User talk:Mrdthree

warning

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Frogsprog 17:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
You can experiment in the test area.
You can get help at the Help Desk
Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article

-- srikeit | talk

Freedom

Ah, I see what you were doing. Yep, I'll finish up the move as you intended, and change Freedom back to a redirect to the disambiguation page. Give me about 5 minutes and then let me know if it ended up where you wanted it. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do thanks alot.Mrdthree 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. How does that look? (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, well done sir!Mrdthree 19:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalo

Thank you so much for posting the image regarding the vote totals for the 1959 referendum on statehood in Hawaii. I have been looking for the exact numbers for a while, and couldn't find them before. Wonderful addition to the wikipedia! --JereKrischel 03:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:American Empire (term)

By continuing our conversation here, I don't know if I am like that unwelcome guest you didn't expect. But I wanted to continue our conversation. I apologize if my intrusion onto your talk page is offensive.

I am really intrigued by something you wrote, and I felt like Talk:American Empire (term) wasn't the proper forum to talk about it.

You wrote:

Advocacy is an inescapable part of scholarship and the motivation to work at Wikipedia, you want people to know about america the empire, marxists and chomsky want people to know america is an empire because it is (corporate) capitalist and I dont want young minds thinking that these are the only educated points of view.

This sentence in particular intrigues me: I dont want young minds thinking that these are the only educated points of view. Why? I can guess, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Signed:Travb 08:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am an ex- (teenage)ayn randian who has downgraded to a more complex policy of libertarian, (anti-corporate) capitalist, with materialist-existentist sympathies but an otherwise anti-postmodern reactionary :). As for young minds, it is easy when you are young and are curious to end up trying to memorize pages of new jargon words because you believe once you do the fashionable philosophy of the day will make sense(e.g. post modernism) or even if you find a plain-spoken, overtly systematic but inconsistent set of ideas (e.g. ayn rand). Knowing both exist is best and even better are more alternatives plus some math for grounding (systematic and consistent very nice) or science (lots of jargon to memorize).Mrdthree 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand everything you are trying to say.

Being a libertarian and an anti-corporate capitalist, on its face, is an oxy-moron.

Is the information that we learned in American schools "pages of new jargon words because you believe once you do the fashionable philosophy"? In otherwords, is what we are taught in America detrimental propoganda? Travb 02:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Fashionable philosophies when I was a lad were Sartre, existentialism, hegel, heidegger, when I was in undergrad French stuff Lacan,etc. I find continental philosophy dubious because of all the vocabulary.
I dont consider the propaganda we learned jargon, I think its the american context; every nation has a context and a story. I am less interested in social and political history than I am in math, science, philosophy, and the history of ideas. I think the only propaganda in these subjects involves diminishing the contributions of non-Europeans in history.Is it detrimental? Im not a minority and it hasnt hurt me. I guess I feel cheated by the lack of non-European history I was taught (esp. asian). If you are hinting at some alternative class histories I think there is some important censorship about old money and class; I was surprised when I discovered it in college. Its strange to meet americans who are priviledged, gifted, well bred and know it and believe this makes them members of a different social class (e.g. some harvard folks I met.. and not about political affiliation). I dont know how important they really are but I would guess they dont make up more than half the US power structure. It would be useful to learn what history says are their allegences but I guess when half the company board doesnt want the story told.... Otherwise I think the propaganda about class is reality: the US is a banal, vulgar, and mostly middle class country with more than half of the power structure and everyone else believing the american aristocracy are celebrities (flawed and mostly middle class in origin). This makes the american middle class distinct from the French Bourgeousie-- the aristocratic class the middle class american admires is not a hereditary class.

Anti-corporate capitalism; capitalism is private ownership of capital (basically all goods are property, ownable and transferrable by individuals). Chomsky points out corporations are creations of the state-- they are chartered by the state. THe charter shields the corporate officers from lawsuits by third parties (parties not directly involved in any transactions with the corporation, e.g. a neighbor). This immunity is the source of externalities such as pollution that damage 3rd parties and force the government to take on a pollution cleaning role. Without charters, the officers could be sued as individuals together with the company and the sme standards of negligence could lead to additional criminal prosecution. Basically the corporation is a creation of the state to promote industry (archetype was British Tea company I believe). I think it is time to revoke it or limit it to areas of extremely high need. Corporation are not the same as market capitalized businesses.

Kewl. In regards to American history, I often quote this passage from an interesting author.

