytan 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

Template:User no Rand
Sorry, I reverted your change to this template -- both images are in fact only usable under fair use, and so can't be used here. Both are derivative works of copyrighted images, despite the misleading tags employed by User:Dtasripin. If you can find a free image (preferably non-offensive) feel free to employ it. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Velvetism?
You may be interested in this: Articles for deletion/Velvetism Camillus (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Romanian letter
I've proposed a move of Ș to S-comma, because the latter shows up on my computer. I figuted I really ought to tell you; and I have no idea of your opinion on this. See Talk:Ș Septentrionalis 03:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of socialism
I think it is better to discuss the differences on the talk page. Please state what your objections to added text are. I am certainly open to a compromise. Ultramarine 17:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Friedman
You might be interested to take part in the latest discussion in Talk:Liberalism on Friedman's citation. 159.46.248.232 14:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

CoS
Sorry, I reverted without reading carefully. My mistake, have reverted to your good changes. Please state your view on the incentives for individuals section.Ultramarine 03:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the diffs of the above, and observe flattery in action. Septentrionalis 04:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I will certainly admit mistakes when I make them and am proud of it, unlike others.Ultramarine 04:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

ESAD
Look for edits under the name ESAD, as I will soon stop using 24.0.91.81 due to the number of other users using this IP. 24.0.91.81 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Utilitarian
Nice userbox. My own views are somewhat similar to those of R. J. Rummel. You may find his blog interesting. Ultramarine 19:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Phaistos Disk
This is a genuine archaeological artifact, in an unknown script (and therefore an unknown language). Every so often, somebody comes along and announces a decipherment. An anon has been pushing one of these, by a certain Jean Fauconau, on the English Wikipedia. The decipherment seems to have gone over like a lead balloon, being criticized here.

The anon has been quoting a favorable review of Fauconau's book on Greek prehistory and linguistics on Talk:Phaistos Disk and Talk:Pelasgians, but omitting the detail that the reviewer declined to discuss the decipherment, which I take to be a polite way of expressing doubt (See Talk:Phaistos_Disc.)

Why do I bother you about this? The Fauconau meme appears to have spread to other Wikipedias, in particular the Romanian. Can you alert a Romanian Hellenist? Septentrionalis 03:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding revolutions
Obviously it is possible to rather dramatically change to a new and better society. I would argue that the American Revolution is the best example. On the other hand, the Russian Revolution arguably produced a worse society. I would further argue that an important difference is that the American example was only a more dramatic continuation of prior successful examples. The revolutionaries could see that England, for all the failures of its democratic system, had produced a better society than the the more despotic governments in the rest of Europe. So they just continued this path. On the other hand, Lenin tried to implement a theoretical idea without any remotely successful prior example. (The Paris Commune was too short-lived and violent to be evidence for anything). Therefore I distrust all to revolutionary ideas without any prior evidence of success. Anarchists have no good examples to point to, therefore I distrust them.

Before anarchists start demanding that all of society should conform to their ideas, regardless which variety they argue for, they need to prove that they can make this idea work successfully in small communities for an extended period of time. However, the failures of for example the Kibbutz system makes me suspicious. In general, people do not seem to want to work or live in or buy from collectivist organizations. Now, another variant may work better, but this needs to be proved small-scale in the real-world before demanding a revolution.

Regarding why democide is important: it is a rather good variable for judging the degree of happiness in a society. The degree of Malaria cannot be used in societies distant from the tropics. However, it would obviously increase happiness in tropical nations if Malaria is reduced. But I argue that this is difficult as long as many nations do not have high political and economic freedom.

In the end, the poor nations will have to save themselves. People in rich democratic nations could rather easily give more money to the developing world but are not interested. They may vote to raise taxes, but usually only if it benefits their own nation. So until someone proves otherwise I argue that the poor nations should follow the already proven path out of poverty.

Note however that happiness is not increased when GDP/capita goes above a certain level and unhappiness may be increasing in the western world. You may find the following 3 lectures interesting Ultramarine 07:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding resources, everything is solvable is there is enough energy. And there is, see Future energy development. Regarding Marxism, it is certainly still alive as can be witnessed here on Wikipedia. Islamism is a religion and thus by not affected by logical contradictions since it based on faith. Better to dicuss the advantages of political and economic freedom directly. I see little evidence that European democracies are less democratic than before. There has alwyas been issues where the elected representative government may ignore the temporary majority opinon. The most common example is that many government often are unpopular at some time between elections, even if they are re-elected. Regarding democide, it is still happening and is a good judge of different regimes, not to mention as remainder of past mistakes like the Communist states. Regarding anarchism, it needs to present something more impressive than [] in order to get my vote. Ultramarine 21:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I answered on my talk page but realized that you may not notice this. So, good points. Note that the World Bank have found that high inequlity in income and wealth is bad for growth and povertyh reductin, as I have added to the poverty article.Ultramarine 20:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "And, of course, democratic peace theory has fanatical supporters but no fanatical opponents." The only fanatics are the two opponents, Pmanderson and Robert A West. If they are not the same person, then they have some very close real-world relationship. See their extensive collaborative editing of numerous Baron West and Earl De La Warr. They have extremely deep knowledge about this particular aristocratic family. Note that the DPT is not an argument against socialism, I think only some libertarians and others on the extreme right reject all democracy. Regarding the World Bank, look at the link and the studies mentioned there. The mathematics in the actual studies may be messy.Ultramarine 07:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Matthew White's website is his unreferenced personal opinions, many of them false, in particular his travesty of the Pro-DPT arguments. See this that have references User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another".Ultramarine 08:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be very happy if you have any questions or objections to any of the conflicts or descriptions. Or if more conflicts should be included and which. Ultramarine 08:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if you replied on the talk page of that article for questions related to it. Ultramarine 08:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There were many wars during Pax Romana. I also suggest that you read Never at War. There are many democracies now and they still do not make war on one another, despite the absence of an external threat. Do you not find this remarkable? Ultramarine 09:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it could be argued that democracies that have nuclear weapons and great military strength, like the US, the UK, and France, could with very little risk attack weak democracies. I think it is remarkable that even when there was a formal declaration of war between Finland and the UK, forced by Stalin, the UK avoided any military hostility against Finns, despite that they could, for example, easily have bombed the Finns.Ultramarine 09:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Arguing that one should not count states that have alliances is not fair. This does not explain why these states allied in the first place. And there were wars between allied states in the Communist bloc, but not between the allied democracies in the Western bloc.Ultramarine 09:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Cod Wars, any UK military ship could easily have destroyed any ship that Iceland had. The issue at hand was a rather important economic one, so again it is remarkable that the UK did not simply use its military power to decide the outcome.Ultramarine 09:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There may also be other explanations, like that democracies do not easily lie regarding intentions due to the open and public debate. On the other hand, it is more difficult to trust a dictator and compromise with him him since it is difficult to know his intentions and if he will keep his promises. Ultramarine 14:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that the DPT may be an argument for more direct democracy. ::See and . These studies argue that more participatory and decentralized institutions produces a stronger democratic peace. The most belligerent democracies, like the United States and the United Kingdom, do not have a proportional representation but instead a two-party system and a very strong leader. Many European nations have a proportional system, arguably more democratic, and are less belligerent. Ultramarine 14:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is probably an important part of the explanation. Even if television and movies are often disrespected, they may have been instrumental in reducing the former widespread view of wars as romantic.Ultramarine 15:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Human rights portal
--Lucinor 09:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

LTV
Is the foundation for all of Marxist theory. Which is one of the ideas that has caused the most suffering in human history. As such I consider it highly efficient to criticze it. It is certainly possible to argue for more equality and even socialism using mainstream economics.Ultramarine 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your username
How come you changed your username from Mihnea Tudoreanu? Infinity0 talk 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Placement of NPOV template on Market economy
As the template says, "For details and discussion of this dispute, see the talk page". It is well established that an NPOV template placed without actual engagement on the Talk page fails to effect any change, so community consensus is to remove such unsupported templates. If you would like to discuss the specific wordings that you object to on the Talk page, in accordance with WP:NPOV policy, I'm sure you will find many willing editors to engage with. As an uninvolved third party, I will remove the template in a few days if you choose not to do so. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 00:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos would rather complain to admins that he's offended by being labled a leftist and called out on his deletion and taging without discussion than actually engage in meaningful debate over the content of material. (Gibby 06:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Nikodemus' paragraphs beginning "Actually, that was my intention," now give quite specific points of debate and engage with the text. Feel free to respond to some of those points.--Nema Fakei 13:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Presumption that the earth can never be owned
Mihnea, as you will recall, you have repeatedly employed the assumption -- sometimes quoting Rousseau for it -- that the earth can never be owned, and the related (though distinct) assumption, that if X can never be owned, than anything derived from X can also never be owned.

