User talk:Full Shunyata

Welcome!

Hello Full Shunyata, 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! --Shanel 23:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi :)

hi, I read your profile and I think you can give me some advice, can you? and answer in my talk page please, thnx :) --Cosmic girl 17:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, how's it going? Sorry it took me so long to reply, I've been away for a while.

I'm quite well-versed in matter of philosophy, economics and politics. What did you want to talk about? I'd be glad to talk. :) --Full Shunyata

User:Anarcho-capitalism

I'v lodged a complaint against him on the administrator's noticeboard that basically recounts his flagrant policy violations at the anarcho-capitalism article. If you would like to post a comment about his behaviour in other articles, I encourage you to do so. -- WGee 06:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks, it's about time someone reports him for his behavior. I have to admit that I fear whether or not I've abided all board eticate because some of his comments have pushed me to the edge (although I haven't sweared or resorted to name-calling). But his behavior is intolerable (he started out calling Communist-Anarchists "commies" and labeling any Anarchist who is against capitalism a "communist") and he comes off of as an ignorant FreeRepublic board poster. He should be reported because he tried to change the "Anarchism" article to say that Anarcho-Capitalism is the most consistent form of Anarchism, he vandalized the "Mutualist" article with unverified claims, and he wrote the "Anarchist Communist" article to include criticisms with no counter-criticisms (which I'm about to edit). I'll be sure to post about his behavior. Full Shunyata 06:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I logged a complaint against him on the Incidents board. I hope the Admins see it. Full Shunyata 01:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You made a person attack here, calling me "a very ignorant, hard-headed person..." [1] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Anarcho-capitalism 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I said that "I find you to be a very ignorant and hard-headed person". I was referring to the low importance I place on your personal opinion on Anarcho-Communism. You said that Anarcho-Communists are authoritarians and nonsensical and I referenced my personal opinion on your opinions to show how unimportant opinions are on this board. Nice try to "get back at me" for reporting you, but no cigar. Full Shunyata 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

If you've decided to take a break, please pop in to the talk page. I don't wanna be left on my own! Donnacha 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there! Sorry I've been away for a while. I've been busy with schoolwork here at college. I should be back on the discussion page pretty soon. Is "Anarcho"-capitalism still causing ruckus? Full Shunyata 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup Quick!!! Donnacha 01:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. What should I add? Full Shunyata 01:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can link to a place where you tried to argue out a disagreement and resolve it (I'm sure there are many), please add it to Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (link to the topic on the talk page) and then sign under Users certifying the basis for this dispute. I'm off to bed now. Donnacha 01:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, but if you could add a comment under Other users who endorse this summary, that would be great. Donnacha 09:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Vision Thing -- 11:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am observing the rules of Wikipedia. You claim that Fascist societies are collectivist, however the philosophy of Fascism says different. This is not the place to push pro-individualist POVs. If you have a problem with this, we can take it to an admnistrator. If I am violating this rule, you are as well. Full Shunyata 11:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have recently been blocked on Wikipedia. I was blocked for reverting an article more than three times, however I did not know about the rule until after I reverted an article for the third time. Another user named User:Intagible was the one who requested for me to be blocked, however he himself disobeyed the rule as well and told me about the rule after the third time he reverted an article. I also have a feeling he could be doing this as part of a revenge plot against me because I lodged a complaint against one of his friends on Wikipedia.

If at all possible, could the block time on my IP address be lifted or shortened? -- Full Shunyata 22:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First time block for WP:3RR is only 24 hours and you were warned. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The Other Two

Let's see what happens with the RFC and then look at the other two. You're right about them and they seem to be getting worse. Donnacha 00:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me out in the article discussion on collectivism? Intagible has decided to edit-stalk me in that thread claiming "OR" because he doesn't agree that Fascist societies are not clear examples of vertical collectivism. He also edited direct quotes from Max Stirner claiming they were "OR" because Stirner spoke against private property. He's gotten the habit of claiming legitimate sources are OR just because he doesn't agree with them. Even if the source is the person the article is about. Full Shunyata 06:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this (better to reply on my talk page so I see it!). I'm not in much of a position to help out, that pair got me blocked for a while. I've run into a new, unrelated, POV-pusher on the Communism and Socialism pages. You might want to look at my post on Libertatia's talk page. Donnacha 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Stalking

I don't have any problem with you, but with some of your edits. You should cite sources and avoid original interpretations and research. For more information see WP:OR. NHF -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

All of my edits have included sources. If you don't personally like the sources, you claim they are "bogus" but offer no evidence as their falseness. I see you even almost got in trouble for posting unjustified "Original Research" tags to articles when they did not suit your liking. If you have a problem with me because of my spat with User:Anarcho-capitalism, just say so. I noticed that for the past few weeks you pathologically edited and revised edits made by me and other anarcho-communist Wikipedians. Please don't stoop to edit stalking me. It's very childish and very despicable. Full Shunyata 07:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: possible goodbye