You sound like you agree with Chomsky. I have studied corporations. Have you seen the movie The Corporation interesting premise, rather simplistic, as most movies have to be to entertain...

I am in the middle of writing a law school paper about Americas detrimental role in Colombia, so I better get back to it.Travb 06:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to escape the facts Chomsky lays out about corporations. I am pretty sure thats part of the reason CHomsky says the US is state capitalist. His analysis about their problems and economic impacts are pretty independent of his solutions so they are definitely worth listening to. I guess in a weird way as a libertarian I sympathize with his vision of a quasi-anarchic end state. I like to think libertarian socialism or capitalism reduce to whether you define freedom as maximally free from need or maximally free from force.

I saw the movie the corportaion its informative for about 20 minutes, made me realize the externality issue ties in. I mean if a farmer as an individual polluted a stream his neighbors would make sure he'd be arrested. Somehow the corporate officers escape this when a corportion does this. That said after those 20 minutes it paints with too broad a brush (I mean the average corner store is incorporated these days and to say all corporations are sociopathic bad citizens is a little freaky and needs a qualifier). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdthree (talk • contribs)

I agree with you, on all points. I call Chomsky a gate-way author, a gate way to real historians and deeper understanding of the world around us.

Along the same lines, I posted a graph on Talk:Colombian Armed Conflict on February 2006.[1], it has nothing to do with the Colombian Armed Conflict, but ah well.

The graph I just cut and pasted to my user page, and can be found there.

Signed: Travb 08:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a lot of research went in to this. I'll take a look at it.Mrdthree 04:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no reasearch, just my mussings.Travb 05:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian women

You wrote, and then edited that out you once knew a Ukrainian woman. I am interested in this, are you interested in mentioning more about it? Internet relationship? Or someone you met in the states? Travb 08:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no just someone I met in the states an old friend and wannabe flame. Also in general I am impressed by people I meet that are fresh from behind what was the iron curtain.Mrdthree 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current state of the article...

...with new and revised "Definition of Empire" section at the top. Is this acceptable to you? I don't think Miller and Thornton (who used to be quoted near the end) are making quite the same argument as you were, but they are criticizing the use of language and they're academic sources. Kalkin 15:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was enough of a compromise that it wont agitate me for at least six months.Mrdthree 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I love Kalkin, while I am involved in meaningless,perpetual mental masterbation", he is actually building wikipedia articles.Travb 02:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scholars who believe finance is imperialism

Sorry, whoever told you it ought to be a category was mistaken. Currently, it has lots of explanatory text and zero members, so a small list is probably much more appropriate for that kind of content. Categories are best for cases with large numbers of members, and where its clear if any particular item is a member of the category or not, such as Category:1953 films. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Categories for deletion notices from categories or remove other people's comments in Categories for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a category, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of a category, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Conscious 11:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War on Terrorism category

I didnt take part in the debate to delete the category war on terrorism. I think the debate was politically motivated. The term is a policy of the current administration of the US govenrement that has had both negative and positive consequences. If you dont like the consequencesyou should add that to the discussion rather than deleting the category which will be usefuil for future research into the effectiveness of hte War on Terror.Mrdthree 02:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided the category should be deleted. You can challenge that decision but you cannot restart the category against consensus. It generally does not help to accuse others of hidden agendas. Añoranza 10:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt accuse you of a hidden agenda; you are refreshingly open about your politics, e.g. on the delete the 'War on Terror' category page you said:

"Cateogries entitled with a propaganda term can never be made neutral."

two others said:

"Delete Bushite propaganda phrase."

I disagree, and I think wikipedia loses something by eliminating the documentation of Bush administration policies. The 'War on Terror' is a policy of the Bush administration. It has had consequences ranging from two wars to domestic surveillance. Rather than erase any mention of it, document it. As a category, it can be used to identify the rationale, actors and actions of the bush administration. It is a proper subcategory of category:Foreign relations of the United States, and it is useful for it to have its own category.