You have also asserted your view that every laborer owns his/her labor, although not its fruits insofar as ownership of its fruits would violate the above premises.

I wonder ... how can I as a laborer own my own labor, the energetic activity itself, consistent with your Rousseauistic unownable-earth premise? After all, a carrot grows out of the earth. I eat the carrot. My digestive system derives calories from the carrot. Those calories in turn become the very energy that I use on the factory floor. The calories from the earth aren't just a cause of my labor, they are my labor, insofar as it is energetic activity and they are units of energy. So if everybody on the planet owns everything that can ever be derived from the earth, then we all own each other (slavery was never wrong, just too partially applied) and we should each stop claiming to own our own labor.

My own conclusion from all this would be that we should reject such premises. Frankly, although I have repeatedly heard you talk about your teleological views, etc., I have never heard you reason from them. Your reasoning always proceeds from the premises above, which I have, I believe, just shown to be mutually incoherent. At any rate, if we reject the above premises, we can leave ourselves open to the possibility that we can own our own labor, so we can own calories, so we can own carrots, so we can own the earth too, if that works. --Christofurio 13:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I do not believe that one can logically conclude from any deontological premises that every laborer rightfully owns his/her labor. I have only asserted ownership of labor as a concession to my opponents, with the purpose of showing that even if we accept the premise of ownership over labor, it still does not follow that private property is justified. As I have told you many times, I am a utilitarian, and, as such, I care about deontological justifications only insofar as my opponents use them and I can prove them to be inconsistent. Should we stop claiming to own our labor? Yes, if doing so will increase the overall happiness of humanity. No, if it would not. I personally believe that the concept of ownership over labor cannot lead to any particular political conclusions on its own (after all, it has been used to justify both capitalism and socialism), so I consider it pretty much irrelevant.


 * Second, you have indeed shown that self-ownership is not compatible with collective ownership of land. This leads you to reject collective ownership of land. But it leads me to reject self-ownership (which I never really cared for in the first place, so it is no great loss). In fact, you have provided me with a decent deontological argument against individualism ("Why should I do anything for others?", asks the individualist. "Because you owe your very existence to nature and its resources, which are rightfully the common property of all mankind", I reply). Thank you. In particular, I like your conclusion that every human being "owns" an equal share of the labor of every other human being. This is collective interdependence. And no, it has nothing in common with slavery, seeing how slavery means that one individual owns all the labor of a number of other individuals. -- Nikodemos 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to accept your thanks for my assistance in your philosophical education. You're very welcome. I'll endeavor to continue, although the best education is self-education, and I'll point out where you can get to work in that effort in a moment.


 * I don't know which "opponents" you've made such a "concession" to, since I don't know of any capitalists who have asserted the self-contradictory combination of premises at issue. Maybe you think you're refuting some of your fellow socialists, but in that case, too, you should come up with names so we can be sure your "opponents" aren't made out of straw.


 * Just to be clear, let us review the three premises at issue:


 * (1) no part of the earth can belong to any one
 * (2) nothing that derives from the un-own-able becomes own-able
 * (3) human labor is ownable, and indeed is owned, by the laborer.


 * Are you saying that there does, or doesn't exist some person who believes in all of these propositions? The only source whence I've heard them all is ... you.


 * Part of my interest in pressing the point is precisely to make the case for teleology. But a particular sort of teleology. You seem, if I may say so, rather naive in this area -- some of your remarks have carried the implication that everybody must be either (a) an egoist or (b) a deontologist or (c) a teleologist of a rather dreary utilitarian sort. For example, above you imagined an 'individualist' asking why he should do anything for others. I think you mean 'egoist' there. One can be an individualist for a variety of reasons. Choices are actually much broader than you imagine, and I urge you to continue your self-education.


 * You might, for example, read Utilitarianism: For and Against by JJC Smart and Bernard Williams. Williams' case (he represents the "against" part of the book) has always seemed to me decisively cogent.


 * In the meantime, your alleged teleology is rather "high bourgeois" in nature. It doesn't labor. You let premises that you are smart enough to recognize as fallacious do your work. In other words, the straw-men premises are the proletariats of the world view, working on the factory floor, whereas teleology at most does managerial labor, and not even much of that. Premises of the world unite!


 * And you introduce a new definition of slavery. "seeing how slavery means that one individual owns all the labor of a number of other individuals." When does slavery 'mean' that? I was just reading a biography of Stephen Douglas which discussed his co-ownership of a plantation (and the slaves) with a business partner. So mutual ownership was certainly possible under historical slavery. If there's a principled difference between that and the mutual ownership of all by all, you don't find it just by creating make-believe definitions. Nor do you find it by use of scare quotes around "owns." If you believe you own me, at least have the courage to say so. If you don't believe you own me, it is senseless to claim nonetheless that you "own" me. If you simply believe we are interdependent -- we concur, and we merely have to settle the little issue of the most pragmatically promising mode of interdependence, which is what I've been unsuccessfully seeking to have you think about for years. In the meantime, I'll continue to seek to wean you off of pointless conceptual makeshifts.  --Christofurio 14:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should you do anything for anyone else. That is a good question by which ONLY the market economy can solve. Collective interdependence only makes that question more clear..and the answer clearer...people would do absolutly NOTHING! (Gibby 21:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

And how exactly do you prove that all property belongs to all in common?(Gibby 21:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Frankly I don't understand why anyone is interested in arguing morality with someone who is utilitarian. The more important things to argue are 1) why believe in utilitarianism and 2) show that private property leads to better results than other alternatives. For 1) I think utilitarianism is a pretty impoverished philosophy since most people are interested in more than just happiness. They are interested in accomplishing certain goals, experiencing things etc.  Not all of these things will necessarily bring happiness.  For instance, I am sure than Newton was not a happy person but there are probably a lot of people that would trade happiness in order to accomplish some of the things that he accomplished.  Secondly if happiness is the objective then why not just drug people and immobolize them so they are always happy.  It is certainly a much simpler and more effective thing to do than trying to change society.  That's why I think a better thing to do is to maximize the amount of freedom or the capabilities of people so that they are better able to achieve the goals they want.  This is exactly the goal advocated by Amarta Sen in Development as Freedom. As for 2) it seems pretty clear to me that private property is much better than collective ownership. After all collectivization of farms led to large drops in farm productivity and mass famines.  Decollectivization is where a large amount of China's economic growth has come from.  Certainly the Chinese planners have much better information and experience than Mihea with collectivization.  They learned painfully that private property and incentives work much better than collective ownership.  Indeed they learned directly from experience.  The Chinese experiment with collectivization and decollectization has been repeated in Vietnamm and other communist countries.  The results are unequivocal.  Now there are many other forms of property besides farms.  However it seems clear from the experiences of the capitalist countries that private property has been extremely successful at improving peoples lives. There is not a single developed nation that does not also have a large system of private ownership (including countries like Sweden). The biggest failures of socialism are associated with those countries that went farthest in eliminating private property e.g. Cambodia where families where destroyed and everybody live in large communes. It also seem clear that if you are interested in maximizing people's capabilities then it is necessary for them to have some resources at their disposal. Private property is thus necessary.--69.194.149.47 00:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Utilitarianism can be used to argue free market liberalism...actually that is how it begun...it was later distorted to reach opposite conclusions (Gibby 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

better suggestion
Niko, instead of trying to eliminate your intellectual competition like you eliminate edits without discussion, why don't you try and work, compromise, and discuss. That just might stop the hostility. And while you are at it...try being a little open minded about alternatives to your own prescriptions. (Gibby 21:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC))


 * What you do not appear to understand is that wikipedia articles are simply not the place for dealing with one's intellectual competition, either by trying to "eliminate" it or by trying to be more open minded and learn from it. Wikipedia is a place to inform readers about all sides of various issues, whether you agree with them or not. I strongly urge you to read Writing for the enemy. -- Nikodemos 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

then i strongly urge you to not delete everythign you disagree with. That only generates hostility. and while your at it, re-read the wikirules.(Gibby 13:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Useful idiot
I do not have the book at home anymore. You can search on amazon inside the book for "useful idiot", this gives some hits, but not necessarily in the context claimed.Ultramarine 03:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

1917 and happiness
Arguably in 1917 Russia was close to turning into a democracy, Lenin could well have failed in his revolution. Russia was slowly approaching a constituional monarchy before WWI. If Russia had become a democracy, I think it would have experienced at least as rapid a growth as under Stalin. A democratic Russia would not have allied with Hitler, would probably not have repeated Stalin's enormous mistakes at beginning of the German invasion, and arguably much of WWII could have been avoided.

