User talk:VoluntarySlave

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Woman

Yes it should be debated whether the picture is relevant...however the previous picture was far too much...especially considering that wikipedia is free to everyone...i replaced it with an image so that those who are desperate to have an image can be happy and so that they can get more time to think about it Kshatriya knight 11:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including keeping, merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. Again, thank you for your comments. -- Jonel | Speak 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Negri

Potere operaio and Autonomia operaia were not communist. These were forerunners of Autonomist Marxism, particularly in Italy. Nobody in Italy would think of their affiliates as "Italian communists". For a comparison, please see the category Italian communists. A category such as "Italian Marxists" would be appropriate though. Behemoth 19:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede for the moment that Potere operaio and Autonomia weren't explicitly communist, as I don't have access to any documents on the two groups right now (I'm fairly sure they did produce material calling for communism, etc). But Negri refers to himself as a communist again and again, up to and including in his most recent books. Unless you are going to restrict the Italian Communists category to members of the PCI, which is inconsistent with other 'Communists by nationality' pages, I don't see any reason to exclude Negri from the category. VoluntarySlave 21:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a problem. In Italy, there is a well-established tradition of communism (as a political current), almost exclusively identified with PCI. Therefore, this is quite not in accordance with the view of people in many countries who tend to call leftist radicals as "communists". When it comes as a term to define, Negri calls himself as a communist, referring to communism as a political philosophy. Thus, this is never an assertion in public, he never identifies himself with the communist current or the so-called "Italian communists" present in the category. Behemoth 05:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies regarding the "common" revert—I had been working from memory and was obviously mistaken. Thanks for pointing that out and, especially, providing the reference to Multitude. Job L 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indymedia article

I like your edit better than mine. 132.241.245.49 05:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for your support of the Indymedia page. Seems like a futile battle sometimes to keep it neutral, but you've been a great help! Thanks! JamieJones ^talk 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Nice to see you back at the article. Hope you stick around. Lots of socks and/or new an-cap recruits. Someone further up said something about coming to the page after getting an email message from an an-cap email list. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Halaqah 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)== User:Anarcho-capitalism ==[reply]

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 06:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insitutional racism

YOu wil find your edits dont last long, i am not even allowed to have a discussion, there is a tag team of editors reverting everything i do. how is this fair?--Halaqah 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halaqah, it seems that it is you who organizes a tag team here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt organize any tage team, take a look at my history, i have no affliation with these people, i just strongly believe what you are doing is very very wrong, ur blocking everyone from discussing racism by the Israli governement. cant u see this?--Halaqah 12:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. 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. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thank you for those two very helpful points (i) that the postmodern critique of rationality does not necessarily mean that postmodern philosophers claim not to use rationality. Indeed. Many philosophers have been suspicious of rationality, e.g. Hume. But they use entirely rational methods to argue for this. (ii) And of course the use of the non-vacuous contrast principle by our friend was quite bizarre.

It was nice to have that support, I really do feel I'm fighting a losing battle here, just by weight of numbers. Dbuckner 09:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for your careful point about not confusing rational method with 'rationalism'. I've also said this a number of times, but it needs to be repeated. I've been following your contribution to the discussion. You make careful, sound, clear points. A shame it is getting lost in the noise. Dbuckner 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with effort

I'm supportive of your effort. Richiar 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with effort

I am reverting again to your version of yesterday. Don't agree with it entirely, but it is a very good base to work from. I can't get involved in the talk page as it's just too noisy at the moment. Most of the participants have been perfectly rational and reasonable, but there is one seriously problem user. I don't think those of you who are new to this place realise how difficult it is to get rid of such users, especially when as determined as this one. So please support this reversion (or minor amendments thereof). Many thanks. Dbuckner 08:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS There is another similar version of the intro you suggest on the talk page. By all mains update my reversion to that. You see where I'm coming from. Thanks for your help. Dbuckner 08:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just wiped out all my work

Please examine what you've done. And if appropriate, please revert. Thanks. --Ludvikus 08:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm mistaken - it's because we're on it simultaneously.

