User talk:Vision Thing/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Sockpuppet tag
Hi, Vision Thing. Please do not remove the suspected sockpuppet tag from your user page. I suspect that you are a sockpuppet of banned user User:RJII, due to the fact that you have jumped right into debates where RJII left off (see Talk:Anarcho-capitalism for an example) after having only been registered on 19 March. You then immediately began editing pages that RJII had recently been editing (see An Anarchist FAQ -- RJII ceased editing this on 11 March after having been banned from Wikipedia per his probation -- as well as Economics of fascism --- RJII ceased editing this on 8 March, and you jumped right in and continued the little revert war that had been occurring there). Based upon your similar edits and upon the fact that you are a very new user who has a surprisingly in-depth understanding of Wikipedia, I suspect that you are a sockpuppet of RJII. Please do not remove the suspected sockpuppet tag from your user page again. In the meantime, I'm sure that we can clear all of this up. I could be very wrong. Thanks, and happy editing! :) --AaronS 16:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How can we clean this up? -- Vision Thing -- 10:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the next step in the process is to have an administrator take a look at the situation. Remember, that tag does not mean that you are a sockpuppet, it just means that someone suspects you. --AaronS 15:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I added this question to the administrators' noticeboard. The sockpuppet policy isn't very clear with regard to suspected sockpuppets, so let's see what they have to say. If I'm wrong, no hard feelings, alright? :) --AaronS 16:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Two days have passed and looks like none of administrators is agreeing with you on suspected sockpuppetry. Because of that, I'm removing the tags. -- Vision Thing -- 10:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still a little suspicious. Are you sure you're not me? Prove it. RJII 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw Grazon, using a sockpuppet, accuse another editor of being a sockpuppet of … Grazon. (Presumably this was to confuse the issue, but it might simply have been an inept attempt to use the tag. —SlamDiego 18:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

An Anarchist FAQ
In an effort to remove the npov tag, I hope you can express your opinion on the article version represented in this link at the talk page. Thanks. Steve block talk 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

POV
Vision Thing, please try to keep your personal views of things out of your edits. For example, this edit is extremely weaselly. I'm not going to revert it, because the difference is minimal, but next time please don't bother - it makes you seem very mean and narrow-minded. The paragraph above already said "attempts to explain", saying only "explain" the second time really isn't going to make the reader think any differently. -- infinity  0 


 * Saying that the FAQ doesn't explain disputes within anarchist thought would be my POV. Anyway, thanks for not reverting. -- Vision Thing -- 19:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam
Why are you adding about ten links from the same website to the socialism article? -- infinity  0  15:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * These links aren't spam. They all talk about socialism and are written by different authors or talk about different aspects of socialism. -- Vision Thing -- 17:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. They're from the same website. -- infinity  0  20:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration against infinity0
I filed an arbitration case against infinity0 which you expressed you would participate in. Thanks. RJII 18:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Infinity0
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Infinity0. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please observe the WP:3RR at article Neonazism which prohibits more than 3 reverts in any 24h period. SrbIzLike 17:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your motive
Why do you bother changing articles to reflect your own opinion? Do you understand what neutrality means? Do you understand what truth means? You know you are abusing the rules. Why do you do it? -- infinity  0  13:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy is clear about minority viewpoints. You don't seem to understand that whether a viewpoint is fringe or not is a fact, not opinion. It is a fact that ancap is a fringe viewpoint. It is a fact that ancap is a fringe viewpoint even within anarchism. You have been here sufficiently long enough to understand this. You *are* POV-pushing. What I'd like to know is why. -- infinity  0  13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Individualist Anarchism
Most of those are Wikipedia mirrors. U nekim slučajevima istinu nije moguće saznati pretragom ;) - FrancisTyers · 17:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism
Well, I don't mean rollback in the sense of the rollback feature. That's just for rolling back vandalism. I have to do it manually like everyone else. Also, I'm not sure what points of contention you had with AaronS' edit. I would consider some of the text he removed fairly fluff: "Support for workers' management of production is shared by all schools of social anarchism." "Proudhon's philosophy of property is complex and often contradictory: it was developed in a number of works over his lifetime, and there are differing interpretations of some of his ideas." Hogeye had changed "capitalism" to "statist capitalism" a bit ago without any real explanation, and I don't think it was an NPOV change because it suggests Proudhon was OK with "non-statist capitalism" without any evidence to make such a claim. Sarge Baldy 22:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I also don't think that my edit summary was false, because I was essentially copyediting -- removing fluff and fixing grammar. I didn't think that the few minor substantive changes I made would be considered POV. --AaronS 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism and Godwin
I assume you mean in the individualist anarchism article. I apologize if I made a mistake. --AaronS 17:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Response
Whatever you say. I'm not too concerned with that line anyway. 172 | Talk 22:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Sorry, by the way, if I came across as a bit cranky toward you earlier. Another editor, with whom I have a history of bad interactions, left me a bit irritable, and I think that adversly affected the quality of interactions with everyone else. 172 | Talk 22:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies in advance
I offer my apologies in advance if the CheckUser turns out to be false. However, I trust Nikodemos and he does have some good points. No hard feelings, hmm? -- infinity  0  16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Globalization
You're right -- bad assumption on my part. Thanks for fixing it. --AaronS 17:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism
I looked over the link and links that lined from there...are you suggesting that others are archiving discussion before they are finished?--MONGO 09:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm not trying to be rude, but just want to remind you to be watchful of the three revert rule as you have added a NPOV tag four times to the article and it has been reverted by others. I'm monitoring the article so contribute to the talk page and if anyone is archiving discussions before they finish, I'll make sure that stops.--MONGO 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Infinity0
This case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 11:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