Mrdthree 14:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not reveal anything to state that a propaganda term is a propaganda term, and I never use terms like "Bushite". Of course it has to be documented, but you cannot document something neutrally taking up propaganda terms. And if you think you have a point here take it to where it belongs, I am not the one to decide whether to restart a deleted category. Añoranza 01:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Moomooman

Some beat me to it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback...

regarding the change I made to the "political view" section on the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article. :-) Lawyer2b 23:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect NPOV ("Republic" article)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Republic. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --Francis Schonken 18:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake , my apologies, I misunderstood the first sentence. Mrdthree 13:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky integrator

Hello. You might have noticed that some clean-up tags have been placed on leaky integrator, an article that you wrote. In particular, I'd like to ask you to add a reference. Furthermore, please explain the variables in the equation. Are A and C numbers or matrices? Do they depend on t? Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War & Nescio

He moved your vote, well actually he renamed where you put it to be the same thing as the other one with the "regardless of whether it is supported by objective and verifiable evidence" tag attached. So aparently now it makes it look like you are saying your vote has no factual support and is not even objectionable. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

After some people archived the page the links changed, apparently I made a mistake correcting that. As to my stalker Zero who is trying to create animosity, I hope you understand I only wanted to prevent any misunderstanding so I removed the extra header. In no way did I mean to nisrepresent your comment. However, when people start rewriting the RFC (Zero is very good in that), changing what the RFC is about, it only adds to the lack of consensus. I will no longer take part in the debate since several editors delete comment, misrepresent comments and claim consensus when there clearly is none. Goodday and fruitful editing. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adressing me, stop talking about me, why is this so complicated for you? Stop following my edits around. I am done dealing with you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Castro

Hi -- I reverted some vandalism on Fidel Castro and accidentally removed your NPOV tag there as a result. This was unintentional; please re-add as you wish -- I was removing the vandalism, not your note. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Mike Christie 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so, thanks for the Notice.Mrdthree 03:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'reilly

User:Ilyag is up to old tricks trying to remove "journalist" tag on Bill O'Reilly (commentator) page. You've reverted these edits before. If you have the time, please keep an eye on this and talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbeatty (talk • contribs)

I am super-duper busy but I will give my two bits to it. Mrdthree 00:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [2]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Fascism page

This page and several others were the subject of lengthy and heated debates, numerous attempts to delete the pages, POV wars, numerous attempts to rename the pages, etc. These discussions are therefore on a number of pages going back over a year. Most recently there has been a discussion on Islamofascism, although even that page has had several names. Almost all of the text on the Islamic Fascism page that was recently revived already had been moved to either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. The very outdated and redundant page was simply switched back on by deleting the redirect. Therefore almost the entire page was redundant. There was no serious attempt to engage editors in a discussion on either Islamofascism or Neofascism and religion. There was no substantative discussion over several weeks--I waited to see if there was a serious dicussion. There was not. POV page forks are a violation of Wiki policy. Any editror can do what I did. I have no intention of trying to suppress claims about Islam and fascism, and in fact have written scholarly articles where I argue some forms of militant Islam are indeed forms of theocratic or clerical fascism. At the same time, I was just quoted in Newsweek saying that the term "Islamofascism" creeps me out. Over time, the two pages Islamofascism (on the term) and Neofascism and religion (on the contemporary debate), along with a few pages that mention the Grand Mufti and the Phalangists, have been the best way to keep this topic from turning, once again, into an endless POV war. I am going to post this message on the discussion page of the redirect to explain what happened.--Cberlet 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is turning a page into a redirect not a deletion? Mrdthree 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What it would take for the US not to be an empire

Hello Mrdthree. On the American Empire talk page, you said: FOr advocates of american empire I am curious what the defining properties of american empire are and what properties would be need to be taken away for america not to be an empire. Mrdthree 16:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

For example how many of the items below would wipe the slate clean? (A) have all overseas U.S. territories vote for independence or statehood; (B) not give money to foreign governments; (C) Not own military bases overseas; (D) Not own nuclear weapons; (E) Not try to negotiate 'free trade' treaties with other countries; (F) Cease broadcasts such as the voice of america or other propaganda aimed at influencing foreign governments; (G) apologize for past act of imperialism; (H) Establish Tribunal to determine damages from past acts of imperialism and establish equivalent benefits or reparations; (H).... Mrdthree 22:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm an opponent, not an advocate, of US empire, but I believe it exists, which I imagine is what you meant. For my part, I'd say A, B*, C, E**, and G. A massive decrease in the military budget would probably also be a necessary corrollary. D would be good but is not necessary or sufficient for ending empire. H would be morally required but again is not necessary for ending empire.

*Cease giving military or political aid to authoritarian or oppressive regimes; humanitarian aid would be fine, and if A, C, E, and G were carried out I might even believe "democracy promotion" meant what it said.