Wikipedia can be exhausting. I just use it to sharpen my skills, and to force me to ask questions about the material that wouldn't necessarily be obvious from a traditional anarchist POV, or from that of a historian. I can time to some of the sharper an-caps, because, ultimately, they're doing me an inadvertant favor. Anyway, ideological opportunism on a Wikipedia page doesn't exactly make you part of the Axis of Evil. Wikipedia is the "through the rabbit-hole version of scholarship. There isn't much we can do here, in terms of defending truth and accuracy, beyond minimize the damage resulting from a bad model. Sounds kinda like real life, when you think about it. ;)

Take some time off, if you need to. The battles going on here are not so important that they should wreck your day in any way. Check out my blogs (on my User page) if the individualist history interests you. Been fun. Libertatia 19:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. I myself have given up on the anarchism-related articles because of the fanaticism of certain Libertarians. -- WGee 05:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought about it and I've decided to take Libertatia's advice. I'm getting very worked up from arguing on this board and I'm letting it affect my outside life too much. I'll take some more time off so I can clear my head and emotionally distance myself so I won't get worked up anymore. I really don't want to leave this site, I just seriously considered it because I was worried that my getting worked up over this site was unhealthy. I've decided to stay, but I need to distance myself more and take a chill pill. Thanks you guys, I needed that. In solidarity, Full Shunyata 07:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, just do what I did: stop editing those articles and focus on other ones. I keep my eye on it and pop up every now and again, but most of us have just stopped debating full time. We all realize the crap going on there, but there isn't much to do about it. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing sourced statements

Please don't materially change sourced statements unless you've seen the source and think you can reword it more accurately to say what the source says. Right now, you're changing sourced statements without having seen the source and making the statements say something other than what the sources are saying. It becomes a misrepresentation of the source. If you don't have the source to look at, then just ask me and I'll quote the source for you and you can check my restatement of it and reword it if you think I have it wrong. I restate what the sources say to the best of my ability when I source something, but I could always accidently misinterpret something, so I have no problem with you checking up on it.Anarcho-capitalism 03:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't change the sourced statement. I simply added a footnote to clarify any possible confusion the quote might cause. You are the one who edited Tucker's quote to leave out the words "Anarchistic Socialism". And Bakunin never said anything about markets, so I took that part out. Full Shunyata 15:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about other examples of you doing that, such as in Individualist anarchism article and the Collectivist anarchism articles.Anarcho-capitalism 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And yes Bakunin did say something about "markets." If people are paid, what do you think the money is used for? It's to buy things. Buying and selling is a market.Anarcho-capitalism 16:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Trolling

It's worth a try, but don't expect too much out of it. We've tried that sort of thing in the past. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 05:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the same. He is out of line this time, his argument loosely being based on A) a biased source that doesn't provide its own evidence, B) what "everyone knows" and C) his own POV. It's worth a try, but I wouldn't hold my breath. ~Switch ^t 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

You are doing a pretty good job of trolling on that other site that can't be linked to here (encyclopedia dramatica). The admins here must be impressed.Purrny gotobed 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)High.

Huh? Who the hell are you? Full Shunyata 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

High again, you are such an importent guy, I mean important. Your work outside of here is brilliant! Do u liek Soopa Saiyan or is it just cammo? Full, empty, shunyata, purnata, see yah, anarchy boy.Purrny gotobed 13:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

?????? Who the hell are you? Are you some kind of e-stalker or something? And why are you reciting Sanskrit words? Full Shunyata 22:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And if you don't quit spamming my talk page, I'll contact an Admin. Full Shunyata 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you might consider the meaning of "spam." Seriously, I have heard you are quite an expert on anarchy, and I think it's tragic that you are suddenly mad for Dragon Ball Z. Why would that be? Anyway, please give me the benefit of your expertise on anarchy, religion, philosophy and so on.Purrny gotobed 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

????? I still have no clue who you are. You said something about Encyclopedia Dramatica, are you from that website? I've seen it and I think it's an immature shock website. I wouldn't be caught dead being a member there. If you're some teeny-bopper troll, piss off. If you're some right-winger harrassing me because I'm an anarchist I suggest you leave me alone before I contact an admin. Full Shunyata 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Gohan and Dabura