 * VisionThing, could you just use the talk page before reverting everything I do? And could you at least label your reverts "revert" in the edit summary?  Please cross-post any replies to the Anarchism discussion page.  Bacchiad 12:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi VisionThing,

We've got a discussion of the future of the ancap section going on on the anarchism talk page. It'd be swell if you could stop by.

Best,

Bacchiad 20:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RJ
Hello, would you be so kind as to explicate the nature of your relationship with RJ? I would directly ask, "are you RJ," but I have a feeling you would try to psychologically weasel out of a genuine answer by thinking to yourself "well no, thats just an account I used." So how about we cut out all the stuff and work off the assumption that you've the decency to be honest both in letter and spirit. Gambatine! Blahblahblahblahblahblah 12:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Still no answer? And yet you've been making lots of edits in the meantime.  Perhaps I should make my question more broad.  Which already banned user are you?  Blahblahblahblahblahblah 21:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixed economy
A mixed economy is what america is so it exists. Redefining mixed economy so that it does not exist makes it a useless term. Conceiving the world's existing economies as all being one thing or another but nothing inbetween is like viewing all objects as either round or square. It might be useful for some analytical or polemic purpose but it ill suits the actual world. WAS 4.250 14:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting my edits
Hey, Vision Thing. I just wanted to invite you to discuss any problems you have with my edits on the talk pages of the articles in question before reverting them. That way, we can avoid misunderstandings and better understand each other's ideas about where the articles should go and how they can better conform to WP:NPOV. Thanks! --AaronS 14:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism in the United States

 * 1) I have not used my administrator powers, nor any authority (that I may or may not have).
 * 2) The page Individualist anarchism in the United States was moved to Anarchism in the United States because we didn't have a page for Anarchism in the United States.
 * 3) Information that was not cited was removed.
 * 4) Information was added to even up the page a bit.
 * 5) Doing a copy/paste restoration of the page violates the GFDL, the license under which all Wikipedia content is distributed. Do not do it.

- FrancisTyers · 14:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The page did not have history. That note is not redundant. Please stop edit warring, if you wish to move the page, put up a note at WP:RM, as this is obviously contentious. - FrancisTyers · 16:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There appears to be consensus that the page should be at Anarchism in the United States. I am not the only one who is reverting you. - FrancisTyers · 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

- FrancisTyers · 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

the anarchism article talk
Hey, Vision Thing. Thanks for what you said on Talk:Anarchism. It was excellent input and much needed. They are raving mad over there with communism pushing! Thanks again. Sha nnon duck talk  15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is so good to meet another sane person here at the wiki. There are so few (sane and nice people, but I'm learning that there are some, and that's so important to me.) Funny, what you said about getting driven away. I was thinking about just not going back there. This place, on certain articles, stresses me up so bad.. Well anyhow, thanks again. Anytime you want to add your input into anarchism or liberalism, I sure would appreciate it greatly. peace. Sha nnon duck talk  15:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

problems with liberalism article
The intro to the article has changed drastically since yesterday however, there is still a huge and deliberate tendency to confuse classical liberalism with modern liberalism, and the two couldn't be further apart.

this sentence is not necessarily true and it's leading: Classical liberals often strongly object to this kind of liberalism, asserting that the freedom of private property takes precedence over the personal freedom that depends on health, education, and a place to live; they claim that private charity does the job as well, or even better. Real classical liberals (Jeffersonians of that time) did not revere private property. The whole thing is a bit confusing to me even.

this is complete invention and mind warp Broadly speaking, most advocates of liberalism seek a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on coercive power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and equal opportunity.

modern liberals do not like freedom of thought as evidenced in so many ways in the past century. i.e. the creating of terms like 'negative liberty' or with laws like 'hate crime' type laws.

modern liberals do not like limitations on coercive power. They always call for more government intervention, not less.

modern liberals like the additions of bi-laws which tend to confuse the constitutional law, similarly to the way right-wingers, like the subversion of constitutional law.

modern liberals like a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected, classical liberals advocate individual liberties per Thomas Jefferson.

This sentence also "In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and equal opportunity [3]." That's nice, but classical liberals, (the Jeffersonians) wanted equal rights for everyone,

I'm going to make some changes the best that I can now, but I betcha anything they get reverted pretty quickly. Admittedly, I am still learning how to do this. I can see it is an art and there is a lot to it. All I really want is neutrality in articles.