**Not define "free" as "good for U.S. business" and use it as an excuse to end labor, environmental, and hot-capital protections. Trade treaties in the abstract are fine.

Of course, an advanced, economically dominant capitalist nation which is not imperialistic is a creature of Bizarro World. International political-military competition follows from international economic competition plus business/money-dominated national politics, ie from capitalism. If all these things happened without forceful overthrow of US power, either by domestic revolution or by the rise of superior rival imperialism(s), I would have to change a lot more opinions than just that the US is an empire.Kalkin 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I guess I'll call that a vote for ACGI with a qualified B,E Mrdthree 01:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked on the American Empire page whether 'imperialism'/'empire' is a strictly delimited concept or a family resemblance one. In general terms, 'imperialism' is certainly not a strictly delimited concept, because it is contested; as the article lays out, there are widely varying theories on what it is. As I interpret the concept, from a Leninist perspective, it is a term describing the behavior of all capable states in an epoch of capitalism, when the growth and consolidation of capital reaches a high enough point in some states to enable economic competition to be extended to the political-military realm. Therefore while, again from my perspective, you can lay out fairly specific conditions under which imperialism will be present, characterizing specific actions as imperialistic is a much less precise matter. And if you try to interpret the concept as used by Marxists without a Marxist framework, confusion is very likely.

Lenin lays out the basics in a classic pamphlet, which still applies with the caveat that he is now generally acknowledged to have been mistaken in attributing imperialism exclusively to the export of capital and not ordinary commodities. Kalkin 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting time avoiding homework and waiting for friends to arrive with alcohol... Kalkin 01:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh.. wise choice... alcohol.Mrdthree 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults#Log of blocks and bans. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 02:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bill_O'Reilly

Hi -

You asked (and then changed you mind about asking) whether something could ever be more important than cricket. The answer is "of course", of course.

You only have to look at, for example, Category:Cricket_terminology for dozens of terms that are disambiguated, just like Bill O'Reilly. Another example: look at the hundreds of people listed at List of English Test cricketers, where many are "X (cricketer)" with either a disambiguation page at "X" or some other person as the primary article. The first is Frank Penn, #27, with disambiguation between Frank Penn (cricketer) and Frank Penn (footballer); the next, Charles Leslie, finds a rather obscure Irish theologian taking the primary page over Charles Leslie (cricketer).

I'm sorry we disagree, but I really had not heard of the American commentator before this debate (whereas I was well aware of the Australian cricketer). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should go play some cricket. Mrdthree 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting that image

It seems that you are convinced that yours is the only opinion that counts when it comes to which picture is going to be used on the Anti-Americanism page; there are more of us who feel that using a picture which is not linked to a commercial entity is more appropriate. I am asking that an admin get involved as I think that what you are continually doing is vandalism, or at least gaming the system. Duke53 | ^Talk 10:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image evokes an emotional response from me. The book cover does not. I dont see why I should have to be agitated everytime I go to the page. Plus by majority you mean you and Frogsprog[3]. I would be happy to link you to Frogsprogs agenda pushing [4][5] and insulting comments[6][7][8]. I imagine these are comments you would want to disassociate yourself from. Mrdthree 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I never said 'majority'; there have been others who reverted the image. You seem to be the only one who keeps reverting to it. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, you are correct. You said 'many of us' when refering to Frogsprog and yourself[9].The rrr is for one day. Thankyou for the notice though Mrdthree

(The 3RR rule is for a 24 hour period) :Mrdthree , you have been reported for violation of the 3RR rule. FWIW, both pictures elicit exactly the same response from me. You seem to want to advertise someone's book on that page. I never said that we were in the majority, but rather that you were in the minority ... don't ever put words in my mouth again.Duke53 | ^Talk 17:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking I dont think you ever until now claimed I wa in the minority. I never meant to misuse your words. It was corrected within minutes after you pointed out that I should re-examine what you said: I immediately changed it from majority to many when I discovered my error and I provided the appropriate reference. I will endeavor never to attribute any words to you that you have not spoken. I apologize for the mistake, those I do attribute to you from now on willbe given the appropriate citation. However I think it is a reasonable inference to claim that you are now claiming the majority by stating I am in the minority. SO I will definitely point out that you made the inverse claim if I am called toaccount for my mistatement. Mrdthree 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As forthe 3 revert rule it was mistake I thought the rule was no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. I will make note now that you have changed the rules.Mrdthree 17:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]