User talk:Valois bourbon

September 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Right-wing politics has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Prince of Canadat 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nazism
Nazis railed against capitalism...in every speech against Jews. They jailed capitalists and took state control over their businesses...because the owners failed to follow the Nazi party sufficiently. Anti-capitalism was never an ethic, agenda, or policy in itself. This is all on the Discussion page already, I call your attention to it.Anarchangel (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Claim that Chinese and Indian right-wing activists "couldn't care a rice bowl" about abortion.
This is a VERY shameful and offensive choice of words by you to back up your claim on Chinese and Indian right-wing politics. I hope that you will apologize for this crude statement immediately, as your statement is highly offensive to Chinese and Indian people.--R-41 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Klinghoffer
Found Klinghoffer's book at google books. Which pages are you refering to at the African socialism article? I don't have time to go through the entire book at this point. --Soman (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That said, i think page 15 gives a good starting point for establishing definition at the article. Note that the division in pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese streams of African socialism doesn't necessarily imply pro-Soviet or pro-Chinese Marxist-Leninism, quite a few African socialists aligned with either of the two blocs without buying the entire ideological franchise. --Soman (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi there. I've noticed that you're making a lot of potentially controversial edits to political articles. It's true that we should all be bold, and that's good. Sometimes we all need to be careful about controversial issues, though. And it's best to discuss major or controversial changes on the talk page first. If nobody replies within a few days, great, obviously there aren't any major objections. If people do reply, then everyone gets a chance to work out any issues. This helps prevent edit wars on the article page.

Please note, this isn't an attack on you, just some friendly advice. Cheers. [ roux  ] [ x ] 18:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop using Wikipedia as a platform to blatantly promote your Randian objectivist opinions. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Also, please be more careful with spelling, grammar, order of sentences and such. Some of the edits you have made simply don't make any sense.Spylab (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You seriously need to cool it with your POV-pushing in articles. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your political beliefs.Spylab (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Regarding edits like these and, whilst I understand your argument, I think it might be more apt to raise the issue of a WP:CFD for the parent category rather than emptying the far-right politics category. The notion that Nazism/Fascism belongs to the far-right is hardly a fringe opinion, and its better to get a consensus as WP:CFD rather than starting editwars in categories. Categories function better with a degree of stability. --Soman (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at their articles! There is a significant debate whether they are far left, far right, or centrist. If they are categorized "far right", then they need to be categorized "far left" as well, to maintain NPOV.Valois bourbon (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is quite simply; if you want major changes in categorizing schemes, its better to seek a consensus at WP:CFD rather than unilaterally emptying categories. --Soman (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When the article in question exclusively rejects such categorization, keeping it there would be a striking violation of NPOV.Valois bourbon (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also am strongly opposed to this users method of categorization and support User:Soman's comments. I also think this users new Category:Right-wing_politics is problematic. Also see possibly relevant conversations under the deletion discussion of "Right-Libertarian" template, including possible sockpuppet discussion. Carol Moore 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
 * Sorry, I did not know there has been a category before. Can you delete it?Valois bourbon (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Valois, thanks for the barnstar! I appreciate when other editors recognize my contributions. You keep up the good work, too! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 05:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

POV pushers
Per the advice of another Wikipedia editor that I've participated in dispute resolution with successfully, I've decided to start building a case against the POV pushers at Right-wing politics. In order to stop their nonsense we're going to need to provide diffs and examples of their POV pushing, bad faith, and breaches of Wikipedia polices where applicable for each offending user. I've started a whiteboard at User:Amwestover/The Case Against Barack Obama so that multiple users can contribute to the case. I've already created a quick outline of allegations and I intend to start including diffs for evidence soon. I welcome you to contribute to this, since judging by the talk pages and edit history, it appears that you've been dealing with these POV pushers for a lot longer than I have. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is missing a body
Could I ask a favor? On November 5 2008, you added several references to the article Neoliberalism. The one named name="eb" is missing the body of the reference. Do you by chance remember what that actual reference is? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agorism sidebar
I invite you to share your opinion about the nomination for deletion of the Agorism and Agorism sidebar. I am doing this since there appears to lack a broad range of libertarians reaching a consensus. Thank you for your time. PublicSquare (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2009 (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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)