Not a problem on helping you out on the talk:Super Saiyan page. But the main reason I can see, and this is just my opinion. But Toriyama had to keep the fight between Gohan and Dabura somewhat even, think about this one. Buu killed Dabura easy. But Vegeta was able for a little while hang with Buu as a SSJ2 in him Majin form but if Gohan and Majin Vegeta's SSJ2 forms close in power (But we know majin Vegeta was stronger than Gohan as SSJ2) now image what would have happen to Dabura if he fought a SSJ2 Gohan. That would not be a long fight and the story would not have progressed into the Buu saga. See people have to look at the big picture sometimes, I'm talking in general not to a particular person. If some things happened the way people feel or want it to be then some things would not happen the way it turned out. If Gohan went SSJ2 and beat or killed Dabura. We would not have seen Majin Vegeta because Babidi would have been killed by then. Buu would not have been revived. We probably would not have seen SSJ2 or SSJ3 Goku and we would not have seen any of the fusions. I know something may seem better to use but in the end the way it was turn out for the best and we got one of the best animes in history. Heat P 11:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. :-) I think that's a pretty good theory, I never thought of all the things that would have never happened if Gohan had powered up to SSJ2 and easily killed Dabura. About Majin SSJ2 Vegeta, are you sure he was stronger than SSJ2 Gohan? We know that Dabura was only slightly less powerful than Super Perfect Cell, yet Gohan was able to fight evenly with him at SSJ1. SSJ2 gives quite a big power boost. If Gohan was able to fight evenly with a character nearly as powerful as Super Perfect Cell in his SSJ1 form, wouldn't Gohan be much stronger than Cell and possibly as strong as Vegeta in his SSJ2 form? If Gohan was that strong at SSJ1, I assume his SSJ2 form would be more powerful than it was in the Cell Games. Then again, I might be wrong though because Vegeta said something at the World Tournament about Gohan having more power as a SSJ2 at the Cell Games. But DBZ characters are wrong or talk out of their neck sometimes. Full Shunyata 20:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well remember during Gohan and Dabura's fight Vegeta even stated in Gohan's SSJ form that him and Goku were stronger than him. That is only do to Vegeta and Goku and their continuous training in the 7 years before the Buu saga and also remember When Goku and Majin Vegeta transformed to SSJ2, right before MV transformed he noticed and stated that Goku's SSJ2 form was even stronger than Gohan's SSJ2 form and as MV and Goku were perfectly even during their fight then it can be assumed that Vegeta was stronger than Gohan but like you said even DBZ characters can be wrong as like you said Vegeta said that Gohan was stronger as a SSJ2 during Cell Games but Kaioshin did state right after that Gohan was probably still the strongest fighter in the tournament but of course he himself was wrong as Goku was. But lets just assume that all three were more equal as SSJ2, Dabura still would not stand a change against any SSJ2.

Heat P 11:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I think that's a very logical conclusion. Dabura could barely handle a Super Saiyan 1 as it was. This is a very confusing topic and I kind of suspect that maybe the creators of DBZ were not consisten with Gohan's power. On the one hand, it makes perfect sense that Majin SSJ2 Vegeta and SSJ2 Goku would be stronger than SSJ2 Gohan due to the fact that they trained throughout the 7 years. However, what doesn't make sense is that if Gohan's SSJ2 form is weaker at the World Tournament than it was during the Cell Games, why is his power level only slightly weaker than Super Perfect Cell's at SSJ1? I know there are no official power levels after the Frieza Saga, but the most logically consistent and reasonable DBZ power level list I've seen has Super Perfect Cell's power level (after his self-destruction) at 300,000,000 and Dabura's power level at 275,000,000. Only slightly weaker than Cell (which makes sense since before Buu hatched, Dabura was the strongest fighter any of the Z fighters had seen since Cell). Since Gohan fought evenly with Dabura, it can be assumed that Gohan's SSJ1 power level was also 275,000,000, yet at the Cell Games his SSJ2 power level was only 325,000,000. Not too much higher than is power level during his fight against Dabura. Given that, one of these things must be true: either Gohan's SSJ2 transformation has gotten MUCH weaker, Gohan held back when he went SSJ2 at the World Tournament or wasn't able to reach full power since he hadn't gone SSJ2 in years, or Vegeta was was wrong. I think the most likely thing is that when Gohan went SSJ2 at the Tournament, his full power didn't come out because he hadn't transformed like that for years, or he wasn't as motivated as he was during his fight with Cell and thus he seemed weaker. Given Gohan's high SSJ1 power level, if he had reached his full power as a SSJ2, he might have been equal to or stronger than SSJ2 Goku or Majin Vegeta. It probably wouldn't have been enough to kill Buu though, since SSJ3 Goku (who is undoubtedly stronger than SSJ2 Gohan) had a hard enough time with Buu. But like you said, SSJ2 Gohan probably would have done to Dabura what Buu did to him. And like you said, a fully-motivated and fully-powered SSJ2 Gohan probably would have equal to or slightly more powerful than Goku and Vegeta's SSJ2 forms. Judging by his demeanor, Gohan was probably more relaxed at the World Tournament and didn't fully power up as high as he possibly could like he did against Cell. Gohan seemed stronger as a SSJ1 during his fight against Dabura and Buu than he did as a SSJ at the World Tournament, maybe because he had more motivation. I even remember Kaoishin doubting Gohan's ability to handle Buu and Gohan saying something about his inner potential (possibly evidence that Gohan wasn't truly at his highest SSJ2 power at the Tournament). Maybe Kaioshin could sense Gohan's inner potential but Vegeta couldn't. Which isn't surprising given that Vegeta couldn't sense Majin Buu's inner potential and mistakenly thought he was stronger than Buu. Full Shunyata 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you theories but I thing that you overlooked is that because Gohan didn't use his SSJ2 form in 7 years and when he fought Cell his emotions were at a all time high with his friends getting beat by the Cell Jr, His dad getting totally dominated by them and the destruction of 16, he was pretty pissed and as we know Gohan's powers increase with his emotions including his SSJ powers. Many thought before the Buu saga that SSJ2 was just Gohan's hidden powers coming forward as a SSJ. It wasn't until Goku and M-Vegeta became SSJ2 and Goku explaining to Buu and Babidi that it is a SSJ that suppasses the limits of a SSJ, namely SSJ2. So originally and it was comfirmed in a interview with Akira Toriyama that it SSJ2 was suppose to be Gohan's hidden powers but because of the overwelling response to DBZ in Japan and Japanese not wanting Gohan to be the main character he brought Goku back and gave him the SSJ2 along with Vegeta as well as SSJ3 so he had to do something to give Gohan his own hidden powers it's own look so that is when he came up with the Latent Powers Release. So just like you said when he was in the tournament he was more relaxed and his emotions were at a calm level. If anything he was nerves which effects his powers too making him weaker. So Vegeta can was right but was wrong. I myself don't really think SSJ powers weaken. I think they just remain at that level. If you notice the only reason they seem weak sometimes is because only two saiyans continue to train and get stronger and they are Goku and Vegeta. That is why Gohan, Goten and Trunks seem weak. It is just because their dads keep training and got stronger. That could be another reason Vegeta thought Gohan was weaker because he was comparing his power to Gohan's who did not train until a few weeks before the tournament started. But I got to go back and watch Gohan and Dabura's fight because I think when Goku meant Cell he may not have ment Super Perfect Cell. He could have ment just Perfect Cell with would make total sense on Dabura being stronger than Cell.