Best wishe, --Ludvikus 08:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you seem to have cut out significant facts - why?

Please reconsider what you've done!

Thanks. --Ludvikus 08:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop major edits without Talk

see philosophy talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucaas (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

We need you

That's OK. I sure could use a VoluntarySlave.

Could you explain things to Dbuckner.

Thanks, and keep up your good work.

Dbuckner has accumulated much trash - he think's it's mine.

Could you have a look at it - and state your view on the talk page of Philosophy?

Thanks, --Ludvikus 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

You are right to maintain the tighter, shorter version of the Analytic/Continental material, although it still needs work. Needless to say, the Ludvikus ramble about Marxism and Russell, or whatever, should never have been published in the first place. KD Tries Again 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD[reply]

Current disruption on Philosophy Talk

Hi - your comments on the talk page have been insightful and useful. Unfortunately it is very hard to locate them due to the current disruption on the page (mostly caused by Ludvikus, in my view, though there is one other, who is less disruptive). A community ban on one of the editors (Ludvikus) has been proposed by Banno, which I strongly support. However, other administrators feel there is not much evidence of any disruption. If you do feel that there is a problem, and that current conditions make work on the article difficult or impossible, please leave a message on FT2's talk page. FT2 is currently co-ordinating work on the Philosophy article. Dbuckner 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean edits

Hello, VoluntarySlave, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | ^Talk 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution appreciated

Your comments in the philosophy talk section were well received. Would you consider participating in the consenus developing in the workshop here ? Richiar 15:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tart card

The geographic specificity you complained about was necessary - tart cards are almost exclusively a London (and bits of SE England) thing. I live quite near Birmingham, and phone boxes there are usually completely free of them, even in the city centre. Same goes for most other cities. I've changed the article back to emphasise London, since that is justified here. 86.136.250.42 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Communist states" in Marxism article

Hi, I have temporarily undone your edits to the Communism section of the Marxism article. A discussion was developing on the talk page and I think it would be appropriate to wait to see the outcome of the discussion before making any changes. You can propose the changes you would like to make at Talk:Marxism and allow other people to comment and consensus to be reached before making the changes. Thansks JenLouise 04:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoralty

By law, all local elected offices are non-partisan. That means that political parties are not involved, there's no party candidate, no primary. So Dellums is no more the "Democratic Party" mayor than he is the Baptist mayor or the Black mayor or the male mayor. His political affiliation is little more relevant than those characteristics. -Will Beback · † · 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly.

Although the office of mayor is "non-partisan", that just means that the political affiliation of the candidates are not listed on the ballot. You better believe that behind the scenes, the parties work very hard to elect their endorsed candidates to those "non-partisan" offices. --Dems on the move 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in Political theology

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Political theology, by Isotope23, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Political theology is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Political theology, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Political theology itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep an eye on BNP

Copies of this message are being sent to: User: Adambro, User:Fethroesforia, User:Lucy-marie, User:Marcus22, User:One Night In Hackney, User:Robdurbar, User:VoluntarySlave, User:WGee

I am writing to you because over the last few months you have all played a significant part in editing and debating the article BNP. Even though we have not always all seen eye-to-eye, it is the case that all of you have shown an interest in producing an article that is accurate and representative of the subject within WIkipedia policies. The purpose of this message is to alert you to a potential threat to the article and to ask for your help in keeping a watchful eye on it over the next few weeks. I am going to be away from home with only occasional access to a slow dial-up connection.

On 1 June, I added to the BNP infobox the descriptor 'fascist', with appropriate references (as had been discussed a few weeks back - see archive discussion). I was happy for anyone to question this in the usual way and, indeed, had other references available if necessary. Almost coincidentally, an anonymous editor User:86.146.242.233, began making a series of edits without justification. On the talk page, he referred to previous editors (i.e. you) as "the many militant liberals and communists" and indicated that he was "also going to be going through the whole article because I notice most of it is either liberals or nationalists posting their points of views". I asked him to identify his position and was told "You're fucked up, leave the god damn article alone" and he told me to "stop trolling the BNP article". He also made inappropriate comments on the user pages of other editors to the BNP article and, for no reason I can fathom, did this to the user page of a 14 year old: [[1]].