Democracies usually do not lose the wars but are eaten up from the inside when people start doubting democracy. So for example false Marxist propaganda should be fought. The Communists were one of the big parties in Weimar republic and their propaganda and in turn fear of them helped Hitler take power.

Regarding utilitarianism, I do think percentage is useful. Ther may be a hypothetical example where one should kill a large minority for good of the majority, but in practice this does not seem to occur. Have you seen Hedonistic imperative.Ultramarine 21:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * First, briefly. You really should read: . Or, this one argues for a more bottom-up revolution. Ultramarine 11:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

About Technocracy article
Why do you keep removing Communism from the Technocracy article? You've replaced it with socialism, which of-course is also a Price system, however Communism deinatly is also, and Communism is much more well known and thus must be in the article. I assume you are a communist or at least a leftist from what you contribute, but just because you may not like that Technocracy classifies Communism as a price system doesn't mean you can remove it. P.S I've added it back in and I would ask you to leave it there.--Hibernian 19:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, communism is not a price system; that's the whole point. Communism is based more or less on a gift economy, and certainly would not employ currency. I invite you to read anything written by any communist on the subject; you will find that I am correct. I would also highly doubt that communism is in any way better known than socialism. -- Nikodemos 22:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I assume the "Communism" you are talking about is "final state Communism", in that case you are correct that it is theorized to be a society without money (and I would assume not be categorized as a price system by Technocrats). However the Commonly understood meaning of the Word "Communism" is the System practiced by the Government of the Former USSR and that advocated by Communist Parties in the world today. That is what I and Technocracy is Talking about when we says Communism is a Price system, as those examples all involve Money.
 * You may say (and may be technically accurate in saying), that the USSR was a Socialist Country not a Communist one, however this will not be understood by most readers, and thus the Common meaning of the word should be used as per Wikipedia’s policy on naming.
 * So it should be clear what the sentence in the article is saying, that is that Technocracy is unlike any political ideology, the 2 main ideologies being listed as examples, i.e. Capitalism and Communism. You don't hear people talking about Capitalism vs. Socialism, they will always say Communism, even if that is not technically accurate it will be understood.
 * Anyway to reiterate people understand the term "Communism" to mean the "Socialist" system of the USSR, and that is the way it should be termed in the article.
 * --Hibernian 03:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

 * Alright then how about editing it to...
 * The Technocratic movement aims to establish a socio-economic system known as technocracy, which is based upon abundance, as opposed to scarcity-based economic systems like capitalism and Communism.
 * Which will look like this...
 * "The Technocratic movement aims to establish a socio-economic system known as technocracy, which is based upon abundance, as opposed to scarcity-based economic systems like capitalism and Communism."
 * Or perhaps it should be rewritten to something like...
 * "The Technocratic movement aims to establish a socio-economic system known as technocracy, which is based upon abundance, as opposed to scarcity-based economic systems used in Capitalist and Communist states."
 * Would that satisfy you?


 * Also I don't really like some of your edits to the Urbanates Article I wrote, Thanks for eliminating the capitalization and standardizing spelling, but I think I'm going to rewrite some of those other edits as I don't think they are very useful.
 * --Hibernian 23:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok since you haven’t responded yet I'll just go ahead and edit it, and we can discuss it further if you are still unhappy. --Hibernian 07:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I suppose that edit will be acceptable, as to Technocracy if you are interested why not go and talk to the people at the Forum http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=index You seem like a pretty intelligent guy, and I'm sure you would be quite welcome to Discuss things there.
 * --Hibernian 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Assymetric controversy
You definitely have something. I'm not sure about the solution; dispute resolution may be enough - the fundamental hypothesis of Wikipedia being that, in any field, the literate and basically neutral (like Scaife on DPT) outnumber the fanatics. For additional examples, see the advocacy of bios theory on talk:chaos theory, or the pushing of the proto-Ionians on Phaistos Disc. (And, lest we forget, Income tax; this will get worse in April. )

The first example actually suggests a solution: there is a community at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (and, less organized, at Physics) which will react to the question of "Does this make sense, or is it extremism?" and join in to contain the latter. It helps that in mathematics there is a large consensus on what is extremism; but we have been spared the intuitionism debate - so far.


 * Is there a WikiProject Politics? Yes.
 * Is there a WikiProject Political Science? Not yet.
 * These might become nuclei of the non-fanatical majority.

Fortune, Septentrionalis 15:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC) One of the fanatics has just disagreed with you on my talk-page, arguing that the process of peer-review would prevent anything undesirable appearing, at least in scientific fields. This is, of course, bosh; what keeps science reputable is that silly articles are not cited even when they are printed. (You will have to go into the history to see it; I removed it as insolence.)
 * Speaking of silly articles, Ultramarine's private project is an exercise in ignoring the evidence. Other views may be found in this website, and Talk:Never at War. (My responses and Matthew White's are largely independent, btw; the handful of extremists Ultramarine is copying are often simply wrong.) I will add more there later. Septentrionalis 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Your real problem user has been blocked for a month, and will almost certainly be blocked again for longer if he comes back with the same attitude that is manifest in his last edits to his talk page. If he doesn't come back, problem solved. This is slower and more cumbersome than a message board; but that's scale. No one sees all the edits on Wikipedia, so attention needs to be drawn to a specific user. Septentrionalis 16:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm an eventualist, remember, and I wasn't involved with that problem user, so I can afford to be more relaxed. You do have my heartfelt, if retroactive, sympathy.


 * I agree that there should be a systematic counterbalance to assymetric conflict. What do you think of my suggestion that functioning subject-area WikiProjects should be such a counterbalance?