Heat P 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're really knowledgeable on this! I agree, but I think it may be possible for Super Saiyan powers to rise or drop depending on emotions. Back during the Cell Saga, we saw Trunk's power steadily increase throughout his fight with Perfect Cell while he was as an USSJ. His powers steadily increased as he became angrier, even inside the Room of Spirit and Time, we saw Gohan's powers increase within the Super Saiyan 1 Grade 1 level (which I mistook for him tranforming to Grade 2). During the fight with Dabura, Gohan raised his powers a couple of times and we saw a shockwave come from him, and during his attempt to destroy Majin Buu's egg, we saw Gohan's power climb as he powered up in an attmpt to make his beams stronger. Even USSJ Vegeta's powers climbed while he was forming a Final Flash attack for Cell (his powers climbed enough to deal significant, but ultiamtely futile, damage to Cell where as a few minutes earlier he couldn't even hurt Cell). The best example might be SSJ2 Gohan and Super Perfect Cell's Kamehameha battle. At first, Gohan's Kamehameha appeared to be weaker than Cell's, but as Goku's ghost encouraged Gohan when Gohan finally unleashed, his Kamehameha suddenly becomes alot stronger than Cell's. We can ever hear a noise as he unleashes that indicates a huge jump in power level. Gohan only appeared weaker than Super Perfect Cell because he was discouraged, but his power level grew as he became more confident. So Super Saiyan powers may rise or fall depending on emotions and motivation just like non-Super Saiyan power levels (such as during the Raditz Saga and Saiyan Saga). Not saying my theory is conclusive, but it might explain some anomalies. :-) Or maybe in Gohan's case, even though he lost skill and power from not training, his Saiyan blood allowed him to retain his previous potential. Vegeta and Cell commented on how Saiyan bodies grow stronger with each fight (and possibly naturally grow stronger with age) and can remember their previous powers. Maybe that's why his SSJ1 power changed between the Tournament and his fight with Dabura. As for Cell, I think they were saying Dabura was more powerful than Super Perfect Cell. Usually when DBZ characters say, "This is the most powerful villain since X, they're usually referring to the previous villain at their highest potential. We can easily say that Dabura was proabably more powerful than normal Perfect Cell. So when they said he was almost as powerful as Cell, they were probably referring to Super Perfect Cell. Like when Mirai Trunks first appeared and they said he was more powerful than Frieza, they were probably referring to Frieza at his 100% maximum rather than his 33% potential after he first reached his 4th form. Not that power level estimations are conclusive, but DBZ power level estimations usually post Dabura as slightly less powerful than Super Perfect Cell. Full Shunyata 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm sad to hear that people in Japan didn't want Gohan to be the main character. :-( Goku is cool, but after all the times he defeated the villains in both the show and the movies, I wanted Gohan to have his time in the limelight. Especially after defeating Cell. When Goku put his hopes on Gohan, I kind of saw it as Goku passing the torch. I think Toriyama said the Buu Saga was originally supposed to end with Gohan killing Buu after his training with Rou Dai Kaioshin, but the show's financiers wanted Toriyama to extend the Saga and have Goku beat him. On the positive side, the extension of the saga did allow us to get to see Vegetto, but I think it would have made more sense if Mystic Gohan had killed Buu on Kaioshin's planet instead of Goku. Mystic Gohan was more powerful than SSJ3 Goku and might have beaten him quicker. And I didn't like the way they made Vegeta seem so weak, Vegeta seemed to become a punching bag ever since his defeat by Android 18 for the producers to show how powerful the villains are. That was kind of messed up how they made Vegeta seem so compared to Goku and Gohan. DBGT made things worse by making Goku the hero of every saga and letting Goku withstand things as a normal Super Saiyan that almost killed every other character as a normal Super Saiyan. Especially given that Child Goku was the weakest Super Saiyan in the show aside from Goten and Trunks. Goku himself commented that his body lost a lot of power when he shrunk. Full Shunyata 05:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the complament. I been watching, reading, and studying Dragon Ball for a very long time (around 15 years to be exact) And even though I watch ever episode, read every manga chapter and read numerous article, internet sites and books, I go back and watch and read them every once in a while. So we agree on the SSJ powers and the emotions things because it could be true to that theory. Being angry and getting Stronger or powerful from it does not just apply to Gohan, As us real humans when we get mad or angry we get stronger than our normal selves so your theory is sound and I believe it. I totally agree on the Japanese people refusing to let Gohan get some spot time after Cell. But you know fans, we get stuck on somethings and we stick to them. And with Goku being the hero in every saga until Cell I can see why the japanese wanted Goku back. But it would have been cool to have Toriyama continue on the track of letting Gohan become the hero. That was his original plan before he got the response to put Goku back as the hero. As you seen in the beginning of the Buu saga (The Great Saiyanman and Babidi saga) he was being placed as the original hero before Goku was used. Even when he fought Buu it seemed he would somehow be the hero but after that people seen fusion and wanted to see Goku and Vegeta use it in the series but because it was used in movie 12 to get Gogeta and Vegeta was actually never around to see the fusion technique and learn it a new way to fuse had to be made. So to counteract that he Toriyama created Vegetto. That is why Gohan never got the chance later to kill Buu because of that reason.

