User talk:RJII

Welcome!

Hello RJII, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 06:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

need your help on two RFCs

Please visit these pages and post a comment in support with an example of how this is true. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Gamaliel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon 24.147.97.230 17:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Political entrepreneur

I read the page, and it's contents didn't match up with what I understood the concept to be--I had always thought of it as someone who starts their own venture in politics, essentially an activist who went to business school. For example, Wes Boyd of MoveOn would be a political entrepreneur. Google seems to back me up, and also gives only 977 hits for the term. Should this be deleted or rewritten? Thanks, Meelar (talk) 15:14, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Did you get this term from the works of Burton Folsom? Please reply at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Political entrepreneur. Gazpacho 21:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've created Burton Folsom, Jr.. You're welcome to contribute. Gazpacho 09:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Natural monopoly

In accordance with policy at WP:3RR, I am blocking you for 24 hours for reverting more than 3 times within 24 hours in this article. Please respect this rule in future.-gadfium 00:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been bad. I did a no-no. RJII 21:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Constitutionality

The Constitutionality article temporarily can't be deleted for technical reasons (see Ugen's modification). In the meantime, there are incoming links to this page, so we can't keep the deletion notice in it. -- Curps 21:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's discussed briefly here: Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#.22contains_block-compressed_revisions.22; I read more detail about it somewhere else (village pump?) but can't remember where. Apparently articles whose histories are too old have "block-compressed revisions" and the software just can't delete them, pending a fix in "a month or two".

In the meantime, "Constitutionality" has incoming links from other pages, so the page has to remain usable by Wikipedia readers; it shouldn't be blanked or have alarming deletion notices at the top of it. Perhaps you should just put it on your "to do" list. I realize that's a frustrating situation, but it does seem to be a genuine bug with Wikipedia software for the time being. -- Curps 21:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-- Curps 21:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism doesn't belong where you put it

I challenge your addition to the Anarchism article which we have disagreed on. If you look back in the Talk archives (very recently), it was decided through much arguing against a small minority that had little knowledge on the subject they were arguing, that anti-statist capitalism is NOT a form of anarchism. This claim is dealt with in the article. The system is even briefly explained, and then it is also explained that it is a misinterpretation to call it part of anarchism, which it is not. Therefore, I do not see a purpose to further link to the subject when it's already been stated in the article that anarchism is anti-capitalist. In the other wikpedia article, which is linked to in the article, about anarchist critiques of capitalism, there is further discussion on the subject and explanation. If we were talking about something like, say, anarcho-syndicalism, then it would be obvious that there should be some outside links to that subject, which there are. But when it comes to anti-statist capitalism, there is no reason to further promote the idea when it has already been dismissed as something which should not even be mentioned in the article, it is however because it is necessary to get rid of a somewhat common misperception. So I challenge your statement then, that it was wrongfully deleted. If you're an anti-statist capitalist who just recently discovered the article, please look at the the very recent discussions about this subject, because it's been debunked before many times. --Fatal 02:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Judicial Review

I removed the paragraph about the greater frequency of U.S. "unconstitionality" rulings from the judicial review article on the grounds its unsubstantiated (see Talk:judicial review for more). I apologize in advance if I removed this in error. If this is the case, your original text is in Talk:judicial review. You can just copy and paste it along with your sources back into the original page. Take care. Queerudite 21:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrong person. My apologies. -- Queerudite 02:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Survey in Talk:Anarchism

I would like to see your answers to the survey questions so we can start resolving all these disputes and unprotect the article. --albamuth 08:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Altruism

Please respond to my concerns about the nature of the Comte quotation on the Altruism page. PaulStansifer 15:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Down with bullets!

Hi, RJII. Do you agree with me that all three bullets are really speaking about the same thing, and that they can (and need) to be merged? The limitation of the current format is revealing itself as too great is what our series of edits reveals to me more than anything. I think we need an integrated narrative for the opening pargrpah which depicts (somewhat in this order): an economic system [originating from] a combination of economic practices [analyzed in] competing theories, and finally, what we do not have there at the moment, currently the dominant economic system on the planet. Once we have that, it's much easier to collaborate on how to shift what, what to include, exclude, etc., but the connection first needs to be made. Ultimately, I think the split opening is too taxing on the reader, lacking logical flow and relationality. I joined the discussion late in the day (and I never edited the article before), and to be honest, I didn't really read it that closely, so I'm not exactly sure where you, yourself, stand with regards to the bullets. Thanks for taking the time to read this, looking forward to your thoughts. El_C 01:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An afterthought: I noticed you deleted mercantilism having been succeeded and superceeded by capitalism. I presume this wasn't because you disagreed with this being an historical fact (since you kept it in multiple edits), but rather, for the sakes of concision. I wanted to comment on this front that, unlike Simple Wikipedia, we should be a bit (though, of course, not excessively) expansive in the op. of such a broad and complex subject. More importantly, I think it's key for us to provide the reader with historical context (by virtue of even mentioning mercantilism, the article suggests that feudal economic relations didn't just change straight into capitalism, as Adam Smith could testify first hand). El_C 02:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have a problem with the first bullet, too, I find it is out of place, but I think it can make sense within an integrated narrative. Goodpoint re: it being the dominant system viz. mixed economies, I would not go so far as to say it's POV, but it's clearly a reductionistic statement on my part. That said, I think there is a need to qualify that it is, nonetheless, the most dominant economic strain/influence/however we choose to call it/etc. For example, China has been moving through the decades towards capitalism and having capitalists, towards private ownership, etc., rather than the opposite. Likewise with respect to the diminishing of the Keynysian Welfare State's 'safety net' (even the Democrates in the US, for example, are not calling for a New Deal right now, but rather, slowing down the intensity of of privitization). And likewise with the Structural Adjustment Plans the IMF/WB promotes for the Third World which push for privitization and greater openness to private investment. The general thrust, then, in that sense, is towards capitalism, with the dissolution of the Soviet block (another factor that can be listed with the above) playing an important role in this historic shift to the right. Returning again to the United States as an example, recall that until the 1980s even the Republicans in Office promoted the Welfare State (it wasn't just FDR and LBJ, but Nixon, and Ford). So this tendency needs to be broadly noted alngside mixed economy qualifications. To what extent (and how) we can do so in the opening is one question, which I am confident we can arrive at through editorial collaboration so long as we can agree on the basic premise of such an economic-historical movement. I certainly agree with you that we need to tackle the issue head-on rather than confusing the reader with mixed definitions which do amount to non-social-sceintific mysticism. Honestly, I did not expect to get too involved in this article to such an extent, but now that I am, perhaps I should attempt such a merger. At the event, it sounds as if this is something that you welcome (a long the lines I outlined above, minus the dominant system bit, we can iron that item out, I'm sure), so I'm pleased to learn that. I'm not sure when I'll find the time to do this merger for the opening (hopefuly soon), but I, of course, will value any help and insights you could provide me with on this (and any other) front. Does that sound? P.S. My apologies for the length of this comment. El_C 05:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are making positive strides, but I still wish to persuade you against having the leading definition extend for only two sentence – I simply do not think it's tenable. Please review the article talk page where I elaborate on this point. Secondly, most of what we write is, by nature, definitional; I suspect you are refering to the leading sentence/s that attempt to provide the most holistic, broadest definition, so on that front, I agree. That said, while the bullets do have to go, we should nonetheless expect it to be a multifaceted one (I elaboarte on this also at the talk page, noting that fundamental commonalities should be used as a basis while the particularities mentioned in a way that effectively leads towards the more substantive discussion of these in the body – all in the intro though). I think this is the most reasonable way to proceed forward; I know you feel the same way I do with respect to a multitude of senseless minor edit changes and reversions over an awkward, caricature of an intro is a waste of time for all participants. But we should chart-out some principal consensus components for the bullets merger that either you, myself, or one of the other editors will write, a prudent contingency to avoid undue circularity. So please read my aforementioned comment and give it some thought. I am hopeful that you and the other editors can agree to approach I am proposing for the intro: moving on from there will most likely won't be easy, but with such an agreement, at least it can be made possible. El_C