Thanks. Again, I can't tell you how much I appreciate your help and support. Sha nnon duck talk  17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

wow
Hello, VT. Is it okay if I call you that for short? Sha nnon duck talk  14:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just went to the grassroots article. They turned it into a political thing, as if grassroots wasn't of the people, but of political parties. This is be beyond sad. The whole thing needs rewriting. I'll take a shot. If you ever want to lend a hand there'd be no objection here. peace. Sha nnon duck talk  14:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

email?
Vision Thing, did you send me an email? Please let me know if you did, so I'll be sure it's you. This place has a tendency to make a person a little paranoid. Please just let me know ok? Thanks. Sha nnon duck talk  22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, Vision Thing. Thanks, dude. Sha nnon duck talk  20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

checking out review of an-cap fas
Can you point me to a place where the criterion for a featured article is? Sha nnon duck talk  01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it. I'll work on it tomorrow. Sha nnon duck talk  05:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism
Howdy! Sorry, I know nothing about this subject. I would be happy to review the article though. Schmiteye 15:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks fair and balanced to me in its current form, although seems to have had some issues in the past. Was there any particular section you wanted me to focus on? - MSTCrow 00:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the alert, but I'm not all that concerned with whether or not anarcho-capitalism stays a featured article. I'm an anarcho-cap myself, as I tell anyone who seems to wonder what my POV is -- but, there are bigger fights, such as making sure the actual content of the article is fair to us. Do I care whether it gets a high-falutin' label? Not so much. (On another point, if you are RJ, good to see you back. He did good work and was railroaded out of here for no good reason. If you aren't RJ -- and I neither know nor care -- then I hope you pick up the torch. In either case, it's absurd for various jackasses to demand that you prove a negative.) --Christofurio 01:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Filed
I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Intangible. See [here]. Please post any comments you desire to add.--Cberlet 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here
How to fix cut and paste moves

"When a cut-and-paste move is done, the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is a Very Bad Thing, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons."

Merging_and_moving_pages

"Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) If you come across a cut-and-paste move that should be fixed by merging the page histories, please follow the instructions here to have an administrator repair it."

Regards, - FrancisTyers · 20:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content &mdash; cut and paste editing between pages is fine. - FrancisTyers · 17:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism and Capitalism
Thank you for noticing that someone removed the section on the Criticism of Capitalism page! I fixed it. Actually, the editor who removed it did not understand the Catholic position himself. It is explained in the encyclical Rerum Novarum which is on the Vatican's website here. A quick summary of key points: Capital and Labor are required to work together for the benefit of all parties involved rather than through class strife. It is the employer's duty to pay a just wage that can adequately support a decent life for the worker. It is the worker's duty to work faithfully and to respect the property of the employer. "The market" does not justify any immoral conduct on the part of the employer. JBogdan 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

email
I have email enabled now at my user page. Intangible 22:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template:Anarchism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

The above request has been filed by User:Zadanian, who seems to be having some difficulty with the filing requirements. The Mediation Committee requires all parties to be notified, and since he did not do so on filing the request, I'm notifying you on behalf of the Mediation Committee in my capacity as chairman.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay   ( Talk )  04:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 12:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

Whoops
Didn't see the discussion regarding your revert when I reversed it, even though I thought that I had read the most recent version of the talk page. Sorry 'bout that. --AaronS 00:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Encarta
Sure thing. The following examples:
 * Anarchism arose out of the ideological ferment of the French Revolution and in reaction to both the European bureaucratic nation state and the advent of large-scale industrial capitalism.
 * Like Rousseau, most schools of anarchists believed in positive rather than negative freedom. For both, freedom was based on political, economic, and social equality...
 * [Proudhon] condemned equally laissez-faire and State control.

More important is the US version:
 * ...in 1872 the anarchists were expelled from the International. Since that time socialism and anarchism have diverged sharply, although both are basically anticapitalist...

Etcetera. --AaronS 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed the part on property. Let me know if that works for you. --AaronS 15:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Property
Do you really think that the notions are the same, or are you just giving me a hard time? --AaronS 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Anarchism
Please refrain from such moves in the future. There was consensus about content of the template, just about its color. -- Vision Thing -- 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Going on what you intended to say and not what you actually said, as I took it, we were discussing the new layout and color scheme, so by that, yes, we had consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, Vision Thing. It has been a pleasure to work with someone as cool-headed as yourself in such a vitriolic part of the encyclopaedia. It's unfortunate that cheaters have to mar all sides of the debate, but such is life. Best wishes. --AaronS 20:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

FAR of anarcho-capitalism
They are closing the vote, so you might want to stop by and offer your comments, as well as a vote. Just a heads up. --AaronS