However I am sorry to say this because a lot of people did say this but I went back and watch the Dabura fight and unless it was said sometime after the fight, during the fight I did not hear Goku, Vegeta nor Gohan mention that Dabura was stronger the Cell. The only thing that was mentioned was that Gohan was stronger as a kid. I watch the Funimation dub version, the Funimation japanese sub version and even a bootleg copy to make sure and they all basically say the same thing that Gohan was stronger as a little kid then he was fighting Dabura. I am not saying you did not see it or hear it but I think that most people are going of them saying Gohan was Stronger as a k9id think that they mean his SSJ2 form. But of course they are wrong as Gohan was only a SSJ fighting Dabura. It was not mentioned anytime about Cell while I watched the anime. I am deployed with the military now so I can't check the mangas I got at home. So to make sure can you see for me if the manga says it?

As for GT, I like that series too unlike a lot of other people but you are right. Goku did mention that even though he was still able to go into all his SSJ forms other than SSJ4 at the time we was weaker. But each time he is shown to be stronger than Gohan and Vegeta's SSJ forms. Shoot remember when they were under Baby's influence Goku in normal form defeat SSJ Gohan and Goten at the same time. But somethings make no sense sometimes in DB period. Like at the beginning of GT. Remember when Goku tryed to use the instant transmission he could not because he was suppose to have been reverted back to a child's body before his adult body learned any of his well known moves other than the Kamehameha? So how was it possible for him to become a SSJ when his body was at the state it was in? Guess SSJ powers, which is genetic linked to saiyans remain from a wish such as that while techniques ago away until learned again but then how was he able to use the Dragon Fist on Super 17? But again he was now a SSJ4 so his body may have gotten use to it and his techniques may have returned as he was able later to use the ITM again.

Again thanks for the compliment. Heat P 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One other thing when you said when the Z-fighters usually measure villian to previous villian's they use the high power level they felt on the person. With can be true for Cell but not for Freeza because in the manga no one other than Goku actually felt Freeza at his highest power. But of course because of filler scenes Gohan and Vegeta came face to face with Freeza at 100%, Gohan fought him until Goku showed back up. And when Vegeta had be revived and before he vanished to earth he flew to see Gokuas a SSJ and Freeza in 100% but the other characters in the anime never felt Freeza's full power and in the manga none of them except Goku felt his power. But of course I know Mecha Freeza was stronger than 100% but I have my doubts about it. and for the record man those power levels you seen on other internet sites are completely wrong as in the manga and anime the scouter had stop being used after one of Freeza and King Cold's henchmen measured Trunks's powers at 5 before Trunks killed them all. After that no other power levels other than Broly's fight movie was used and that was in a flashback. So after Trunks's arrival the use of scouters was gone. All the fighter started to use their sense of feeling ki to measure another fighter or villain. So no more numbers were used to measure power levels and those internet site are only what people think those fighters after Freeza's death were at. So Dabura and Cell's power levels on those pages are wrong. Heat P 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob, you really are more knowledgeable on DBZ than me from what I've seen. You're probably right about only Goku (and Kaio-sama) seeing Frieza at his maximum unless the filler is part of the official storyline. And you're right about power level sites since no power levels are given after Mirai Trunk's suppressed power level is read on a scouter. As for Dabura, there's no way to be totally sure but when they said Dabura is almost as powerful as Cell was, they were probably referrencing Super Perfect Cell since they had all seen Cell at his maximum after his resurrection. And as for Gohan, even though he hadn't trained for 7 years after his fight with Cell (ignoring the Bojack movie), Saiyan power levels grow naturally with age and the Saiyan half of Gohan's genome allow his body to remember previous levels of power they have achieved in the past. The Saiyan cells in Cell's body allowed his body to retain knowledge of his previous levels of power even after he self-destructed and lost Android 18. Maybe that's why before Gohan powered up as a SSJ in an attempt to destroy Buu's egg it showed Gohan having an introspection trying to remember his power during his SSJ2 fight against Super Perfect Cell. Maybe as Gohan remember his emotions his Super Saiyan power level rose. No way to be sure but if as a young adult his SSJ1 form was nearly as powerful as Super Perfect Cell, maybe if he could remember his power and emotions from the Cell Games his SSJ2 form during the Buu Saga would have been as powerful or slightly more powerful than SSJ2 Gokua and Majin Vegeta. Full Shunyata 17:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything else in Dragon Ball that confuses you that I can help with? Heat P 11:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you, Heat P, this goy is just a troll.Purrny gotobed 14:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A troll? I'm an established member on this site. You're the stranger spamming my talk page with nonsense and you call me a troll??? Full Shunyata 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, Heat P, thanks for the info. It's been really fun talking with you, but I'm afraid I don't have any more questions at this time. Thanks for helping me though, I hope we can talk again soon. :-) Full Shunyata 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Buenaventura Durruti.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Buenaventura Durruti.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Please read Wikipedia's policy on original research: Wikipedia:No original research. Specially relevant part is this, which talks about synthesis of published material, and this, which states that: An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. I'm drawing your attention to this parts of official Wikipedia policy because of yours recent edits on Collectivism and Benjamin Tucker. Happy editing... -- Vision Thing -- 19:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no original research in my edits. Especially for the Benjamin Tucker article. Other users such as Libertatia had no problem with it. Simply because you don't believe Benjamin Tucker is a socialist does not make it original research. He called himself one and he actually said all the quotes I put in the article. Those quotes are from Benjamin Tucker, as opposed to Victor Yarros. Do not delete sourced material or I will contact an admin. Thank you. Full Shunyata 20:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are still not getting Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you have trouble in accepting my arguments, please ask one of the administrators who shares your point of view (like Francis Tyers or Sarge Baldy) to explain it to you in relation to your edits. -- Vision Thing -- 19:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not shown how my edits are "Original Research" other than you don't personally believe he was a 'socialist'. However, I will take your advice and ask them about my edits to see whether or not they believe my edits are OR. Full Shunyata 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, on the collectivism article, I am simply adding in the fact that not everyone believes Fascism was a type of collectivism. That is an opinion usually held by Conservatives and Libertarians, not all scholars in general. You claimed the economics of fascism article I took the sources from is under POV inspection (which is true), but what makes Triandis, Harry C.; Gelfand, Michele J. a more reliable source than Henry A. Turner? You claimed my source might be biased, so what are the objective credentials of the opinion of your source? Full Shunyata 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