Unfortunate developments

I noticed the unfortunate results of the exchage between youself and SlR. I attempted to chart-out an approach to the intro (which no one has yet to comment on as all of you seem to be engaged with another, more specific subject/section at the moment). I sorta lost track of the discusion, but do let me know if there is anything I can do to help (an identical comment was placed on SlR's talk page). El_C 23:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I seem to have overlooked your comment on my talk page, sorry bout that. I don't think it's true that SlR dosen't wish for it to be defined so much as him seeking to avoid one (set of) defintion(s) superceed the rest. The Left, the Moderate Left, the Moderate Right, and the Right all differ on their analysis of capitalism. So, I do understand and share SlR's concerns.

That said, I also support your position in so far that we need a unified lead to the intro: that's where my aforementioned approach to the intro –start from the universal move towards the particular– really comes into play. Easier said than done though. As said, I got to think further on how to reconcile these fragmented sections accordingly. Perhaps it would help to start by listing the universal components first and trying to gain concensus for these. I already know how I want the leading sentence to begin: capitalism is an economic system... El_C 09:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi, RJII, thanks for your comment. I address your thoughts on my talk page here.

I'm back (somewhat)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, RJII, I was out of town for a few days and then took a break from WP. Unfortunately, I have a few outstanding issues to take care of so I don't know when I will get a chance to attend to the capitalism article, not right away I'm afraid, but hopefuly soon. I do feel bad that up until now I couldn't be of more (any?) help to you. As said, once these outstanding issues are taken care of, I am hopeful I can revisit the topic and our collaboration, and then, provide some actual help (for once). El_C 21:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Capita...cake!

I made the decision to withdraw from the article talk page. Sadly, I am rather confident that the intro will end up glowingly pro-capitalist, representing the views of the Right and Moderate Right, and underrepresenting that of the Left and Moderate Left (again, it should be expected under this socio-economic system called capitalism), as must be the case for such fundamental articles. I don't have the energy to fight a losing battle over this POV eventuality. Watch this flash video for further generic details. (this generic comment has been forwarded to User talk:RJII (that's you!), User talk:Luis rib, User talk:SlimVirgin, User talk:Slrubenstein, and User talk:Ultramarine ]

---

I am afraid I still find that your approach to the definition/intro employs original reserach in ways that it should'nt. And I continue to advocate (with a measure of futility) my Key to the Intro approach, which moves from the universally-agreed into the particular, while attempting to remain balanced with the four major branches of political-economy: the Left, M Left, M Right, and Right. In the case you wish to discuss any particular item, feel free to comment on my talk page. El_C 02:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, at least the bullets are gone :) RJII 02:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

libertarian

great workDave 04:41, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree about the statue of liberty. I tried to find one that was publicly available myself, but I decided it would be easier to use one from the statue of liberty article. So I did. Dave 04:58, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I actually made the symbol on the Libertarian page gold so that we didn't use the same image twice, which I thought was sort of tacky. But it's not a big deal. The gold one does look better, so if you want to use it on both, that's cool. Dave 04:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

On the anarcho-capitalist talk page, I wrote the following to Kev:

"Please make a greater effort to be civil. Calling edits "egregious" and accusing someone of selective use of evidence to support "personal bias" does nothelp the project. For the record, the vast majority of RJII's edits have been constructive and appreciated by everyone but you. If you assume good faith, I suspect you will find disagreements easier to resolve"

I don't know if it will do any good, but I wanted to help keep him off your back. Dave 05:41, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do with capitalism eventually. Until then, I think I want to avoid it. Even though "libertarian economics" probably should be renamed and slipped into the capitalism article as a subsection with, I dunno, "pure capitalism" or something as the header, for now I want to keep out of it. Thanks for the heads-up, though. Dave 04:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see you're on, so hopefully you can respond to this. What do you think we should do with that messy section about rights, property, and the kitchen sink? Dave (talk) 03:22, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good, but what do we do with the section's contents? Do you want to discuss it on AIM or Yahoo! Messenger? It'll be easier than this talk page stuff. Email me your screenname if so. Dave (talk) 03:33, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please respond to the questions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RJII#Questions_to_RJII_by_arbitrators Fred Bauder 13:46, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I defended you. The whole thing looks dumb to me. Dave 06:44, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Someone had posted a Marxist definition that supported yours, but nobody paid any attention. I gave it a sub-sub-heading. Hopefully this can defuse the whole thing. Dave 07:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wow