Removing mention of neocolonialism
Hi there, Vision Thing. I'm not familiar with the anti-globalization movement, but if "neocolonialism" is a word that anarchists use to describe a particular phenomenon, what is wrong with mentioning it in the article on anarchism? Also, do you have a source for this: "They rejected [anarcho-communism's] violent strategy and believed that it's inherently authoritarian"? Thanks, --AaronS 16:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quotation. You might want to add that reference to the article. As for neocolonialism, I think that it's pretty clear that they're talking about globalization:
 * Some critics emphasize that neocolonialism allows certain cartels of states, such as the World Bank, to control and exploit (usually) lesser developed countries (LDCs) by fostering debt. In effect, third world rulers give concessions and monopolies to foreign corporations in return for consolidation of power and monetary bribes. In most cases, much of the money loaned to these LDCs is returned to the favored foreign corporations. Thus, these foreign loans are, in effect, subsidies to crony corporations of the loaning state's rulers. This collusion is sometimes referred to as "the corporatocracy." Organizations accused of participating in neo-imperialism include the World Bank, World Trade Organization and Group of Eight, and the World Economic Forum. Various "first world" states, notably the United States, are said to be involved. An insider's first-hand description of the corporatocracy is described in the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins.
 * Best, --AaronS 17:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ward
It'll take a couple of days, as I am busy. --AaronS 19:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Dispossessed?
There is a certain irony in the fact that your favourite novel also happens to be one of my all-time favourites... -- Nikodemos 18:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I would suggest that you refrain from reverting my edits out of hand; if you took the time to read them, you might notice that the overwhelming majority of the material is usually not controversial. -- Nikodemos 19:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy that requires editors to explain every change they make. If you have issues with specific parts of my text, bring them up on talk pages. Otherwise, I will consider your unexplained reverts to be vandalism. Also, I find it quite interesting that you have taken to reverting a large number of my edits on unrelated pages. Is it merely coincidence?

In any case, you will find that I am quite reasonable if you take the time to discuss with me - and quite adamant to defend my edits if you do not. -- Nikodemos 18:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify: Your reversion of fascism and ideology in particular has removed sourced statements that I had added. There is no excuse for that. If you wish to edit, that is fine. I will not revert you if you edit my text and expand on the views you support. I will, however, continue to restore my text if you remove it out of hand. -- Nikodemos 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding Dune games, I still have my Dune 2 saved games from over 10 years ago... Do you have Emperor:Battle for Dune? If so, we might be able to play. :) What I like about House Ordos are their technocratic elements, as well as the fact that they do not appear to be aristocrats (unlike the Atreides and Harkonnen). What do you like about The Dispossessed? -- Nikodemos 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So you revert me with no explanation and accuse me of edit warring? -- Nikodemos 19:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, and for the last time, I invite you to edit any part of my text that you disagree with. If you did not take the time to read my text then you have no right to revert it. -- Nikodemos 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely you are not implying that anyone should have the right to revert anything without explanation? All of my major edits (or at least the ones you were so adamant to revert) are supported with references and sources. My justification for including new material is simple: I read scholarly works on the subject and I wish to improve the article.

I agree with your comments on Shevek and The Dispossessed (perhaps with the exception that I wouldn't go as far as to call Shevek the "ideal" man, though he is a good role model). And there lies my confusion: I thought our political views were each other's opposite, so how come we agree on these things? -- Nikodemos 20:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I often find myself hating reverts because so many people use them to indiscriminately undo all edits to an article when they are in fact only opposed to some of those edits. If you believe I have removed any important information from an article, feel free to add it back. Bear in mind that I often try to summarize things, however, and I also make edits to ensure that the paragraphs of an article are logically connected to each other (as opposed to having the article composed of unrelated paragraphs). Therefore I may change a lot of wording without actually changing any meaning.


 * The economy of Annares is clearly not capitalist, and Shevek, like all Odonians, is opposed to private property. I do not see how you reconcile that with your anarcho-capitalist views. Perhaps you may wish to look into a different kind of anarchism. ;)


 * However, I am not an anarchist - not by a long shot. -- Nikodemos 20:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia's quality up. The edits by the anonymous user you've been reverting are most likely those of a sockpuppet of the banned vandal User:Alienus, who has a habit of following me on Wikipedia and reverting my edits causelessly. LaszloWalrus 05:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Good faith
It has been brought to my attention that you requested a checkuser on me, under the belief that I have been editing from the anonymous IP 72.139.119.165. First of all, I am disappointed that your request was not granted - I have never edited from an IP in the 72. range, and a checkuser would have cleared my name of any suspicion. Is it possible to request a checkuser on oneself in order to clear one's reputation? If so, I would like to do that. This anon user certainly seems to have views similar to mine, just like you have views similar to RJII's - but you and RJII are not the same person (as proven some months ago).