With regards to your comments on Talk:Benjamin_Tucker: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Vision Thing -- 20:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack? How? For pointing out what you are actually doing? And your Wiki-stalking isn't a violation of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Anyway, I won't fall for your trap. I've seen you do this to other Wikipedia editors, I'm not stupid. You're purposely trying to provoke me so you can provoke me to break some Wikipedia rule, then you'll go running to an Admin so you can have me banned or blocked for rule violations. I've seen you do it before. It's very cheap and very transparent. But be warned that if you don't stop violating Wiki rules I'll have you reported. Full Shunyata 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusing Intangible of "being intellectually dishonest and having selective memory to push POV" is clear example of personal attack. Accusations of stalking aren't far either. -- Vision Thing -- 20:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's not an insult, it's an accusation of wrongdoing to other Wikipedia editors. Complaining about mistreatment is not an ad hominem attack. Now if I called you a "lowlife" or something, that would be an attack. Saying, "You're bothering me and being unfair in editing" is not. According to your logic, you're attacking me by continually bugging me on my talk page. Full Shunyata 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's quite obvious you are stalking me. What do you call it when 90% of the recent edits I made are reverted by you within hours? Is it a coincidence that you happen to have visited and edited every single page I've been to within hours of me? And why do you care what I say to Intangible? Are you him? Full Shunyata 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Only thing that I'm "stalking" is my watchlist... Btw, did you read WP:NOR? -- Vision Thing -- 12:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Following a person around and reverting all of their edits is indeed stalking. And yes, I know most of the rules of Wikipedia by now. I act well within the parameters of Wikipedia policy, so you can stop trying to get be banned or blocked by trying to catch me in the act of violating a policy. I know how you do. I've seen you do it other members you were in an edit dispute with. Full Shunyata 12:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are not aware of WP:AGF. -- Vision Thing -- 12:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but I could say the same of you. I assume good faith but you are not acting in a non-biased manner. It's one thing to assume good faith. It's another to react to blatant POV-pushing. Full Shunyata 12:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

round and round

I think we might have another sock-puppet. Either that, or the famous Law of the Conservation of An-Caps really, really works. Not that it's a particularly big deal. Libertatia 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean that new "Good Tone" user? You might be right, I was kind of suspicious when (s)he made so many edits in both the Talk section and to the article in a short amount of time. They just came out of nowhere and started swinging away in the conversation. And I noticed his/her edit that claimed "Little did they [Mutualists] know, the free market leads to inequalities." They took it out later (to hide it) but that sounded very much like something old A-C or RJII would have said. Implying that markets are inherently 'capitalistic' or that Indies and Mutualists have a poor understand of market economics. I'm glad you noticed too. Full Shunyata 16:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There's someone using essentially the same talking points in comments to at least one of the Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left blogs, too. But the quality of the work from this crew keeps declining. Once upon a time, the debates actually improved the articles, but I don't see much of that happening anymore. Libertatia 17:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