I gotta thank you for your edits to the socialism articles, good stuff :) -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 04:57, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Was it an april fool's joke though? :P-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Tense is not Quantity

Theories valorize. That's a good sentence. Theory valorizes. That's also a good sentence. "Theories valorizes" doesn't work. I see that you eventually fixed this, but your summary comment establishes you still don't exactly understand the problem. You said you were fixing the "tense"! No. Quick grammar lesson, if I may. Tense concerns past, present, future. There problem above, though, was making subject and predicate agree as to quantity, not as to tense. Just for future reference. --Christofurio 02:59, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of capitalism and socialism

Thanks. I've put a transwiki notice up on both of them. I think that articles could exist on both these topics, but the existing contents should probably be transwiki'd. Slac speak up! 02:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human nature dispute on libertarianism

I think the paragraph you're trying to get in is an accurate description of libertarian views, but Kev is probably right that it sounds like preaching. I'm planning on replacing it with a quote that says the same thing when I have time (probably this weekend). If you want to beat me to it, it could probably de-fuse the dispute and improve the quality of the article. If not, try not to let the revert war get too nasty--I'll try to fix it myself in a few days, so it's probably not worth it. I recommend http://www.lewrockwell.com for finding a good quote, but [[Thomas Sowell], Ayn Rand, the Cato Institute, and Fulton Huxtable probably all have suitable material. I wrote a note to Kev telling him what's going on. Hopefully this helps. Good luck. Dave (talk) 16:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Che

Your help and certification at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Che_y_Marijuana would be appreciated. Philwelch 05:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism

This is rediculous. Anarchism as a trend has always been anti-capitalist, "left-anarchism" is a word invented to mask that, and you know it. Why is this so hard?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 04:43, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable enough to be used in the intro of the anarchism article, and not notable enough to have its own article.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 05:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia entries for Capitalism

I hope you don't mind about me redirecting/merge your "Encyclopedia entries for Capitalism" article to Definitions of capitalism. The reason why I decided to merge it because there is already a section for "Encyclopedia" in the "Definitions of capitalism" article and the "Encyclopedia entries for Capitalism" is an orphan article. --Chill Pill Bill 21:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism (disambiguation)

Again, very good edit. Two completely different versions of the same page, and they both were great... lets see how long this one lasts ;) Keep up the good work!

Cheers, Sam Spade 00:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks man. RJII 00:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#disambig. Cheers,

Sam Spade 00:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

p.s. have you seen Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#tabloid_wiki-story?

Sam Spade 00:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good edit

I was wondering what to do with the "victimless crimes" thing in the introduction. I think you nailed it in your last edit. Good work.

By the way, what do you think about submitting this as a featured article candidate soon? Dave (talk) 15:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cool. The other two sections I think still need work are the "libertarian movement" section, which is sort of crappy, and the "criticism" section, which is still choppy after being gutted last night. I'm going to (try to) cut down on my work here for the next couple of weeks while I (force myself to) study for final exams. I think if you could fix them up a bit, we could get it featured when I get back, which would be really great. Keep up the good work, Dave (talk)

There are two ways. If you want the standard small size [edit:like we had originally], you put in "thumb" where it currently says "frame." If you want a specific size, you have to do something involving the number of pixels, but I don't know the details. [edit:by putting the number of pixels (like 100) followed by "px" in addition to the "thumb" marker] I'll shrink the picture, but if you want to remove it, that's cool too. By the way, great edits to the economics stuff. My only quibble is that some footnotes were lost in the shuffle (e.g. on property and redistribution). If you could put them back in yourself, that would be cool, but overall, I'm really happy with what you've done. If you could look at the "libertarian movement" and "criticism" sections, that would be ideal. Dave (talk) 21:13, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I just made some changes and submitted the article to FAC. Hopefully everyone will like it as much as we do. Thanks for all your hard work on the article. Dave (talk) 19:49, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Smart Quotes

I noticed that in your recent edit to the CE debate you managed to replace every quote with a smart quote. Because en.wikipedia is currently ISO 8859-1 and not Unicode, the insertion of unicode where it is not strictly needed should be discouraged. Also, there were quite a few places where the incorrect symbol was used. I'm guessing you probably didn't intend to make this change, since your edit summary didn't indicate as much, but it was a result of whatever software you used to make the edit. In the future, please be careful to prevent this from happening. Thanks! --Gmaxwell 16:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I see you edited the CE debate page to fix some indentation that I goofed up and claimed you didn't insert smart quotes in the summary... Please look at the changes you made via the compare button on the history page. You changed almost every paragraph of text in the page. Although the change may not be visable to you, it is to people who are not using a unicode based browser. I've reverted your change, and fixed your indentation myself. Gmaxwell 16:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Good riddance

I feel that your "Good riddance" comment at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate will hinder rather than encourage discussion. Please consider removing it. --Theo (Talk) 16:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. It was obnoxious. --Leifern 17:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Image:AdamSmith.jpg

Could you please add copyright info to this image? Mgm|^(talk) 14:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• You'll probably need a {{PD}} tag. Mgm|^(talk) 15:04, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism -- criticism, health care NPOV

i still think the further caveat is unnecessary, but i do like that last change much better. doesn't stick out at all. thanks. SaltyPig 23:05, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Image:Moyer Factory Post Card 1910-1915.jpg

Hi RJII, I cleared the copyvio tag from this image based on your assertion of fair use. I couldn't find the publication date of the postcard (I know, it says 1910-1915 in the title, but that may be when it was painted, not when it was published). There is a {{Fairold}} tag for images which are most likely PD but where the date can't be nailed down, seeWikipedia:Image copyright tags.