Second, your actions have caused me to re-evaluate my attitude towards you. I confess that I am guilty of assuming bad faith. You used to support RJII - who, as it turns out, was a self-confessed POV-pusher - and that made me look upon you the same way I looked upon him. I assumed, almost subconsciously, that you were a POV-pusher wishing to bias wikipedia in favour of anarcho-capitalism. As a result, my attitude towards you has been rather uncompromising. But a POV-pusher does not request the help of the administrators to deal with an honest editor. The fact that you did request the help of the administrators - more than once - makes me believe that you may not be a POV-pusher, and that in fact my actions may have led you to believe that I am the biased one.

In brief, you have given me reason to suspect that we may both be editing in good faith while assuming the other to be a POV-pusher.

I hope I am right on this. From now on, I will assume you are editing in good faith as long as you don't give me a reason to think otherwise. I will always attempt to solve our disputes on talk pages rather than revert your edits. I apologize for making you believe that I was trying to suppress your POV (if that is indeed what you believed). And I would like to talk to you more directly, through an instant messaging program (like MSN or Yahoo; please tell me if you have one and I'll email you my username).

By the way, it's not the human qualities of Shevek that I admire, but precisely his political and economic views. That's another reason I want to talk to you via live chat - it seems we would both benefit from an exchange of political views. -- Nikodemos 04:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let's start talking politics! :) I sent you an email. -- Nikodemos 02:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Essays
Just thought I'd point out that the person who's been adding an essay to Poverty has been doing the same thing to Economy of the United States (different essay). I hope that they try to follow normal WP policy and gain consensus, but that hasn't happened so far. Waitak 01:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Stalking
I've noticed that for the past couple of weeks you and User:Intangible have been following me around erasing my input. If you have a problem with me, you need to address me directly instead of edit-stalking me. This borders on harrassment and it needs to stop before I report it. Full Shunyata 07:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Manusmriti
Ya that's a tough one - I don't know of any good books or articles on that. Additionally, its very controversial so difficult to say which source is reliable. If you find a work, I advise that you make sure of the author's credentials first. Rama's arrow 20:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

Re: Facism and ideology
Not to sound incivil, but I know about that policy. It just seemed like one side (you) was inserting POV into the article and the other side was reverting. My bad. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of fascism and ideology, I think we should be aiming toward some kind of consensus version soon. Adding new information to controversial articles can sometimes be a self-reinforcing activity (one side adds info to support its views, the other side adds info to support the opposite views, and the end result is a balanced but repetitive and disorganized article). Our aim should be to reach a point where we can both say we are satisfied with the current form of the article, and leave it be until or unless a third user comes along to add something we have neglected. What is your opinion of the article as it stands right now? (please comment on the article's Talk page) -- Nikodemos 07:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman and 3RR
Your reverting edits on Milton Friedman are bordering on being recommended for violations of the three-revert-rule (3RR). Please stop such irresponsible editing behaviour or you may be blocked for such conduct. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 17:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll on Talk:Milton Friedman
You're the only one who voted so far, and I'm editing my comments only minutes after I made them. Besides, I can add anything I want, since it is *my* proposal and I'm only adding to *my* proposal...and not messing up anyone else's text. I think I'm done with considerations, though. So your point is moot. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Socialism Section
Please do not revert edits for ideological reasons. This is a violation of the Wikipedia POV rules. If you have an issue with my own revisions, please discuss them in Talk:Socialism, as I have. Thank you. (EnglishEfternamn 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

A challenge
Most political debates end with both sides still holding their original positions. I was wondering if you would be interested in engaging in a debate with actual stakes attached. Specifically, I know I can prove that anarcho-capitalism logically and morally allows the existence of organizations that are governments in everything but name. If I can make an argument presenting that proof to your satisfaction, will you reconsider your political views?

I am asking this rather than starting the debate outright because I am tired of anarcho-capitalists who refuse to acknowledge any errors in their views even when you prove to them that anarcho-capitalism can lead to something that is identical to statism in all respects except vocabulary. Are you committed more to the ideal of freedom or to the specific ideology of anarcho-capitalism? If you are committed to freedom, I can show you that anarcho-capitalism does not provide it. If you are committed to anarcho-capitalism, there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. Likewise, if you see my arguments merely as the words of an enemy that must be defeated rather than the words of someone who may have a point, there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. I am willing to listen to your arguments with an open mind and change my views if necessary. Will you accept my challenge and debate me with the understanding that either of us may have to reconsider his views in light of the other's arguments? -- Nikodemos 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for my absence; you may have noticed that I disappear from time to time - sometimes for weeks on end - when I am particularly busy with real life. Shall we pick up this discussion where we left off?


 * On another note, I cannot help but observe that your edits on several articles all point towards one conclusion: You believe that Nazism is a form of socialism and that this is a very important fact that needs to be mentioned as often as possible. I am curious to know why you insist on it so much. In Talk:Socialism you called it a "criticism of socialism". But surely you know that it is a fallacious criticism at best. Even if true, the fact that some A are B does not prove that all A are B. Surely the argument that socialism is authoritarian in a general sense - rather than "fascist" in a narrow sense - is a better and more rational criticism. It is also far less controversial. -- Nikodemos 07:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I don't have a lot of free time myself. But here is an essay I have written some weeks ago on the futility of anarcho-capitalism (without the lengthy introduction):

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: THE EMPTY IDEAL

[...]