 * What counterbalance would have disposed of the problem user in less than 5 weeks? (And in practice it was less; he was blocked for most of March.) Septentrionalis 17:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, I saw your notes on Assymmetric controversy on Pmanderson's Talk page. I agree entirely. This is definitely one of the systemic weaknesses of the WP. But it is not just in assymmetric cases that the fanatics' position(s) dominate. If you take something like the Macedonian issue, only extremists (on both sides) will tolerate the environment enough to continue discussing and editing them, and there tends to be polarization. It is very difficult to go into the middle of a situation like that and be an honest broker. I know that User:LukasPietsch has tried (in some other cases), but it is difficult and time-consuming. It is especially difficult, of course, when you have nasty but smart people who have tactical skills involved.... --Macrakis 17:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, I read your notes on this on Pmanderson's talk page too. What I think is that too many users do not understand NPOV policy. I've had the same problem with RJII, and today also with Sam Spade. He (and RJII) thinks it's OK to put one biased source in and leave out others, "because of WP:CITE," and that it's not his responsibility to put conflicting sources in, but other editors'. Editors simply aren't trained to be NPOV, and that policy isn't hammered into their heads firmly enough. We should move this discussion to a more centralised page, though. How about Asymmetric controversy? -- infinity  0  18:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Socialism
I don't know what Sam Spade's problem is, but he just reverted the socialism article back to his own version yesterday, and then proceeded to "make complex edits" to it, totally ignoring the work I did on it yesterday and other editors did on it today. Could you come and have a look? Thanks. -- infinity  0  22:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to source the rest of the Socialism article. I started off with that section, and the intro. Please could you help? -- infinity  0  19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll start the Asymmetrical controversy page on your user space in a few minutes, if you don't mind? -- infinity  0  19:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy. ^_^ -- infinity  0  21:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a new section, which is a related issue. User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric_controversy. Could you comment? Thanks :) -- infinity  0  22:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Anarchists and democracy
Hi. Pmanderson/Septentrionalis is now trying to argue that anarchists are opposed to democracy or direct democracy! See his strange edits on democracy. Very strange when the anarchist FAQ speak repeatedly of direct democracy. I suspect that this is part of his campaign against the DPT and democracy in general, he is trying to get anarchists to support him. Please oppose him, the many advantages of democracy apply equally well to left-wing democratic societies. Septentrionalis:
 * ''Anarchists generally oppose actually existing democracies, like all other forms of state government, as inherently corrupt. For example, see Alexander Berkman's Prison Memoirs and the historical introduction to the 1970 edition, explaining his refusal to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. It may be possible to regard their desired stateless condition as a democracy, but many do not regard it as being of the same class as the systems discussed in this article, and decline even the formal and coercive process of direct democracy; but agreement by consensus, as in News from Nowhere or The Dispossessed. As may be expected among anarchists, there is disagreement: Peter Kropotkin approved of Renaissance Florence in Mutual Aid; and some modern anarchists speak of association as direct democracy. Ultramarine 21:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Pure democracy
I see no evidence of that the concept exists. James Madison only speaks about in the traditional sense of democracy, that is direct democracy. Put differently, he speaks of a pure direct democracy, Do you have a different opinion? Otherwise it should be deleted or redirected to direct democracy.Ultramarine 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Socialism article
Hey, could you comment on Talk:Socialism please? I'm having trouble getting Sam Spade to respond to anything I put forward; he reverts constantly without giving a reason. I'd like input from other people to help sort this mess out. -- infinity  0  23:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, could you please talk to Sam Spade? He keeps reverting the socialism article - though two other editors apart from me agree with the current version. He's the only one who has an objection, yet he doesn't even try to discuss his reverts. I thought that since you know him personally, you could talk some sense into him, or at least make him see that he's being unnecessarily difficult and very very stubborn? Thanks. -- infinity  0  22:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

the beautiful picture article
It was your suggestion, sort of. Now its been marked for deletion. I'll help you fend off the Afd if you'd like. --Christofurio 14:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Technocracy
Technocracy seems very nice, except for the equality and democracy. I think it could be workable if the amount of meritocracy were racheted up. Scarce resources could be distributed according to scientifically determined merit, and a natural hierarcy could thus form. Sam Spade 22:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Template
I've gone ahead and created Unbalanced

I'll go add it to Template_messages/Disputes (or you can if you get there first; I'm doing my daily watchlist-checking rounds atm) - and then put up a notice on its talk page to explain the stuff, and linking to the main Asymmetric Controversy page. :) -- infinity  0  16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw, thanks a lot for the barnstar ^_^ -- infinity  0  16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm… RJII has gone and put that template up for Deletion. I have little doubt that's because he's seeking revenge for me TfD'ing his previous POV templates, Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_9 and Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_27. I actually think the wording could be changed a little, if it's specifically for Unbalanced sources. What do you think? -- infinity  0  18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 00:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

maps of American allies
Hi,

Those maps which you made for the American Empire page are really nice. If you're too busy, which is likely the case, I'd like to try to do one for the present day. Can you tell me some of the sources (besides Wikipedia) which you used, so I have somewhere to start? Thanks! Kalkin 06:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

correct usage of "unbalanced" template
I attempted to place the unbalanced template at the human article and it was removed by an adminstrator. I was wondering if you agree that I misused the template. Thanks. &mdash; goethean ॐ 21:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous note
I should probably point out to anyone posting here that Nikodemos is taking a break from WP in order to retain his sanity. --Nema Fakei 09:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't say I blame him. &mdash; goethean ॐ 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman
Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine
Hi. Ultramarine recently started Criticisms of Marxism. I noted some of my concerns on the talk page, but since you have worked with him before on something like this, could you have a look at it and see if everything's in shape? Thanks :) -- infinity  0  21:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, did you get my email? -- infinity  0  22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... so...? -- infinity  0  22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Re: I know. I originally inserted it, actually. Just about every standard survey text dealing with the Industrial Revolution reproduces it. I removed it to soley appease Ultramarine, who (no surprise) called it "critical." Until dealing with Ultramarine, I had no idea that people still had emotional reactions to 19th century English engravings (sigh). 172 | Talk 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vanishing act
I saw your question to Essjay; he seems to be taking a break so I thought I would answer and save you some time. It appears from Special:Listusers that your old account does not exist anymore, even though the old pages still exist. What you should probably do is re-create an account with that old name yourself. Then, you can tag the user and talk pages db-author to have them deleted. If you want to prevent anyone from ever using the account, reset the password to some random jumble of letters and forget about it. Your history will only be viewable by the 900 or so admins. If this is not private enough and you still want to delete the history through oversight, you might want to ask one of the other oversight permission holders, since Essjay seems to be on a break. Good luck. Thatcher131 15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I followed your advice. -- Nikodemos 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?
The place to request sockpuppet checks or other investigations requiring CheckUser privilege is WP:RCU. Read carefully the requirements and procedure for making such request before making one. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not make any official request of such kind. I merely informed other users of my opinion that a certain user is a sockpuppet, based on a few initial observations. They are of course free to disregard my opinion. Certainly talk pages may be used for communications of any kind as long as they pertain to wikipedia and are not personal attacks? -- Nikodemos 00:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have placed the request: WP:RFCU. -- infinity  0  15:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

None of that is necessary. I'm RJII's Sockpuppet. Everybody knows that you're just trying to get rid of intellectual enemies by claiming their sockpuppets of RJII, so that you can push your POV in Wikipedia. RJII did more to bring NPOV to Wikipedia than probably anyone in history, but was crucified for it. (This account will self-destruct shortly) RJII&#39;sSockPuppet 15:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Marxism
I hope you can help provide a fresh eye at Cultural Marxism. One user is deleting most of the page. I am trying to have an expanded page edited down through discussion rather than starting over, especially since the new stub only represents a particular on-sided POV. --Cberlet 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ideologies
This edit of yours made two adjacent items nearly identical in color. But clearly you must have had a reason. What's this about? - Jmabel | Talk 02:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Stable versions now
Did you see this? Herostratus 13:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Progressivism vs Socialism
Thank you for your great expansion of this section. Could you improve expand the Progressivism vs Liberalism section, which I consider the most important one since we need to make it clear in the public mind that progressive isn't simply a new label for liberal. --Loremaster 00:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) --Loremaster 16:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Social justice criticism
Hi, I have read your comments about criticism of the objective standard of social justice being missing, but don't believe that this precludes having the original criticism there as well, so I have re-included the material you deleted, but split it into two sections so that the area you are working on is very obivous, but still allows for criticisms to be directed at social justice by those who do beleive in the existence of an objective standard. If you don't agree, perhaps we can continue this discussion on the talk page. And just a suggestion: using the tags to make a case for changes is possibly not the best way of alerting people that you have an issue with a section because people will only see it if they edit that particular section. If you have an issue with something I suggest highlighting it on the talk page, so that people who drop by to have a look at it from time to time can see your point and discuss it with you. Cheers JenLouise 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Social-democracy
Great work on making the Template:Social democracy sidebar! --C mon 08:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting
I saw your quite enjoyable elenchus on TheIndividualist's talk page. That's quite a good argument that you've got there, and is certainly much more philosophically-sound than what he was coming back at you with. It comes very close to my own philosophical arguments regarding stateless capitalism, although yours twists more beautifully on logic, whereas mine basically show that capitalism, even without a state de jure, produces a state de facto. I'd be interested to discuss this further with you, if you ever have the time. Do you frequent any discussion forums? Drop me a line via email. --AaronS 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Request
On User talk:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy, there is a link that is on Wikipedia's spam filter. It has been maintained as an attack site, and has released personnal information about some Wikipedians in the past. Could I ask you to remove it? Tom Harrison Talk 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Tom Harrison Talk 14:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Inclusionism
Despite your usual exclusionist proclivities, perhaps even you will see the justice of the inclusionist side of this vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Where_Troy_Once_Stood --Christofurio 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Boo
Hey, I decided to come back, though I'll be much less active than before - can't stand the fanatical POV-pushers. How've you been? If there's anything I should know, just leave me a note on my talk page. Good seeing you again, cheers :) -- infinity  0  00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dispossessed?
I find it ironic that you serve the House Ordos. :-) I would expect that you appreciate more the House of Atreides, or even Harkonnen. Btw, I still have games Dune and Dune II on my HD, and Herbert's Dune series is one of my favorites. It's funny how the things turn out...