Also,

• Can you please tag the image?
• The image needs to be used or else there is no fair use rationale (so put it to use or it will be deleted).
• Can you add source information to the image page?
• You might want to move and re-factor you comments from the image description page to the talk page.

Thanks--Duk 14:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definitions of socialism

Hi RJII, I don't agree with your removing of the copyright violation notice on this article, although I understand your frustration at its status WP:CP being unresolved for so long.

The main reason I don't think that you should clear this copyvio is because you are an interested party, being the article's primary author. Also, it's generally administrators who clear copyright violations.

You said in the edit summary that copyright violation not found. This is not true, I think the question is weather fair is appropriate. I didn't voice an opinion on this article's listing at wp:cp, but I've been thinking about it. And if I were to clear it today, I would delete the article. But, like I said, I'm still thinking about it.

You should revert yourself, restore the copyvio tag and let a non-involved party make the call.

--Duk 06:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping that you would be respectful of the copyright review process and restore the copyvio tag until the review is complete, but since you haven't, I did.

Please read the copyright violation notice and pay particular attention to; Those who repeatedly post copyrighted material may be blocked from further editing. Even if this article spends the next six months on review at WP:CP without resolution you still may not remove the copyvio tag.--Duk 00:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is a ridiculous case. The article has been deleted before, and I'd like to point out that the administrator who deleted it the first time has allowed this second review, instead of immediately deleting the reincarnation on sight. Which brings up a good point; you created the first article, noted its deletion, and then recreated the article. This is an offense that can get you blocked from editing. Please don't do it again.--Duk 01:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Voluntary racial seperation

Can you find any example in history of voluntary racial segregation OF THE KIND OF WHICH YOU SPEAK? If so, please provide a reference. I humbly suggest to you that the idea of "voluntary" segregation of a minority desired to be evicted is in practice NEVER "voluntary". Ask the Palestinians in diaspora. Ask the white farmers "voluntarily" seperated from their Zimbabwe farms, or the descendedants of the prior Black owners of that land (if any are still alive). In practice, it is never voluntary. NEVER. 4.250.168.67 04:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not here to defend or oppose national anarchism. I'm just relaying what they say their position is in order to have an accurate article. RJII 04:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reread the paragraph; I see your point; I feel that deleting "voluntary" makes sense since its a contradiction in terms; but I also believe "anarchism" is self contradictory. One more delusion in a delusional topic can't be too bad. I choose to leave it alone. And you're probably right in that if asked they would claim it to be "voluntary". The American Indians voluntarily sold us their land didn't they? 4.250.168.67 04:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism article

If you want to edit the good anarchism article, please edit Anarchism (anti-state). Anarchism (theory) is just a backup of Anarchism (anti-state), in case the latter gets deleted. We may need it in coming edit wars. Hogeye 07:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

No thanks. I have better ways of boosting my self-esteem than wearing an adminstrator badge. Now, if you paid me, maybe. RJII 04:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

RFM

You may feel that User:Albamuth has misrepresented you, but I don't see any reason not to get into mediation. To come to an agreement (no matter what that would entail) you'd need to talk, and it looks like bad blood is forming in this discussion. Mediation would simply mean a neutral 3rd party would try to facilitate and guide the discussion towards a conclusion all parties can live with. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position.

Sincerely,

Mediator chairman Mgm|^(talk) 21:53, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism

I'm leaving this plea on several talk pages. Some editors have been making significant changes to the lead section of Libertarianism and putting the justifications for their edits in the edit summary. I think this is somewhat inappropriate, because it means there will be relentless edit warring, and it is greatly disruptive to this featured article. Please concentrate on using Talk:Libertarianism to discuss changes before they are made, and use the edit summaries to explain what is being edited, not why. Thanks --malathion ^talk 17:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way I can persuade you on this? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Individualist Anarchism

Please don't get the impression that I am just trying to antagonize you. In fact, I am a bit grateful -- because of our debate about I-A, I've read a lot more of Tucker and Spooner's work (esp. Tucker's responses to readers from Liberty), which I was only vaguely familiar with before, and only because of reading about mutualism. --albamuth 21:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Apart from complaining about images, I wanna take this opportunity to express my gratitude for your excellent edits of the individualist anarchism article, reshaping it into something more neutral non-US-centric and undoubtedly more educated and interesting article than it ever was before. Keep up the good work! Nixdorf 19:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism, anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism

I've been talking to Kev about these three issues, and I think his concerns are reasonable. Would it be acceptable to you if instead of having anarcho-capitalism listed as a school of anarchism:

1. a disambig at the top that points to anarcho-capitalism
2. an anarchism and capitalism section was added that discussed both anarcho-capitalist views and their relationship to socialist anarchism
3. a discussion of anarcho-capitalism in the criticism section

The idea is for the page to be roughly analogous to the treatment of libertarian socialism on the libertarianism page, which discusses libertarian socialism in a disambig, the terminology section, and the criticism section.

I don't want the libertarianism page to suffer because of edit wars on Anarchism. Let me know what you think.

Dave (talk) 13:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and comprehensive reply. Here's the way I see things:

1. While you're right that "libertarianism" alone usually means capitalism today, that's a relatively recent development (probably starting in the 60's and cementing in the '80's)
2. The most common forms of anarchism are socialist, while the most common forms of libertarianism are capitalist.
3. In each case, the two philosophies that claim the term have sufficiently little in common to merit entirely separate articles, with anarcho-capitalism mentioned in anarchism solely as a contrast and as a disambiguation (which is how we handled the analogous situation in libertarianism).
4. I think that as long as we note that the term has other uses (and link to them), it's not POV to eliminate most discussion of the less common philosophy in either case.

I'm not thrilled with Kev's actions in this case, either, but I'm more interested in resolving the dispute than winning an argument about this.

Do you see a difference between the two articles that merits different handling of the situations?