First, we need a few definitions. What is anarcho-capitalism? It is the ideology that advocates the abolition of government. Nothing more, nothing less. What separates anarcho-capitalists from other anarchists is that anarcho-capitalists want to abolish only the government, whereas other anarchists want to abolish capitalism and sometimes other things as well. So anarcho-capitalists want to change fewer things about the world than other anarchists.

But what is the government? If anarcho-capitalism is based on a desire to abolish the government, then the nature of the anarcho-capitalist utopia depends entirely on what is understood by "government". All anarcho-capitalists define the government using some variant of Weber's Thesis; the shortest version of that Thesis is as follows:

"The government is an organization that holds a monopoly over the use of force in a certain geographic area."

In other words, what makes someone the government is the fact that they have a monopoly over the use of "men with guns" (police, army, etc.) to enforce their will over a certain area. Some versions refine this definition to say that the government merely claims a monopoly over the use of force (so that a government is still a government even if its monopoly is challenged by, say, a rebel army).

Very well then; what does it mean to abolish the government? Well, you have to abolish all monopolies over the use of force (and/or claims to such monopolies). This does not mean abolishing the use of force. Anarcho-capitalists do not oppose the use of force - they only oppose monopolies over it. So anarcho-capitalists do not object to any of the current functions and institutions of government - courts of law, parliaments, presidents, bureaucracy, police and army - as long as they allow competition. In other words, anarcho-capitalism is not opposed to anything governments do as long as they allow everyone else to do it too.

Anarcho-capitalists want to replace the functions of government - particularly the writing of laws and the enforcement of those laws - with private protection agencies. Instead of paying taxes to a government to protect you according to its laws, you would be able to pay a private agency of your choosing to protect you according to laws of your choosing. Those private protection agencies can be organized just like present day governments. In fact, it is likely that they would be organized exactly like present day governments, since governments provide a tried and true model of law enforcement. Why fix what ain't broken? Private agencies are not likely to invest in researching entirely new methods of developing and enforcing laws when old ones work just as well.

So instead of paying taxes to governments, people in the anarcho-capitalist utopia would pay fees to private agencies that are mostly organized the same as governments. What's the difference? Well, anarcho-capitalists say the difference lies in your ability to choose which protection agency you hire. But wait, you can already choose which government you live under. You can move to a different country. There are almost 200 of them in the world. Granted, it's not that easy to move to another country; it costs money. But even in anarcho-capitalism, private agencies won't serve customers all over the world. You can't rely for protection on an agency whose closest security agents are on another continent. You will have a limited number of local firms to choose from. How many? Well, Paul Birch (who was an anarcho-capitalist himself) wrote an essay explaining how private agencies would most likely establish local monopolies. To make a long story short, agencies can cut costs by serving customers who live close together. And people will find it more convenient to hire the same agency as their neighbors. These two tendencies work together to make geographically-based agencies more competitive than agencies who spread out all over the place. So you will only have one agency - maybe two - serving your local area. Exactly the same as with governments. In fact, a private security agency with a local monopoly fits perfectly with the definition of a government.

At this point in the argument, anarcho-capitalists usually begin grasping at straws to find some significant difference between their private agencies and present day governments. They often invoke the fact that movement between countries is not only limited by the cost of transport, but also by restrictions that governments place on immigration and emigration. This is true, but private security firms - especially geographically-based ones - are able to create the exact same kind of restrictions. They may choose to build a reputation by serving only certain types of customers that fit a certain standard (akin to placing restrictions on immigration), or they may offer lower fees or other benefits in exchange for making it difficult for customers to terminate their contracts (akin to placing restrictions on emigration).

Finally, one last argument remains: Anarcho-capitalists reject social contract theories on the grounds that people do not voluntarily enter into contracts with their governments, but are rather born into them. In other words, you do not choose to be a citizen of your country. You were born a citizen. You may, of course, abandon your citizenship and move to another country after you reach adulthood, but anarcho-capitalists do not consider this to be sufficient freedom. How, then, would anarcho-capitalism provide more freedom?

Well, anarcho-capitalism would replace governments with security agencies, which - as noted above - are essentially identical to governments in every respect. People would hire these agencies for protection, and, as people often do, many of them would have children. Anarcho-capitalists never seem to explain how they see children fitting in their utopia. In the absence of a single state to establish custody laws and ages of consent, what would be the status of children? Would they be treated as the property of their parents? Or would 3 year olds be allowed to sign binding contracts? It is reasonable to assume that different protection agencies would treat children differently and set their own ages of consent. In any case, most parents would naturally want to protect their children from murder, rape or assault. They would no doubt wish to enter their children into contracts with security agencies as soon as they are born, and before those children have the intellectual capacity to make legal decisions on their own (you can't spend the first years of your life with no protection against crime). So the children, as they grow up, will find themselves bound to an agency much like present day children find themselves bound to a state. Until they reach the age of consent (whatever that is), children in an anarcho-capitalist society will have to live by the laws of the agency their parents chose for them. Just like our children have to live by the laws of our governments.