We are indeed getting a lot of strange new editors lately. I'm starting to wonder if some members are contacting other people and convincing them to edit on Wikipedia. Full Shunyata 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the making the article more neutral in language. ;) Full Shunyata 16:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of a split-the-difference thing with the McElroy quote. The second half is objectionable as well, in that "it might be true, depending on what you really mean" sort of way, but it's not horribly wrong. I really don't understand the motivation behind most of the aggressive an-cap edits. On the one hand, it seems to be important to them to show that mutualism is wrong. On the other, it still has to function as a step towards their philosophy. But then they insist that none of the particular, specific an-cap philosophies are in any way representative; and then they defend them anyway, and insist that the individual market anarchist philosophies are "part of" anarcho-capitalism. It's not even good kettle logic. Libertatia 17:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand their reasoning either. It certainly is a very bizarre logical contradiction. On the one hand they want to show that something is wrong, even bad. I've seen a couple of an-cap members call Mutualism "bad because of its socialist (in the Mutualist sense of the word) implications. Yet they want to portray it as a precursor to their own philosophy. Very odd. The only thing that makese sense of this is a quote from an anarcho-capitalist (I saw it somewhere else a while back, I forgot where it was) that individualist and mutualist anarchism were simply misguided LTV market theories. The person claimed that anarcho-capitalism is simply indie/mutualist anarchism using the STV. So he regards it as an anarcho-capitalist protype that's been replaced by "modern individualism". I think that's a very gross oversimplification of mutualist philosophy of course, but that definitely explains the actions of some an-cap editors. Especially former user A-C's insistance upon calling anarcho-capitalism "modern individualism". Full Shunyata 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain to you my view on this for what it's worth since you two seem flabbergasted. Tucker's type of individualist anarchism is not a necessary precursor to anarcho-capitalism. Most anarcho-capitalists arrive at their individualist anarchism organically without having read Tucker. Rothbard appears to be an exception who was influenced by Tucker. But it's not necessary to do so to come up with anarcho-capitalism. Just some kid who hasnt read any political philosophy sitting his room who opposes taxation can come up with anarcho-capitalism. Instead of being taxes for protection, you voluntarily pay for protection of yourself and your property. It's very elementary. It would occur to anyone. Anarcho-capitalism even existed before Tucker's mutualism such as by Molinari and Faucher in Europe. They weren't influenced by Tucker. Tucker had significant differences from anarcho-capitalism as well as significant similarities. So an anarcho-capitalist is going to disparage what he doesn't like about Tucker but at the same time he's not going to allow what he believes to be misinformation and support what he does like about Tucker which would opposition to communism, anti-taxation, and freedom of contract. Maybe your confusion is becuase you're looking for some kind of "motivation," when actually the motivation is could simply to write an informational encyclopedia. Good tone 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you monitoring my conversation? Mind you, you're still a new member and you seem unusually direct. Full Shunyata 19:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a new member. I've been here before. I've been popping in and out of Wikipedia for years. Good tone 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not what your userpage says. It says you've been here for two days and you quit. Anyway, you have some nerve claiming that we are "flabbergasted" on the topic of Tucker. Both I and Libertatia are quite knowledgeable on Tucker and many anarchist topics and figures in anarchist history. Your post wasn't particularly enlightening, and I think it's racked with several historical fallacies. It's just the usual an-cap revsionist history that I've seen hundreds of times before. Anarcho-capitalism has supposedly existed since the dawn of mankind (being put down by the State and 'socialism'), it existed in Europe in medieval times, Jefferson was one, blah, blah, blah. The whole kit-n-kaboodle about voluntary taxes ("protection money"), so on and so forth. Anyway, I hope you stop condescending to us. And I hope you would introduce yourself instead of coming in calling yourself "educating" me. Full Shunyata 19:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I arrived here last nite and today quit. I may come back tommorow, next week, or a year from now with a new username. (It's hard for me to remember passwords.) You can believe that anarcho-capitalism was influenced by Tucker all you want but I disagree that that's the case for most anarcho-capitalists. I became an anarcho-capitalist without ever having read Tucker or Rothbard. Tucker and his friends didn't invent individualist anarchism. It was around long before they were and it wasn't the mutualist type either. I'm trying to help you out because you two said you were confused. I submit that what's confusing you is looking for "motivations." If you can't determine the motivation or reasoning then there's a good chance that the motivation is simply NPOV. Good tone 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute: earlier you said you've been here for years. First you said, "I am not a new member. I've been here before. I've been popping in and out of Wikipedia for years." Then you said, "I arrived here last nite and today quit. I may come back tommorow, next week, or a year from now with a new username." So which is it? Have you been here for years or did you just arrive last night? Full Shunyata 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson an anarcho-capitalist? I've never heard that before. That wouldnt be true. Good tone 19:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