Dave (talk) 14:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not all that impressed with your reading of the Britannica article, as it's based on the first sentence and I can't access the whole thing. From what I can tell, however (from the index and the little piece of each section they let you see), the article is only about the "cluster" of philosophies that oppose the state and capitalism. If anarcho-capitalism really is descended from Henry David Thoreau (which seems implausible to me, though I don't consider myself an expert) then perhaps it could go in a section called "individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism." Regardless of the compromise, adding information from the anarchism and capitalism article seems like a good idea. Dave (talk) 15:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

In light of your arguments, my suggestion is this:

1. Add the relevant parts of anarcho-capitalism to the individualist anarchist section.
2. Add relevant information to any sections dealing with property and capitalism, perhaps adding a whole section on the subject (capitalism, not anarcho-capitalism)
3. Try not to antagonize Kev too much.

Good luck, Dave (talk) 15:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, I had a big project due today and haven't even checked my email in days. It seems to me that the above suggestions, combined with the disambig Kev tried to add, are eminently fair. Libertarian socialism, while it "meets the definition" of libertarianism, is sufficiently divorced from what you and I call libertarianism that it doesn't belong in the same article, and with the disambig, the article is actually making anarcho-capitalism one of the most visible forms of anarchism mentioned. I don't want this edit war to keep spilling out onto Libertarianism. Dave (talk) 17:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Please be civil

I see that you and Rd232 have a disagreement about the statism article. Even if you think that Rd232 is making inaccurate statements, please do not state on the RfC page that he is "lying". Robert McClenon 23:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Please present proof

Saying that another editor is mistaken is an honest difference of opinion. Saying that they are lying is a personal attack, unless you can provde that it was a malicious lie. Assume good faith. If you have real evidence of bad faith, present it. Do not make idle accusations of lying. Robert McClenon 01:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

So it's ok to lie about someone, but not ok to call it a lie. Got it. RJII 00:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism

These edits reek of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Calling edits like this one "vandalism" is a personal attack (and clearly unjustified). Don't do it. Dave (talk) 18:57, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

If you have uncontroversial edits that keep getting reverted, add them in as a separate edit from your controversial edits. Your disruption and personal attacks, as well as your unwillingness to compromise, mean that I'm going to defer to kev rather than you when reverting. Dave (talk) 19:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've talked to him. Could you do what I asked in terms of keeping the controversial edits separate from the noncontroversial ones? It will make it less likely that good ideas/arguments/edits will get lost in the shuffle. In exchange, I've asked him to be more careful. Dave (talk) 19:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Proxies, buy now and troll wikipedia with impunity!

Is that what you were thinking? opps

I was testing to see if it was an anonymous proxy and if it worked because I saw the address used and wanted to make sure that it wasn't a real account. I wasn't going to use it as one ..obviously since i signed my name to my comment there. Why don't you have a Talk page? RJII 17:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

NPA

Please keep in mind NPA, it makes discussion so much easier and more pleasant. --fvw* 04:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

NPA

Please keep in mind NPA, it makes discussion so much easier and more pleasant. --fvw* 04:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Listen you $^%*($$%$!! RJII 01:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki vs. intrawiki

You often misuse the term "InterWiki" in your edit comments when referring to a link within this wiki; actually, the term is defined as a link to another wiki (such as Wiktionary, or perhaps to a different-language Wikipedia, though those might better be termed "interlanguage links"). Links within the same wiki are simply "wiki links". *Dan* 01:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks. RJII 01:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

As far as i know i did not delete this. Obviously I am not in agreement that it is a "school of anarchism" but i wouldn't eliminate the section entirely. Is it the "browser bug"? -max rspct 11:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism talk ]pagebug

After you made your last edits to the page - archiving or what you doing? - the browserbug is back and we have that older archive page again. Can u see what has been done wrong? I think someone is archiving the wrong way. -max rspct 12:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you are deliberatly reverting the talk page on Anarchism - Why are you doing that? -max rspct 13:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism.net

Why are you linking this site? Why have you been plugging National anarchism in the Anarchism article? Why did you link the article to a satanic website? Do you realise that the only 'schools of anarchism' article on anarchism.net is one on National Anarchism? -max rspct 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Why you bigging up James J. Martin here>> [1] - founder member of Institute for Historical Review? I really hope you're not a Stormfront entryist!!?? -max rspct 13:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"He had a temporary association with them in the 80's" ... oh really.. the institute was only set up in 1978/1979.. he was involved from the start! -max rspct 14:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Holocaust denial

Please come to Talk:Holocaust denial to discuss your changes. It's a highly contentious article, and it's best to discuss substantial changes in such a carefully monitored article before making them. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Please be civil (Coercive monopoly)

Please be civil.Talk:Coercive_monopoly Cooperate with other editors. Stop insulting anyone who disagrees with you. Discuss your edits when it becomes plain that they are disputed. You can do it, you have merely to make the effort. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 23:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

YOU be civil. You've been accusing me of reverting without consensus, when you've been reverting without consensus --not only reverting but wiping out 3/4 of the article in doing so. You've accused me of not engaging in discussion when I've been engaging in a huge amount of discussion. I'm highly offended by your hypocrisy and lies. Can it. RJII 23:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that (party one) Rd232, I, and BBlackmoor have reverted without consensus, but that your re-reversions were also without consensus. In fact, you are the only Wikipedia who has said that your definition is correct. (I also feel that you're not being civil, but that's not grounds for a User_Conduct RfC.) -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that. RJII 23:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

RJII, please consider this my second official request that you participate in the discussion on the Coercive monopoly article. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 01:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please consider my official request to cease your lies. I have been engaging in extensive discussion in that article's Talk page. Stop your harrassment. Don't message me again. You have been warned. RJII 13:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Please be civil (Coercive monopoly) 2

Hi RJII,

Please take a very deep breath before making any more comments on Coercive Monopoly. While I happen to think your view is right, there is no point getting into a massive argument on the talk page. If a particular user is bugging you then there is no reason to get into a fight. The Land 09:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being "uncivil" but I think it's justified. I'm highly offended that Bblackmoor is trying to discredit me through lies. I can't think of anything more uncivil than that. It behooves me to set the record straight. If that's uncivil, so be it. RJII 13:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I see no lies on either side. Someone is clearly misinterpreted the original source material. We can argue as to who that might be. Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Coercive monopoly