Thus the main anarcho-capitalist argument against social contract theory - that you never ASKED to be born under the jurisdiction of your government - is absurd. In every society we can imagine, you cannot choose the conditions you are born into. Anarcho-capitalists believe the social contract is illegitimate because you are born into it rather than choosing it as an adult. But you have to be born into some contract, you have to be born under some set of laws. No kind of society can escape the simple biological fact that parents have to make decisions for their children.

So what is left of anarchy? There are security agencies that can, and probably will, be organized just like modern governments. People pay fees to these agencies just like we pay taxes. Yes, the agencies compete against each other, but so do our governments. People may switch between agencies, but people may also switch between governments in our world. Our governments put up various barriers to movement - restrictions on who can immigrate or emigrate - but anarcho-capitalist security agencies can also be selective with their customers and make it difficult for people to terminate their contracts with them. Our governments are based on geography, but it is also likely that security agencies would choose to operate within certain areas and may well develop local monopolies. Finally, people are born under the jurisdiction of governments, but people would also be born into contracts with protection agencies.

In brief, the anarcho-capitalist utopia is virtually identical to the world we live in right now. The application of anarcho-capitalist principles would make no practical difference at all. Therefore, anarcho-capitalism is an empty ideal - it leads right back to where we started. And it isn't just anarcho-capitalism that suffers from this problem. Notice I began with two definitions: A government is an organization that claims a monopoly over the use of force, and anarcho-capitalism is the idea that we should abolish governments. It turned out that this idea amounts to nothing at all. In other words, abolishing claims of monopolies over the use of force makes no practical difference. Thus, ANY kind of anarchism that is based upon this idea - any kind of anarchism that just wants to abolish the government and leave everything else intact - will lead right back to the world we have today.

If you really want freedom, try something else.
 * -- Nikodemos 07:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On the alleged differences between governments and protection agencies:
 * What does "legally" mean? It means "with the permission of a government". To say that you cannot legally form a new government is to say that you cannot form a new government with the permission of an already-existing government. True. But that does not stop rebels and separatists from creating new governments anyway. You need lots of guns to create your own government, yes, but wouldn't you also need lots of guns to start your own protection agency? After all, you need something to protect your customers with, don't you? And I see no reason to believe that already-existing protection agencies would peacefully allow you to create your own. If they can overpower you and steal your property, why shouldn't they? Only a balance of power between protection agencies can prevent such aggression, and I doubt that your newly-formed agency will be strong enough to establish a balance of power.
 * The government of Burkina Faso can't prevent you from doing anything - unless you live in Burkina Faso. There is only one government that can tell you what to do - the government you live under. Now, I have already explained how choosing to live under a government is the same as signing a contract with a protection agency. Your government has certain laws that you have to obey. Wouldn't a protection agency also put certain contractual obligations on you that you have to obey? Couldn't one of these obligations be "no smoking"? The deal is take it or leave it. Same deal a government gives you. You don't like my protection agency, go sign a contract with another one. You don't like my government, go live under a different one.
 * What makes you think that protection agencies can't make contracts with other corporations so as to provide you with an entire package of goods rather than just protection?
 * If all the protection agencies in the world entered into some giant cartel that agreed to charge you at a 20% rate, you can bet that this cartel would be powerful enough to crush you if you dared to step out of line. Remember: If you don't have a contract with any protection agency, you don't just need to defend yourself against crime - you also need to defend yourself against predatory protection agencies who might decide to kill you and take your property (if you're all alone, aggression may well be profitable). -- Nikodemos 04:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, regarding recent developments on wikipedia: Are we back to blanket reverting? You reverted my expanded intro in the social fascism article on the grounds that it did not have sources, when the old intro was not supported by any sources either. Granted, you seemed to be particularly outraged by my renaming the page, but I assure you that no malicious intent was behind it. I was merely trying to clarify the subject-matter. An article called "social fascism" gives the impression that it is about the ideas and policies of some people who call themselves "social fascists", which is not the case here. But, since you appear to care about it so much, I won't bother to rename the article again.

I further noticed that you deleted my opening paragraph to the political criticisms section of the criticisms of socialism article under the accusation that it was "OR". But it only made two allegations: (1) That different socialists have advocated different political systems (do I really need a source for that?) and (2) that some critics of socialism argue that only some political systems are compatible with socialism, and that those political systems are undesirable. This is merely a more general re-stating of Hayek's thesis. Hayek argued that only a totalitarian political system is compatible with socialism, and that such a system is undesirable.

Now, if I really wanted to edit in bad faith, I would demand that you give specific page references to support your interpretation of Hayek, rather than saying whatever you want about him and citing the whole book as your reference. But I'm not going to do that. -- Nikodemos 04:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Given your recent statement that "all articles should contain critical links if they are relevant", I will count on you to support the addition of critical links to the libertarianism article. -- Nikodemos 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct; but please note that the main website critical of libertarianism is basically a collection of links to a large number of anti-libertarian papers and essays. We should probably link directly to the most relevant of those - I will go through the list and select a few as soon as I have the time, then remove the other, less relevant critical links.