When I say that anarcho-capitalism existed before Tucker, I don't mean an actual system. I'm talking about simply a philosophy. That philosophy is that instead of protecting freedom and property by taxes, this service is paid for by user fees among competing providers. That's anarcho-capitalism, otherwise known as individualist anarchism. It's when Tucker came with his own individualist anarchism and started introducing the labor theory of value and land use restrictions, etc, when the mutualist form of individualist anarchism arose. Neither individualist anarchism influenced the other for the most part.Good tone 19:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that is the single funniest bit of complete nonsense that I have ever read on Wikipedia. Thanks! Libertatia 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A source in the anarcho-capitalism article backs me up. The quoted source says "only a few individuals like Murray Rothbard, in Power and Market, and some article writers were influenced by these [Tucker and Spooner]. Most had not evolved consciously from this tradition; they had been a rather automatic product of the American environment." DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978, p. 127 I know for a fact that my anarcho-capitalism arose without ever hearing of Benjamin Tucker or Murray Rothbard and before ever hearing it described by anyone else. If you want to think all anarcho-capitalists, or even most, were influenced by mutualists you're free to do that. If you want an example of individualist anarchism prior to the mutualist form, which has no labor theory of value or land use restrictions, look at Gustave de Molinari and Julius Faucher. Good tone 20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I do not recall anyone, at any time, claiming that "all anarcho-capitalists, or even most, were influenced by mutualists." It's a damned weird thing to be arguing about, since nobody seems to have claimed it. Now, DeLeon's claims are notoriously overstated, but he's probably not too far off on this one. Of course, Molinari and Faucher have had even less real influence on most modern individualist anarchists than the "Liberty" group. Pretty much all of this search for sources stuff is retrospective, and it has taken the work of historically-minded individualists to recover these figures. Apparently, we still have work to do, since you imagine Tucker "started introducing the labor theory of value and land use restrictions, etc.," when that had, of course, happened long, long before. Libertatia 00:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Libertatia, this is some of the most far-fetched historical revisionism I've ever seen. Aside from that, I see you are talking about defence associations. Tucker and Proudhon believed such associations should be cooperative groups that sell to whoever needs them (instead of state police or the military). Anarcho-capitalists believe these associations should be used to defend private capital-owners (read: capitalist employers) and lanlords whereas individualists and mutualists believe they should be free to everyone and should enforce the right to NOT pay rent, interests, taxes, protection money, etc. You also skipped over my comment from Proudhon where he states that all employees should excersize equal control of capital, thus making it impossible (or at least hard) for anyone to unilaterally control capital. The root of "capitalism" is ownership of land and means of production (capital) by individuals who employ laborers with little or no capital of their own to work it for them. That is what Tucker and Proudhon opposed. Full Shunyata 21:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you believe "true indiviudalist anarchism" to be, the fact of the matter is that anarcho-capitalists did not start using the term "individualist anarchism" for themselves until the 20th century. Individualist anarchism was a philosophy held by many mutualists (and this goes way beyond petty LTV vs. STV nonsense). In fact, Murray Rothbard did not believe anarcho-capitalism should be called 'individualist anarchism'. Yes, I know much about Murray Rothbard. Full Shunyata 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The first mutualists didn't call their philosophy "individualist anarchism" either. That was applied later. "Individualist anarchism" is a term applied to all individualist philosophies that are anarchistic. Good tone 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you believe, Tucker and other mutualist individualists (including ones today like Kevin Carson) have many differences with anarcho-capitalists besides LTV. It mostly comes down to ownership of capital. Full Shunyata 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what the differences are. They think it's ok to take someone's land if he's not using it. Let's say you don't use your back yard for years. According to mutualists it's ok for someone to go in and take it over, as in squat it, etc. That's what anarcho-capitalists object to. They think that if someone purchases something, it's theirs. There is no moral requirement to keep it in use. Good tone 20:00, 7 May 2007

Economic calculation

Sorry, I removed your unsourced restoration of to-ing and fro-ing on the [{Economic calculation problem]] page, particularly because it restoed the debate format we've all just worked so hard to eliminate from the page (and I'm not convinced that the arguments put forward improve the artcle much).--Red Deathy 07:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

hey

Hiya, I'm sorry, I'm not on wikipedia a lot these days, I got exams and stuff to be doing. Try to stay cool I guess, and not let yourself be dragged too deeply into this, it's just an internet website that few people take seriously as material for research. Just ignore Vision Thing's random policy attacks on you, they're a bit hypocritical IMO, he's done that to me and quite a few other people. -- infinity0 19:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I'm responding so late. :-( I've been really busy too but I'm pretty much in the clear now. The whole thing with VisionThing is over, for now at least. But you're right that we should be wary in the future. Full Shunyata 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist communism

Excellent work on Anarchist communism adding in all those references. Well done! BobFromBrockley 11:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! ;-) I wanted to make the article more neutral by adding in Marxist perspectives on anarchist communism and counter-arguments from both. It took a while to get those references but it makes for a good article. Full Shunyata 16:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Subvertise.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Subvertise.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Vision Thing

Hello. I've done a bit of evidence collecting regarding Vision Thing as Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet. I've now identified five distinct cases where he was a suspected sockpuppet of RJ or Anarcho-capitalism by different editors. This includes an instance when his account was first created, and an accusation by myself. In case you are interested I have posted links to this evidence on the following page. As you can see from the evidence I collected the 2nd time he was suspected, his edits have on multiple occasions been identical to those of RJII. This is just a heads-up I'm sending out to folks who've been recently involved with his various sockpuppet incarnations. Etcetc 07:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)