The coercive monopoly page has been protected. I hope this will allow the editors -- including you -- to work together to reach a consensus on what the article should say. You have made some good edits and provided useful information, and your input would be valuable. I do hope that you will join the discussion. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 15:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Bblackmoor, I told you to never message me again. You have absolutely no respect for any ethics or propriety. You could not even abide by that simple request. DO NOT WRITE ON MY TALK PAGE EVER AGAIN. I don't want to see your harrassing and condescending crap on my talk page. RJII 15:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

3 polite messages do not constitute harassment, even if you responded to the second one with an unspecified threat: "Don't message me again. You have been warned.". If you think Bblackmoor is saying things about you that are untrue, and important enough to get this upset about, then you should politely ask him to desist and if necessary retract. Failing that, there are formal procedures. However, in a cooler mood I think you will recognise that in the current situation such procedures are unlikely to be successful, and are more likely to raise your own behaviour as inappropriate than Bblackmoor's. Once again - chill, man, it's only a Wikipedia article. Seriously, even a short wikipedia:wikiholiday might help you get some perspective. Rd232 16:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Polite messages"? You've got to be kidding. He knows I've been engaging in voluminous discussion on the talk page. His messages in my talk page are obviously intended to harrass me. Regardless, whether they are polite or not is irrelevant. I told him point blank to stop messaging me. He should respect my desire for privacy. I don't like the guy and I don't want him messaging my private talk page. RJII 16:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Free market

If it gets moved again and you need support for a move back let me know. Philip Baird Shearer 09:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:AdamSmith.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:AdamSmith.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Thank you.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

coercive monopoly survey

Jossi Fresco suggested a survey as the next step to break past the deadlock on coercive monopoly. I am posting this message to all of the editors who have attempted to contribute to this article in the past few months. I hope that you will find the time to participate in the coercive monopoly survey. Thank you for your time. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 23:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ensuring consistency

I have edited the intro of the anarchism article to point to anarcho-capitalism and removed the section on anarcho-capitalism. This is an attempt to mirror the status of the libertarianism article in regards to the lesser known libertarian socialism, please take a moment to look at each article and compare. It is my belief that given the featured status of the libertarianism article, its relative stability compared to this article, and the clear similarity of the subject matter, this is a road toward a legitimate compromise. I would ask that the two major catalysts of the ongiong edit war of this article (RJ and Hogeye), both of whom have also edited the libertarianism article, please ensure that you are consistent in any standard you apply to this article. Hopefully this will help us reach the point of stability that the civil editors of libertarianism have been able to do in the relative absence of constant antagonism.

This message has been posted to the user pages of all the current major contributors I could find, if you know of someone I have left out please feel free to forward it. Revkat 16:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding making more than 3 reverts in the span of 24 hours. I won't block you, but note that any other administrator could at this time, and making further reversions to the article prior to 19:02 UTC today would only make this more likely. Thank you. Sarge Baldy 16:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, although, it appears that most of the editors on that article are anarchists so I doubt they'll resort to appealing to hierarchy. RJII 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please do not resort to personal attacks against other editors. The tone and verbiage you have used here [2] and here [3] are unacceptable. Firebug 02:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

He had it coming. RJII 04:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you reconsider your response, and also keep an eye on your edits to make sure that they follow WP:NPOV. Firebug 04:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I always try my best to edit as NPOV as possible, so back off. RJII 05:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Progressive tax

Your claim that the progressive tax was invented by Marx is ahistorical POV-pushing. See [4] for arguments by Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson in favor of tax progressivity. Firebug 06:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

How the hell is that POV pushing? I'm just stating what I think to be true. You need to back off with you claims of POV pushing. You're becoming increasingly annoying for no good reason. RJII 06:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be stating what [you] think to be true, but that is not an excuse to insert unsourced POV. A few moments' Google search could have told you that the statement about Marx inventing the progressive tax was false. Firebug 06:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

A little reasoning should tell you that Adam Smith was not advocating a progressive tax. A progressive tax increases as a percentage of income. Charging a higher tax to a higher income person is not necessarily taking a higher percentage of his income. RJII 06:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor. That clearly describes a progressive tax on modes of transportation. The article is progressive tax, not progressive income tax. Income taxes were simply not the primary method of government revenue at the time Smith wrote this. Firebug 06:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not what a progressive tax is. A progressive tax means the percentage of income taken increases with increases in income. If you charge a ten dollar tax to a person that gets a $100 paycheck, and a one hundred dollar tax to a person that makes $1000 paycheck, that's an increase in absolute tax only ..not in percentage. Therefore, it's not a progressive tax. RJII 06:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm... can I point out that "higher in proportion" means "higher percentage"? Infinity0 ^talk_contribs 20:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, and taking more taxes from a wealthier person is not necessarily taking a larger proportion of his income. $1 taken from a guy with $10 and $10 taken from a guy with $100 is taking the same proportion (or percentage) of their incomes. An example of a progressive tax would be taking $12 from the guy with $100. RJII 21:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Neo-Imperialism section

Hey, RJII, would you mind proofing the Anarchism#Neo-imperialism_and_Globalization section? I totally rewrote it, but have zero feedback as yet. Thanks. Hogeye 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look it over. I don't know much about the neo-imperialism thing though. RJII 02:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

civility

I know that you disagree with the recent actions of User:172 however please remain civil towards other users. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic fascism

Thanks for alerting me to the near-deletion of this. Congratulations on the outcome of the discussion. I gather my own vote helped a bit and am glad of it. --Christofurio 15:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. I'm glad you voted. Thanks. I wouldn't ordinarily "campaign," but I had to notify a few people in response to Minhea's campaigning to make it more fair. I figured you might take an interest in the subject. RJII 15:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Attn RJII

Attn RJII:

• definition of anti-statism
• the free trade sign I used in the counter-protest

Do not make false accusations of vandalism

• From WP:VAND: "Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you wrote removed, moved to talk, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism." Firebug 04:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It's vandalism. There was just a vote to keep the article instead of redirecting it. You ignored that and took it upon yourself to redirect the article without consensus. You've committed vandalism. Thank God the recent vote to give you adminship failed. RJII 04:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. A vote to keep the article does NOT that we need to keep the article in its present state, just that the article may be salvagable and the current history deserves to be kept. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OOPS -- it's actually less than that. Redirect and Merge are included in the Keep votes in an AfD discussion. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC now open

Due to your persistent inability to abide by Wikipedia policy, especially WP:NPA and WP:NPOV, I have opened an RFC against you. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII. Firebug 21:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. A farce. Everybody knows you're the one that can't abide by Wikipedia policy. That's why your attempt to become an adminstrator failed. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firebug Now you're coming after me in a pathetic attempt to censure me. You need to get your act together. RJII 16:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Subjective theory of value

I created a stub for the Subjective Theory of Value. I thought you might want to know. Hogeye 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Since it is clear that you have no intention of taking the Wikipedia dispute resolution process seriously, a RFAr has been opened. See the arbitration page for details. Firebug 18:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Involved parties" ?

Edit-conflict I don't know anything about how a WP:RFAR request is presented. We should perhaps find one in which a third party has involved themselves in trying to sort things out (and I hope that both of you feel that this is a reasonable description of my involvement), and see how it has been formatted. Frankly, I have no idea what, if asked, I would recommend happen. If the ArbCom were to respond by asking both of you to accept mediation from one of the volunteer mediators around here, would you accept that? Jkelly 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to be flip, but I think that the fact that the two of you cannot open a case against each other together, resulting in two versions of the same dispute being posted, is in some way symtomatic. In any case, when the two get merged (and I think that should be done by an arbitrator), I'll add something, assuming that it is appropriate. It looks like I need to read over the WP:RFAR policy stuff - as I said, I haven't looked at it closely. Jkelly 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's too different cases that are not materially related. I filed an arbitration because he refuses to abide by the consensus policy in regard to redirecting the economic fascism article. The case he filed is over the fact that I put a clown on my RFC page, etc. RJII 19:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking the page

Blanking and redirecting a page within a week of it having survived a contentious AFD is vandalism. It is vandalism because it leads to major loss of info, since the info is not found in the other article.

I will happily support you in this regard, but like I said, you have got to fix the article or I will put it up for AfD. Also: what happened to the talk page? jucifer 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

See #Do not make false accusations of vandalism, above. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone vandalize their own talk page -- until now. Deleting it entirely, yes, but not selective editing of others' comments. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to talk to Juicifer, do it there. This is not the place to leave a message to Juicifer. RJII 19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic fascism is unprotected

I have unprotected Economic fascism, after moving the article back to mainspace. I would appreciate your reading my thoughts before proceding to edit. If you have any concerns, or the situation gets very disruptive without my noticing, please feel free to contact me. Thanks. Jkelly 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Conduct on Wikipedia

Why don't u stop calling folk "insect"? Try not to be so reactionary. You might save yourself from a ban! [5] - max rspct leave a message 12:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

firebug ...insect. Just a joke. RJII 15:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Check Talk:Anarchism if you want to make yourself useful -max rspct leave a message 23:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Movement

What do you think of the movement? Reply here. Thanks. --Kin Khan 03:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

individualism

Why are YOU censoring any information about how the individualists were socialists, and they did not oppose voluntary collectivism, they opposed FORCED collectivism, just as Bakunin and Kropotkin did. Also, you have tried to use the history of the early pre-FDR individualists, plus pro-capitalists who were not remotely close to anarchists to boost up and give more false historic credibility to "anarcho-capitalism" - which is a concept that amounts to a "private state" and oppression for workers who work for industries with no regulations and no social support system. You lie over and over, and then when we anarchists stand up for ourselves and try to undo the damage you capitalists do, you call it "censorship".. You have filled the anarchism section with Elephants (capitalists who's "anti-statism" is actually simply tirades against any kind of workers self-ownership/socialism, and not actual anti-statism) and pretended they are Chickens (anarchists) ... so the Anarchism section is now a room full of elephants that you have pretended are chickens. They stand out like big, out of place monsterous beasts (and never mind Bastiat or Rand, photos of people like Rothbard certainly do not belong there.) If you really were interested in anarchism, by the way, you would know that voluntary (anti-authoritarian) collectivism and voluntary (anti-authoritarian) communism is synonmous with "individualism for workers". You have censored and spin-doctored the Anarchism entry and more or less ruined it. It's become less useful to actual anarchists and more useful to corporations, stock market traders, union busters, dictators, and bankers. Radical Mallard Thu Dec 22 19:58:42 EST 2005

What is your problem man? I'm the one that wrote in the individualist section that they opposed capitalism. I'm full aware that the labor-value individualists oppose capitalism. So, is everybody else. But that doesn't mean they oppose private property, including private ownership of the means of production, money, wages, and trade. It means they oppose PROFIT. Stop censoring this. RJII 19:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

True individualists should be supportive (or at least tolerant) of any voluntary arrangement that individuals choose to join, whether it be socialistic or capitalistic in nature, shouldn't they? *Dan T.* 02:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Individualist anarchists oppose voluntary collectivism for themselves. Of course, they would allow others to engage in it. They just wouldn't volunteer to join a collectivist system. They think it's unnatural and denies individuality. Some have even gone so far as to deny that anarcho-communism is real anarchism. For instance, Benjamin Tucker called it "psuedo-anarchism" and Henry Appleton said: "All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented." Individualist are suspicious of even what purports to be "voluntary" collectivism, because a voluntary collectivist would have to allow individualists to have private property and a market economy. It's not altogether clear that they would be willing to allow that. RJII 02:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Workshop. Fred Bauder 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Let the games begin! RJII 22:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Negative right

Please see Talk:Negative right#Last paragraph, first sentence -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Economies of fascism

Please stop trying to get the article speedied. Every editor who has spoken on the talkpage has opposed your view of "economic fascism". Please stop trying to impose it. I moved the page correctly and you created a POV fork. The correct way to move it back would be to involve an admin, if you can find one who agrees that you have consensus. Given that not one editor supports your view, you'd be very lucky to find one who didn't share your political views. Your article is intact, except that it is now correctly titled, and the introduction correctly describes what the intro describes. James James 04:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