As for reverts, it would be useful if you would explain your edits, you often don't even write the edit summaries. -- Vision Thing -- 12:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now I won't revert any of your changes (hopefully someone else will also step in), but I reported you for edit warring on Fascism and ideology. -- Vision Thing -- 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, Dune is one of my favourite novels too. Tho I find it ironic that humans, 20k-100k years in the future (or whenever it's set) have degenerated into a feudal system again. ;) -- infinity  0  15:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Infinity0. Much of contemporary socialism is an effort to produce exactly that degeneration. By way of example: I often encounter self-described Marxists who quote the famous phrase about "everything solid melting into air" as if it was part of Karl M's criticism of capitalism. I have to inform them: no, he was approving of capitalism, and its performance of its historic role, in that passage. The "solid" stuff was feudalism, and the significance of the phrase is that capitalism advances the cause of human potential by melting it. Marx wanted a socialism that would build upon that accomplishment, and was quite critical of socialists who didn't appreciate it as such, who were nostalgic for the pre-capitalist period. In this respect, his followers aren't worthy of him, as their misreading of that famous phrase consistently shows. So Dune's postulation of such a reversion isn't all that unlikely. Alas. --Christofurio 18:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I must inform you, Christofurio, that regardless of the views of contemporary socialists, they are in no position to change the course of human history in the forseeable future. I happen to agree with you that the nostalgia many socialists (particularly the environmentalist-leaning) show towards pre-capitalist society is misplaced and utterly counterproductive. But the only danger of a return to feudalism comes from the radical schools of liberalism (e.g. libertarianism, and your own views), which would privatize all land if they got the chance. -- Nikodemos 18:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Socialists are in no position to change history for the foreseeable future? Even on the time-scale that Herbert contemplates in Dune? I hope so, and I have and will continue to do my best to make it so. Even to the point of tolerating your threats to have me poisoned -- even to the point of consenting to be poisoned, if my death will in any way help to keep socialists ineffectual. But you do seem to think you're making a contrast here between socialists and my "own views," as if you believe that we anarcho-capitalists are in a position to "change the course of human history in the foreseeable future". Why? Because there are so many of us, or because we command armies, or what? Maybe we aren't in a position to change the course, but we more accurately understand what the course is than some others do. Actually, my own views are that the process that Marx described and praised as the turning of feudal things solid into air must and will continue. The privatization of land, also known as "enclosure," was itself part of the waning of feudalism.

But of course, the process continues. Land ownership as presently understood involves a lot of activity by the authorities of the alleged "sovereign," including the uniform-wearing sort. Once the myth of sovereignty dissolves, though, land owners will have to defend their land and their boundaries without calling upon political mechanisms, through mercenaries, militia, etc. This will change the very concept of ownership. What will be the new equilibrium as to land? I don't know. I'll be just a tiny part of the great higgle-haggle process, and I can't predict the results. I just hope and believe that the process will continue, for the greater productivity of the human race, and toward the ultimate satisfaction of everybody's goals. Including yours, insofar as yours go beyond imposing your plans on the kulaks. --Christofurio 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I must say that you do have your Quixotic outbursts... But the historical materialist in me sincerely doubts that either of us will be able to facilitate or prevent even a minor historical trend. On the issue of poisoning, first of all I never "threatened to have you poisoned". I did once jokingly say that I hope you'll find your Meletus, but I never implied that I would be that Meletus (and besides, I consider you somewhat of a friend by now). On that note, however, I wasn't aware that a sacrifice for the greater good of humanity was virtuous under your ethical beliefs.


 * By "foreseeable future" I mean the next 50 years or so, not Herbert's time scale. I don't expect Homo Sapiens as we know it to still be in existence 20,000 years from now. We will have either destroyed ourselves through our foolishness, or changed into something else entirely (thanks to technology so advanced that it is indistinguishable from magic).


 * Anarcho-capitalists are also not in any position to change history for the foreseeable future. But if you'll remember, I wasn't talking about a threat from anarcho-capitalism. I was talking about a threat from "radical schools of liberalism" in general. Just about every member of the present global ruling class subscribes to some form of liberal individualist ideology (except for those who are religious fundamentalists - and that's hardly an improvement). -- Nikodemos 23:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what that means. You clearly referred to "your own views", meaning MY own, meaning anarcho-capitalism, as ONE of the sources of this danger. Read again what you wrote, please. Also, a label like "historical materialism" does more to obscure than to clarify any point, since forests of trees have been wasted trying to explain what that means or requires. As to poison: there isn't any diference in principle between hoping that someone will be poisoned and planning to poison that person one's self -- the distinction is one of courage.


 * The reason I bring it up, and often bring up as well your self-identification as a Trotskyite, and won't let go on your bloodthirsty threat to (a) drive me to the Antarctic, and then (b) follow me to kill me there, too is because your references to such coercion aren't a once in awhile 'joking' thing. They are a constant with you. You have this "might makes right" uber-ideology, so you talk of how submission is a contract, submission in turn justifies punishment (and refusal to submit justifies killing) so either way there are no limits on what is right for those with the bigger guns, etc. Dissidents should be poisoned (by someone -- not of course by you!) This is your only real form of reasoning on social matters -- the appeal to power on the one side and to fear on the other. I've known you for years and have yet to encounter any argument from your keyboard that takes any other form. Its always "be a communist or the communists will kill you -- you aren't dead yet? -- then you must not have a principled objection to communism."


 * It isn't particularly quixotic of me to hope that we as a species can rise above this. It is a form of realism. As you indicate in your more lucid moments, to the extent we all reason from the premises to which you continually revert, to that extent we are likely to destroy ourselves well before any trans-human fate becomes possible.


 * In the meantime, of course, the kulaks of the world must prepare to defend ourselves, and undermine anyone's claim to sovereignty that just amounts to a barely-suppressed desire to kill us. Trotsky did nothing to help Russia's kulaks and never, even in his exile, bemoaned their fate. His own death is just the comic relief within the real tragedy of theirs.


 * Let me put my underlying point this way. Suppose somebody meets me on a lonely road one night, holds a gun at me, and says, "your money or your life." Suppose I then say, "yes, I'll give you my money" and then proceed to trick him into thinking I have done so, by for example handing him a wad of counterfeit bills. Have I done something wrong? I have saved my life without giving up money, at the expense of a little deception. Kant would think this wrong, but so much the worse for Kant. If submission is demanded, then I may well offer it as a superficial matter, while working to undermine sovereignty at a more genuine level.


 * You have done a lot of talking about submission, law, etc., in ways that would seem to imply that government is just such a demander of submission of that, but that I should keep faith with it anyway, because I have submitted by not openly revolting and getting myself killed or imprisoned yet. But ... why? Why should I not trick the robber? and or the government claiming the benefit of sovereign authority, since no distinction has been illustrated?


 * Contemplate this course of action, then. I submit in every superficial sense in order precisely to remain alive and resist in ways that matter more. I offer counterfeit bills to the thief and equally counterfeit obediance to the sovereigns. Why is that wrong? You seem to think so -- at least, you think it wouold be wrong against any government with which you had sympathy, but you've provided no arguments on any subject except the appeal to force itself. But if history shows anything, it shows us that the violent aren't always the brightest. Which means that those of us who believe in a better way may yet find a way of working around them and bringing down their (your) structures of power and domination.