User talk:86.146.242.233 shows he received several warnings and was eventually banned from editing (having only recently, it seems, been released from an earlier ban). This might have been the end of the matter, but the following day a new editor appeared with the name User:Evianmineralwater and proceeded to make identical edits to BNP and some related articles. I reported my suspicions that 86.146.242.233 and Evian were identical to adminUser:Anthony.bradbury who agreed it seemed to be the same person but told me had been banned again. In fact, he was banned for using a trade name and returned almost immediately as User: Mineralwaterisgreat. (I had misunderstood what the admin had told me and assumed he had been banned for vandalism and so reverted his edits on that basis, earning a rebuke from another admin for my mistake.)

Mineral has made the following statements, among others.

Wikipedia is "corrupt piece of shit populated with idiots". Rebuked by an admin, he replied, "Wikipedia IS corrupt AND populated by idiots."

On the references I had provided: "I'm not reading the references because they are obviously left wing and I'm not buying a god damn book."

About me: "This guy wants to keep adding fascism to describe the BNP when it has been refused on both the disambiguation page and the main page. Isn't it clear to see he's just a troll without the best interests of the article in mind?" (I'm not sure what he means by being refused.)

Elsewhere, he has said he is a BNP member and that he intends to edit the article to remove anything he regards as anti-BNP bias.

Now I can deal with personal attacks or ignore them as the mood takes me, but this user is clearly setting out with a POV agenda that we have, I believe, worked hard to keep out of the article. (And, yes, it has sometimes been heated but I still think we have done a good job between us.) I am even happy to debate with BNP members and supporters if they use rational arguments and respect the views of others. (An honourable mention here to Fethroesforia.) I would hate to see the good work we have done go to waste, so I ask that you keep an eye on the article and ensure that edits are made in the correct wikipedian spirit, backed up with sources as appropriate and discussed in the talk page where necessary. It is highly likely that this person could reappear under other names.

(Incidentally, it is ironic that this person has chosen to attack me so vehemently given that, apart from regularly removing the BNP ARE WANKERS type of vandalism and correcting references, the only edit I can recall ever having made to the actual article is to add 'fascism' to the infobox.) Sorry to go on, and I know you are all busy with other projects. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Emeraude 10:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Brown source

Hallo, there is a possible incoherency in On_the_Jewish_Question#Karl_Marx_and_Judaism.

The article is displaying five quotes from OtJQ, and then the article reads "Others argue that these quotations have been taken out of context,... ", giving as a source Brown 1995. (Meanwhile, with the intention of clarification, I had changed this into "W.Brown argues that these quotation have been out of context...". But now I changed it back since I'm not sure that my frist edit was correct.) On the other hand side, this selection of OtJQ-quotes had originally been derived from the Peron treatise. I had removed the Peron source, mainly because it is from a private web-site. I think it could be possible that it is not exactly these five quotes of which W.Brown says that other argue that they were "taken out of conext" (or of which she herself says that). I think you have put in the Brown 1995 source. Maybe you can help to clarify if the source is used in an accurate way now, thanks.--Schwalker 20:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Trouble

Hi VoluntarySlave, I see you've reverted my alteration to Feminism#Post-structural_feminism_and_postmodern_feminism. How would you feel about the sentence being changed to "The largest departure from other branches of feminism, is the argument that both sex and gender are constructed through language."?--Cailil ^talk 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great suggestion. I've just added it to the section :)--Cailil ^talk 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Education edits

Thank you so much for fixing the refs section! Pax Arcane (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of Interests on Communism - Your edits

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. - Do not make further edits until dispute has been resolved. Dylansmrjones (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BNP article

I have provided a source that the BNP denies the fact it is Fascist and albeit there are sources that assert the party is Fascist I also have provided sources that they are either derived from opposed parties or are outdated or both. I am willing to make the concession of having that written in brackets.