False. I am not the only one that has opposed redirecting the article. And there was just a vote a couple weeks ago the clearly showed that there wasn't a consensus about anything. You're violating Wikipedia policy. RJII 04:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Every editor bar you who has discussed the page on the talkpage agrees that it's problematic. Several of the "keep" votes in the AFD were in fact calls to redirect or merge, or were votes to keep the title or an article about the "concept" but not this article as it stands. One of the keep votes was for an article on "American fascism". One said "or merge". One voted keep just because Google turns up a lot of hits. Not really a recommendation, hey? There were five other keeps, one yours, and a couple of others from libertarian POV pushers who have steered clear of the actual page. Even though there was no consensus to delete the article, that does not mean that it stays forever the article you want, nor does it mean it can't be redirected. What gives you that idea? If there is a better title, any article can be moved to it. James James 04:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what it means. We don't delete or redirect articles without a consensus. You are in violation of policy. RJII 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I'm not in violation of anything. I haven't deleted your article, nor can I. All I've done is change the title, which anyone is entitled to do. You, however, have breached policy by excessively reverting to your POV fork. Please don't do it any more. If you have consensus for your title, the other editors who support you will revert it for you and you won't need to continue to break the 3RR. James James 04:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR rule does not apply to fixing the vandalism that you're committing. RJII 04:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi RJII, I'm afraid that you might misunderstand what's required to move a page. From what I can see after looking a couple minutes, there is a decent consensus for a page move, so redirecting is perfectly appropriate; it certainly doesn't require a formal vote. One sign that there's a consensus is that nobody except you is reverting the redirect; why not leave it alone and see if anyone else does? Thus I think you are violating the 3RR. I'm not going to block you, but I am asking you to stop. -- SCZenz 05:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I reiterate: moving and redirecting don't require formal votes. The fact that an AfD discussion a few weeks ago had no consensus doesn't trump what appears to me to be a consensus to move on the talk page. Anyway, good-faith page moves are not vandalism, even if you do believe they lack consensus, and you're not entitled to infinite reverts of them. I urge you to resume discussion, rather than editing the forked article. -- SCZenz 07:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying there's a consensus TONIGHT? Well that's not true either, because I disagree with redirecting the article TONIGHT. RJII 07:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying I saw what looked like an effective consensus on the talk page. (By effective consensus, I mean that most people weighing in seemed to agree, which is good enough in most cases on Wikipedia.) I could be wrong; if you discuss it further, things may be clearer. -- SCZenz 07:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

You've violated the three revert rule on two separate (but related) articles...regardless of your terming the edits "vandalism" (which they are not), you've violated the 3RR. I am not blocking you, however. Please discuss proposed changes on the talk page of the two articles and work to achieve consensus. Thank you. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic fascism

Please stop working on this page. It's a fork of economics of fascism. Your work is likely to be lost if you keep working on it. Please don't let your work be lost. Work on the other article. Live with the title for now at least, and we'll talk some more about it. But don't work on the fork, please. James James 06:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. You know damned well that economics of fascism is economic fascism moved by you without a consensus. Economic fascism as been restored. Stop being disruptive. RJII 06:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

RJ, there's no point in going into detail, because I have no idea what the situation is and have no opinion. I'm responding only to your 3RR violation, which is why I reverted to the pre-violation version. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. You have no idea what the situation is. So, it's best to not get involved until you do. RJII 07:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for (severe) violation of 3RR, disruption (forking article rather than discuss issue of what the title should be) and associated personal attacks (notably, describing other editors' actions in a content dispute as vandalism). In an editor of your experience, this behaviour is simply unacceptable. Rd232 ^talk 11:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This on Talk:Economics of fascism is unacceptable: Wikipedia is a community and you do not have the right to violate its policies or ignore other editors. Your repaeted reference to AFD as proving the article shouldn't be moved is weak, and you know it: AFD is about the existence of the article, not the name. The appropriate thing, given the clear consensus on the Talk page for a renaming of the article, would have been to bring others in, eg by WP:RFC (or by contacting editors who agreed with you in the AFD, if you're so sure they'd support you). You should have been able to do this without becoming aggressive and repeatedly describing others' good faith edits as vandalism (Wikipedia:Vandalism, as you well know). Regards, Rd232 ^talk 11:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

BFD. Can't Wikipedia for 24 hours. Who cares! I'm still getting paid. You sure are making productive use of that petty power aren't you? RJII 17:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to be blocked longer, just let me know... LOL ;) Rd232 ^talk 23:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A badge really makes you feel important doesn't it? Pitiful. It figures someone like you would want to become a cop ..oops, i mean an administrator. RJII 00:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Figures someone like you wouldn't understand. Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you know damned well there was not a consensus to move the page. So cut the BS. RJII 17:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus on the Talk page. How about you try "cutting the BS". Rd232 ^talk 23:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The talk page is only reflective of you and a few others who were moaning about the title of the article for some obscure reason. I disagreed, therefore there was not a consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. And, yes the AFD was over the "existence of the article." And, you know that there was no consensus. At this point in time economic fascism no longer exists. So, it has been moved without a consensus. Sure, the content still exist, but the article doesn't. It needs to be restored since this was done without consensus. RJII 00:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Grade A BS. Don't you have anything better to do, like discuss the issue properly on the Talk page? Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Government interference

Are you being paid to edit wikipedia... as you state above? - max rspct leave a message 23:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for disruptive behavior. The block is for a period of 48 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username and IP address in your email. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

RJII (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I have not been "disruptive." To the contrary --I have been very productive. Your block is unjustified. You should be ashamed of yourself BorgHunter. I demand to know exactly why you think I've been "disruptive." I must admit this block comes just in time for partying in the New Year and the last place I want to be is here, but I oppose this on principle and demand to be unblocked by you or your superior. Who do you think you are to put on a 48 hour block on me? Do you have any idea who you're dealing with? How dare you. RJII 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)