 * As a biographical fact, though, I don't always practice what I preach. The last time that sort of thing happened to me, I noiselessly ignored my assailant and, his gun notwithstanding, tried to walk around him and on my way. Not very sneaky of me. He hit me with the back end of the gun (it probably wasn't loaded, so he was using it as a prop and, failing that, as a lead pipe.) And the lead pipe trick worked. He got my money. All of your might-makes-right reasoning legitimates that. Congratulations on rising to his level. --Christofurio 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You might find this lines from tendentious editing interesting: "You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it." Also, I've noticed that you delete large parts of text, or even sections, from different articles without any explanation, or even summary. That's not a behavior of a good editor.

As for The Dispossessed, it's a great book any standard. I particularly like Shevek, he represents to me the ideal man. If people would look up to man like him, rather then to "great" leaders who lead them to carnage and creations of private empires, world would be a much better place. I recently came upon a though of Aldous Huxley that portrays that view pretty good: "So long as men worship the Caesars and Napoleons, Caesars and Napoleons will duly rise and make them miserable." -- Vision Thing -- 19:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against inclusion of new material, I only object to the deletion of old material which often presents a different point of view.


 * Our economic views are each other's opposite, however, our political views are the same; that is, if you are an anarchist. -- Vision Thing -- 20:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will do that.


 * Although economy of Annares is not a capitalist one, there would be a place for such economy with in anarcho-capitalist society. People would see what functions better, and choose in what kind of society they want to live. However, that is a utopia, at least for a close future.


 * Maybe the reason why agree that Shevek is a good role model is because we both find his human qualities admirable, and more important then his political or economic views. -- Vision Thing -- 21:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Email
I didn't get it. Try again at sokolov47@yahoo.com. I'm standing by and want to reply to it right away. 172 | Talk 04:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I got it earlier. I missed it at first amid all the spam. Sorry about that... I'm replying right now. 172 | Talk 04:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I just sent my reply. Sorry it took me a while. I got sidetracked a little bit with some other emails on my work account. 172 | Talk 05:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Good faith
I don't know if it is possible to request a checkuser for oneself, but you don't need to do it. I will assume that you and 72.139.119.165 are not the same person because of your good faith message. Still, if for some reason suspicion arises again, I hope that I can count on you to support such request.

I accept your apology and I wish to apologize too if I acted too assertive in my reversions of your edits. I don't use any of instant message programs, but if you want to discuss something other then Wikipedia articles you can contact me by mail. Regards, -- Vision Thing -- 20:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect of tyranny of the majority
Are you sure ochlocracy is the best target for a redirect from "tyranny of the majority"? Assuming it's a duplicate of a concept with a better-developed article, I think that concept would be majoritarianism, not mob rule. The Literate Engineer 04:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but is "tyranny of the majority" the same sort of pejorative term for majoritarianism as ochlocracy? I don't think the "Additionally, as a term in civics it implies that there is no formal authority whatsoever, not even a commonly-accepted view of anarchism, and so disputes are raised, contended and closed by brute force - might makes right, but only in a very local and temporary way, as another mob or another mood might just as easily sway a decision. It is often associated with demagoguery and the rule of passion over reason." element of ochlocracy is included in the "tyranny of the majority" concept, and I don't think the concept of "mob rule" covers the deliberate assault on minorities encompassed by the concept of "tyranny of the majority". While both are pejorative terms for majoritarianism, and are names for criticisms of the idea, I think they're differently pejorative. So, I think that "tyranny of the majority" should be either its own article or a redirect to majoritarianism, not ochlocracy. The Literate Engineer 00:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger
There's no discussion taking place for your proposed merger here. Perhaps you should start the discussion or remove the template? Taxico 05:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Vision Thing -- 19:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Worker exploitation
Hey, here is a brain teaser for you. If a worker gets paid, say, U$S 2000.00 a month, and his living expenses are U$S 1500.00 a month (which leaves him $500.00 savings), is he not running a net profit of $500? If the employer was using slaves instead (for argument's sake), the labor required would cost him only $1500 instead of $2000 (because slaves need to be fed, housed and clothed). So the employer is paying for the worker's expenses, plus a profit margin. Where is the exploitation? Dullfig 04:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If a worker gets paid, say, U$S 2000.00 a month, and his living expenses are U$S 1500.00 a month (which leaves him $500.00 savings), is he not running a net profit of $500? - you think his work is worth $0 then? Your attitude reveals yourself. -- infinity  0  11:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * NO, his work is worth $1500! where do you get the $0 from? he's selling human energy, and is getting paid more for it than it takes to produce that energy. Try again :-) Dullfig 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry for the $0. I misread a part of what you wrote. Still, why is his work worth $1500? His living expenses cost £1500. Why is this the same as his work-worth? As the Subjective Theory of Value states, his work is worth however much he thinks it's worth. Maybe he think it's worth £5000, but since the employer is not willing to pay that much, AND (the worker must either work or starve), he is willing to make a loss.


 * The worker is not just selling human enery. He's selling the process (ie. labour) of conversion of human energy to labour product AND the product of this energy+process AND control over his action for a period of time. Wage labour isn't a simple trade of "labour", whatever that is. A worker must be paid for all three of these. But in reality, all that is ever mentioned is payment for the second. He isn't compensated for actually DOING the labour, nor for being put under another's authority whilst doing so.


 * I find it ironic that the STOV is being used (flawedly) in support of capitalism. It's the most powerful weapon available AGAINST capitalism. Why? Because it is true. -- infinity  0  18:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, I am a firm believer in capitalism being based on the Objectivist (not objective) theory of value (see Ayn Rand), not the subjective. Objects have inherent qualities that make them desireable for certain uses. Iron is maleable and hard, which makes it ideal for hammers. But there are no hammers in nature. It is an invention of man, first concieved by man's intelect, and then made. So value is the rational application of nature's principles to solve man's needs.


 * Second, any living thing must spend energy in order to live. Plants spend energy in order to grow. Animals must spend energy to gather food. So living is never free. Life might be free, but living is not. And it is fair that each human spend his own energy in order to maintain their life. Modern life has given us the choice of spending our energy in anything we want, instead of growing crops. So the payment we recieve at the end of the week is the equivalent of harvesting. Now, say it took 20 hours to grow enough corn to live for a month, why would you then expect those same 20 hours of work at a factory, to give you enough money to buy a yacht?


 * Third, before you say that by the same token, a factory owner should not be entitled to buy a yacht for 20 hours of work, you are right. But the owner is not selling labor, he is selling value! The owner is not getting paid for making the hammer, he is getting paid for conceiving of the hammer, and of how to make it. He is the one that created the value in the object.