 * This is not my favourite solution, however. I would prefer to categorize external links by what they advocate rather than what they oppose. So, for instance, I would like to move the anti-socialist links to either the criticisms of socialism article or to the article on whatever ideology the authors of those websites support. The same goes for the anti-libertarian links. Notice that neither liberalism nor conservatism have external links to critical appraisals. -- Nikodemos 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You do have a point. However, wouldn't you say that it also violates NPOV to have critical links for some ideologies and not for others? I'm thinking of liberalism and conservatism again. -- Nikodemos 21:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So, would you agree that the external links section of criticisms of socialism currently violates NPOV policy? -- Nikodemos 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Milton Friedman FYI: Dictdef of "Vulgar"
1. Crudely indecent.

2. Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement. 3. Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people; vernacular: the technical and vulgar names for an animal species.
 * Marked by a lack of good breeding; boorish. See Synonyms at common.
 * Offensively excessive in self-display or expenditure; ostentatious: the huge vulgar houses and cars of the newly rich.

4. Of or associated with the great masses of people; common.

All of which apply, especially 2, 3 and 4.

or

adjective 1. lacking refinement or cultivation or taste; "he had coarse manners but a first-rate mind"; "behavior that branded him as common"; "an untutored and uncouth human being"; "an uncouth soldier--a real tough guy"; "appealing to the vulgar taste for violence"; "the vulgar display of the newly rich" [syn: coarse] 2. of or associated with the great masses of people; "the common people in those days suffered greatly"; "behavior that branded him as common"; "his square plebeian nose"; "a vulgar and objectionable person"; "the unwashed masses" [syn: common] 3. being or characteristic of or appropriate to everyday language; "common parlance"; "a vernacular term"; "vernacular speakers"; "the vulgar tongue of the masses"; "the technical and vulgar names for an animal species" [syn: common] 4. conspicuously and tastelessly indecent; "coarse language"; "a crude joke"; "crude behavior"; "an earthy sense of humor"; "a revoltingly gross expletive"; "a vulgar gesture"; "full of language so vulgar it should have been edited" [syn: coarse]

Again, all of which apply, especially 1, 2, and 3.

Stop reverting a decent edit that adequately explains the misuse. Just because the Americans like to think of "vulgar" as only the first definition, doesn't mean the rest of the world accepts that as the only denotation or connotation. If you object to one word, change one word. Don't revert solely to continue your lazy inaccuracy by omission. Because that's pushing your POV over accuracy. It's bad enough the article is named inaccurately. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 20:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Communism template
I want to delete the left communism, council communism, and anarchist communism entries too. I think left communism barely gets mentioned in encyclopedias. Regarding the others, I'm not sure if they are mentioned even once. The problem is that there are too many "left communist" POV-pushers who keep reinserting those entires. 172 | Talk 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove the other three, rather than adding a fourth entry that does not belong in the template. Juche definately does not belong, as it lacks any serious international following, unlike any of the other entries. 172 | Talk 12:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sukarno reference is a smear. Ceausescu was influenced by the example of Kim's neo-Stalinist personality cult and patrimonial rule, not by any clearly defined North Korean ideology. The groups pledging ideological allegiance to North Korea consist entirely of a cult fridge of communist sects with no meaningful influence anywhere. The notion that "Juche" is an international ideology with a significant following is a fabrication of North Korean propaganda, just like everything published by DPRK sources. 172 | Talk 12:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the NPOV tag
You have removed NPOV tag from the page self-ownership article without stating a reason, and the properness is still under debate. See the talk page to view a person's objection to the tag and my response. Wooyi 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now I see it. Wooyi 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

New Project
Wooyi 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments
>>>Please see No personal attacks policy. Here it is in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your placing of my comments from other talk pages to Talk:Nazism is completely out of order. -- Vision Thing -- 21:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not believe it is a personal attack to point out that you have disregarded the lengthy discussions involving numerous editors on several pages over the issue of your marginal and right-wing libertarian Austrian School POV on the subjects of socialism, fascism, nazism, and collectivism. I, too, am tired of this pointless confrontation.  I once again suggest mediation.  If you are serious about avoiding endless confrontations over the exact same topic month after month, let us proceeed to mediation. Do you accept meditation?  If yes, we can move this over to a request for mediation.--Cberlet 18:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please join this mediation
I think this is the only way to find some way through this contentious and endless debate: Requests for mediation/National Socialism Please agree to this mediation.--Cberlet 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Cockroaches
Hello and sorry for the spam. You participated in this discussion, which was closed but now restarted as a new discussion by the closing admin. In case you're interested, please join the new one. Thank you. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation - Nazism, etc.
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Nazism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Hope this notice thing works.--Cberlet 20:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)