 * Don't forget that it takes about the same amount of work to make a mud ball, as it takes to make a terracota cup. Which one has more value? and why? is it the work that it took to make it, or the idea of an object that can hold liquids? That is where the labor theory of value fails: the idea of how to make something has value in itself. Dullfig 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You said the employee "isn't compensated for actually DOING the labour, nor for being put under another's authority whilst doing so." But if that was the case, then he wouldn't do those things in the first place. The first thing you have to understand about trade is that people don't enter into trades them unless they receive something USEFUL in advancing their wants by doing so. The reason the employee gives away what he gives away is because he receives something more useful to him than what he is giving away, or he would just keep what he has. And that is a justification for trade (or capitalism). When trades happen, the net amount of human satisfaction of wants in the world increases. The subjective theory of value is the basis of contemporary economics. It says that value ("value" referring to price) is determined by a combination of an object's usefulness in satisfying a person's wants and that object's scarcity. You don't seem to be aware that what "value" refers to in subjective theory of value is market "price" - whether it's an amount of money or amount of some non-money good that is being traded in exchange for any particular thing. But, to fully understand trade and price, you need more than that. You need to understand marginal utility. And, that's beyond the scope of this discussion. But, I will say that you are wrong the think that "the Subjective Theory of Value states, his work is worth however much he thinks it's worth." That's not what it states. It just states that someone else is willing to pay for his work because it's useful to that person and not in unlimited supply. The "subjective" in the subjective theory of value just refers to the fact that the same object can have different amounts of usefulness to different people. The price (again, in the theory of value, "value" means price) of his labor is determined by its marginal utility in satisfying the wants of whoever is purchasing it. And, it's important to note that the price that someone pays for a thing is not actually what it's "worth" to him. What he's purchasing is worth more to him than the price he is paying, or he wouldn't purchase it. This applies whether one is an employer or an employee. The employer is purchasing labor, and the employee is purcashing money. Why is he purchasing money? Because it is useful to him. Both parties receive something useful toward the satisfaction of their wants. That's the benefit of trade. (Don't confuse "worth" with "value" in the STV. "Value" in the STV refers to price. Worth is something else).Anarcho-capitalism 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you think I disagree with you... I agree with everything you said, except for the fact that I don't entirely agree with the STV. Yes, it is true that price is a result of subjective usefulness and scarcity, but it overlooks one thing: the fact that anyone would consider a hammer even remotely useful, is because one human thought to himself "say, if I attached a handle to this weight, I could easily drive nails with it!"; and then a lot of humans agreed with him (or her :-). Very few objects just simply exist. Most objects we use, had to be first concieved or invented by someone. So that someone had just as much to do with the value of that object, as the subjective needs of the person buying it. -- Dullfig 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I responding to Infinity above. But, I'll respond to you're saying. I don't see how that relates to the STV at all. The STV doesn't "overlooking" that. It just says that a hammer may be more useful to you than to me, and that's why we're willing to offer different prices to purchase it. If you have a need to hammer a nail in, you're willing to pay a few bucks for a hammer. If I have no such need, I'm not willing to pay much at all for a hammer. It's as simple as that. (And that if there are an unlimited supply of hammers, then they're going to be free. Only things that exist in limited supply have a price)Anarcho-capitalism 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi. Did you get my last email? I sent it about 2 months ago I think. Lol. Anyway I should be more active by the end of this month. :) -- infinity  0  11:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet
A report has been made about Cberlet's personal attacks here. Feel free to add your comments. --Timeshifter 13:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work
Nice work on the list of socialist countries. -- Vision Thing -- 12:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:A challenge
I think I'm aware of possible implications of anarcho-capitalism. In my opinion, anarcho-capitalist system allows creation of different organizations and entities, including some forms of the state. However, you are maybe thinking on some other implications, which I haven't yet considered. Did you receive my last e-mail? -- Vision Thing -- 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you're trying to debate with someone else about anarcho-capitalism. You don't fully understand anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalist are not opposed to the existence of government. They want a government to exist. What they are opposed to is the state. The difference is that the state forces payment for defense. Voluntary government doesn't, and if you don't pay then you won't be defended (unless someone wants to be benevolent). That's all. Anarcho-capitalists are no different from the 19th century individualist anarchists in this respect. For instance Benjamin Tucker said, "defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices." And, he said, "anarchism does not exclude prisons, officials, military, or other symbols of force. It merely demands that non-invasive men shall not be made the victims of such force. Anarchism is not the reign of love, but the reign of justice. It does not signify the abolition of force-symbols but the application of force to real invaders." And the 19th century individualist anarchist Victor Yarros said, "A''narchism means no [state] but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of [the state] is kept in view. Anarchists oppose [the state], not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection." So you see, if you're trying to prove that individualist anarchists support the existence of government (police, armies, judicial system, etc), we already know that. If you think that since we support government that we aren't anarchists, that's not important. It's just a matter of semantics. Many communist anarchists don't think individualist anarchists are anarchists because we support private government. But that's not important. But you should be aware that, "A distinction that is relevant to the anarchist ideal is the difference between the government, referring to the state, and government, referring to the administration of a political system. Anarchists, like everyone, tend to use the word government as a synonym for state, but what is rejected by anarchism's a priori opposition to the state is not the concept of government as such but the idea of a sovereign order that claims and demands obedience, and if necessary, the lives of its subjects. Anarchism rejects the form of imposed, centralized authority enshrined and made material in the state.''" -Sheehan, Sean. Anarchism, Reaktion Books 2004, p. 25-26. In anarcho-capitalism, including 19th century individualist anarchist versions, there would still be a lot of the things you see today..police, prisons, militaries, private property, employers, employees, rent, etc. We make no bones about that. It would simply be more moral and more cost effective.Anarcho-capitalism 06:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I should point out to you that what I describe is not the only form of anarcho-capitalism. There are also utilitarian forms, such as that described by David Friedman, who is the other major anarcho-capitalist besides Rothbard. They don't subscribe to the non-aggression axiom and absolute protections for private property. There are two types of libertarians: rights theorists and consequentialists. The latter allow some violations of the non-aggression axiom (which are not violations at all because they don't subscribe to it). So if you're going to criticize anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism, then you need to keep that in mind.Anarcho-capitalism 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This may be of interest to you, since you seemed concerned about situations were it is unclear if a person is aggressing against another, whether it's against a person's property or his person. Rothbard says, "The basic libertarian principle is that everyone should be allowed to do whatever he or she is doing unless committing an overt act of aggression against someone else. But what about situations where it is unclear whether or not a person is committing aggression? In those cases, the only procedure consonant with libertarian principles is to do nothing; to lean over backwards to ensure that the judicial agency is not coercing an innocent person. If we are unsure, it is far better to let an aggressive act slip through than to impose coercion and therefore to commit aggression ourselves. A fundamental tenet of the Hippocratic oath, “at least, do not harm,” should apply to legal or judicial agencies as well. The presumption of every case, then, must be that every defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof must be sqaurely upon the plaintiff."Anarcho-capitalism 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we pick up discussion where we left it, but I can't promise a swift reply. -- Vision Thing -- 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are several big differences between governments and protection agencies. 1) You can't legally form your own government, but you can legally form your own protection agency. 2) You defined government as "an organization that holds a monopoly over the use of force in a certain geographic area." Government can forbid me to hold weapons (or to do something else, e.g. smoke) on my private property, no private protection agency can do that. 3) Government has power over many others fields other than protection. So even in the worst case, one positive effect of anarcho-capitalism would be decentralization of power. 4) Concerning social contract, if all governments in the world decide to tax you with 20% rate you would have to pay it. On the other hand, if all security agencies in the world decide to charge you with 20% rate you don't need to pay it if you didn't want it. You are free to choose. Ergo, in anarcho-capitalism degree of freedom is greater than in current system. -- Vision Thing -- 15:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in, I know this is a privat conversation, but I wanted to make an observation: I think the definition should be "an organization that holds a monopoly on the initiation of force". Otherwise, people would not have the right to self-defence, something universally accepted as a human right. -- Dullfig 05:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

1a) If you seriously tried to establish your own government, you would probably end up dead or in jail. Rebels and separatists initiate violence to form new government. You say that you need lots of guns to create your own government, but that you would also need lots of guns to start your own protection agency. That is like saying that you need lots of money to buy a car, but that you also need a lots of money to order a murder. So what's the difference between those two actions, you spend the same amount of money in both cases... In anarcho-capitalist society you wouldn't need to kill anybody to establish your own protection agency, just like you don't need to kill anybody to establish a business in current system, and only risk that you would take is a risk of bankruptcy, you wouldn't need to put your life on a line. 1b) Your answer to this is what if anarcho-capitalist society wouldn't function as in theory. Well, if entire or great deal of populace is armed and hostile it is virtually impossible to establish any meaningful control over them. Lesson that US Army is currently learning in Iraq. 2) Protection agency can put certain contractual obligations on you that you have to obey only if you are willing to accept contract with such obligations. If you don't accept such contract protection agency won't provide you with protection and that is only consequence. If you don't accept "contract" that government offers you, you will need to move to another country, pay for all the expenses of that move, leave your family and friends behind, find another job, and so on. Difference is immense. Rejecting government "offer" is associated with huge costs, both material and emotional, while rejecting protection agency isn't associated with additional cost. 3) Sure that protection agencies can make contracts with other corporations to provide an entire package of goods, and if they do I don't see a problem with that as long as free market and, at least, potential competition exist. 4) See 1b). Also, your objection can be directed to current system – if all governments in the world decided that tax rate should be 100% what could I do? All governments rule thanks to acceptance of the people, and tyrants get that acceptance by terror and intimidation. However, if people aren't letting to be intimidated, tyrants will be overthrown. Anarcho-capitalism can be established only when majority of people accepts certain set of rules/customs and shows readiness to stick with them. -- Vision Thing -- 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I will answer your Social fascism question on its talk page. Concerning, CoS I don't see need for explaining what socialism is (especially without sources), Socialism does that. I removed opening paragraph of Political criticisms because of that and because of the sentence "Political criticisms of socialism consist of arguments that not all of these proposed systems are compatible with socialism, and that those which are compatible are undesirable." – which seems like clear example of OR. Only criticism in that section is that of Hayek, and it claims that systems compatible with socialism are undesirable. Who criticizes socialism on the grounds that proposed system is not compatible with socialism? -- Vision Thing -- 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't edit libertarianism, but if there is a discussion about inclusion of links to critical apprisals let me know and I will support it. -- Vision Thing -- 20:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that you already included Critical appraisals section. I will support such section or some links from it, but please note that all authors in such section in Socialism are notable enough to have own Wikipedia's articles, and that links in that section don't outnumber all other links. -- Vision Thing -- 21:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion such move wouldn't be in accordance with WP:NPOV, all views must be represented in the main article.-- Vision Thing -- 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that such external links sections violate NPOV policy. -- Vision Thing -- 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that section does violate NPOV. Btw, you should feel free to add links to articles that defend socialism or argue about its good points (I assume that you have better knowledge than me about that kind of sites). -- Vision Thing -- 22:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps
Interesting maps but the source you are using does not seem very reliable regarding this, seems to be the personal opinions on a personal webpage. I would oppose using maps based on this in Wikipedia. I would suggest instead using the Polity IV project which is very widely used by scholars and in political science empirical research. You will get data for every year since 1800 for free if you register.Ultramarine 10:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Poverty - please vote
I think the poverty article would benefit from this This week's improvement drive --since you have help a lot with it please cast your vote.futurebird 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your reversion policies
I always explain the reasons for my reversions in the edit summary, if not on the dicussion page. So I don't understand why you would completely disregard those explanations and instead cling to your own erroneous assumptions about my "reversion policy". My reversions have everything to do with the quality of the edits and nothing to do with the editor personally. Moreover, why would you assume that "[I] lack the time to properly read through most edits and choose to revert if they seem inappropriate to [me]"? Perhaps you should consider the possibility that I have read through your edits yet believe that they are tangential to the article's subject matter or violate WP:NPOV, as stated in the edit summaries.

Never have I reverted edits merely because they were substandard prose-wise, the only exception being some of your edits to the communist state article. In that case, I thought that your edits worsened the quality of the prose while adding no new information to the article; so why would I attempt to salvage them? In the case of the socialism article, the quality of the prose was but one reason for my reverting your contibutions, as you can see in the edit summary. It was admittedly vague, but 172 interpreted it correctly when he said, "I took his reference to 'fringe movements' to include the expanded coverage on forms of soicalism not embraced by ruling parties and states for long periods of time". And when I said "it fails in its attempt to differentiate all the branches of socialism", I was alluding to your inaccurate equation of social democracy and market socialism, as they do not hold quite the same vision of economic organization.

If ever one of my edit summaries is vague in the future, prompt be to elucidate it on the talk page. But do not, as you have done here, make false assumptions about my motives for reverting your edits.

-- WGee 08:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "I just thought you were assuming bad faith on my part . . ." Well, that's why I sounded huffy: I saw no reason for you to assume that I doubted your intentions. Anyway, I hope my stance is clarified. -- WGee 21:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A matter of honour
As a small matter of personal honour, your edit summary in the socialism article ("re-edited various grammar and punctuation fixes wiped out by Nikodemus' insistent blanket reversions") got things the wrong way around: I was not the one doing the blanket reversions - WGee and 172 were responsible for that. In fact, I had just restored your grammar corrections to the first paragraph a few minutes before you made your most recent edit. -- Nikodemos 00:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, my humblest and sincerest apologies. The edit history is so confusing it was hard to determine the culprit.  Your innocence is duly noted, recognized and appreciated.  I hope your honor is satisfied because I am not looking forward to being challanged to a duel. :-)--WilliamThweatt 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Socialism article
You briefly mentioned that you are planning to add a new section to the article. I'm not sure what you have in mind, but I think it would be a good idea to focus on expanding the sections that are already there, since the article is generally well organized. In particular, "Socialism as an economic system" and "Socialism and social and political theory" are short yet very important sections that could use people's attention. -- WGee 07:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Chilean edits
Hello,, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. J A X HERE | T a l k 02:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Hello again. After seeing your user page, I thought you may want to look at my recent request here. 172 | Talk 12:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... I had the same suspicion about of Billy Ego myself before getting your message; but I wanted to wait longer before saying anything or getting involved. If that's the case, I must say it's pretty clever of RJII. 172 | Talk 09:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Nikodemos/User:Ruadh Sockpuppets
I went ahead and reported the obvious to the adminstration which is that Nikodemos and Ruadh are the same person, out there at St. Lawrence. The Nikodemos account is being used to revert back to your other Ruadh account's changes. Billy Ego 17:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Seven days apart? Wow, that is such an astounding use of sockpuppetry... -- Nikodemos 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You didn't use your Ruadh sockpuppet since you got back from your 7 day break because I caught you before you did. You had been using it prior to your break 7 days ago along with your "69.6.107.236" sockpuppet making versions with that one on the same day as your Ruadh sockpuppet on February 20. Billy Ego 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Enough is enough. If you two wish to bicker on either of your talk pages, that's one thing. But you also now have arguments going on at WP:RCU and WP:AN/I. Enough. You have both made yourselves quite clear. I'm giving this as a warning to both of you. Back off from the arguing on WP:RCU and WP:AN/I. You've both made yourselves clear. Continuing to fill those pages with your arguments is serving neither of you much good. If the arguments on those two pages continue, you will both soon find yourselves with 24 hour enforced cooling off periods. So please, stop it now. - TexasAndroid 18:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me specifically note that I am not, yet, trying to cut you and Billy off from talking totally (thus the mention of you still being able to use each other's talk pages). It's just that the arguing on the mentioned pages was really to a point of serving no good.  Both of you have filed Checkusers on each other.  So be it.  At this point I'm not sure there's much use in continuing to arugue until one or both CFU come back with results.  As for mediation, I really don't think you want me.  There are people who excell at such things.  I'm not one of them.  I'm a WikiGnome.  I normally sit in my corner of the project, doing my work, occasionally wacking vandals.  But I saw the exploding arguments on WP:RCU and WP:AN/I, and figured that I could at the least try to calm this one down a bit.  I was seriously temped to hit you both with 24 hour cooling-off blocks right away, but decided to give warnings at least a try.
 * Anyway, we'll see what the Checkusers return. Both may very well be declined.  But we shall see. - TexasAndroid 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Assistance
Re: "(could I ask for your assistance with two other articles, by the way?)." Sure, as long as it's not anything too stressful. -- WGee 04:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism
I am sorry to bother you, but I really need some help. There is an ongoing campaign by a few editors to portray Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism. As part of this effort (a debate that stretches back to 2004), there are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.--Cberlet 19:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Types of socialism
Have finally responded to your question on my talk page. BobFromBrockley 15:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lange Model
I was wondering if you would take a look at the article Lange Model that I made additions to and give me any feedback. Thanks so much! --EMB330 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The New Deal and corporatism
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article The New Deal and corporatism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Collapsable sections
Hi! You have done considerable work on the Christian Democracy sidebar. There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like that one. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I hope you can bring your views to the discussion. - C mon (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back
Ultramarine (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
I saw your comments about world hunger at the Black Book of Communism page and I think I like you. Keep up the good work!  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of socialism POV
Hello-Why do you think that section needs a POV tag? It is a criticism section, and everything there is expressed as beliefs of critics. Cretog8 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascism
I am contacting you because you commented on this topic a while ago.

Following a recent RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of socialist countries
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of socialist countries. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of socialist countries (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Hammer sickle small.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hammer sickle small.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anti-capitalism
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Anti-capitalism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Anti-capitalism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Constitutional Republic
I wanted to drop you a line as I noticed you have previously made a comment regarding the deletion of the page Constitutional Republic. This page has, once again, been recreated and is, once again, up for deletion in case you have input or comments. BlueSalix (talk) 06:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:AEQ2.gif or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:AEQ1.gif, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:AEQ3.gif, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:AEQ4.gif, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Nolan-chart.png


The file File:Nolan-chart.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-socialism" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anti-socialism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 14 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)