User talk:Father Inire

Orbital (The Culture)

Hi. Thanks for the Orbital edit. Could you point me to where you got that ("Look to Windward" I guess, do you still have the page number?)?

I'm a bit curious I must say about the 'as an insurance' part. What could they do if the Mind went crazy? They have absolutely no direct power over it. Is that actually described like that in the book? Can't remember anymore. Cheers. Ingolfson 12:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm supposed to respond to my talk page or yours (I'm new at this), so I'll do both.

The relevant bit about the General Board is in a single paragraph on pages 122 and 123 in my edition of Look to Windward, in the chapter "Peer Group." I'll just quote the whole thing here - I don't think that's a copyright violation:

"The General Board was supposed to represent the inhabitants of the Orbital to Hub at the highest level; it was pretty much an honorary office given that each individual could talk directly to Hub whenever they wanted, but as that carried even the most thinly theoretical possibility that a mischievous or deranged Hub could play every single person on an Orbital off against each other to further some unspecified nefarious scheme, it was usually thought sensible to have a conventionally elected and delegated set-up as well. It also meant that visitors from more autocratic or layered societies were provided with somebody they could identify as an official representative of the whole population." -Iain M. Banks, Look to Windward

However, I would agree that this insurance doesn't cover all eventualities - a truly evil Hub could probably kill everyone on an Orbital before anyone even realized what was happening. So maybe there's a better way to describe what the General Board is for. I thought the original version of the text made the Hub sound like an autocratic ruler, whereas from what I can tell it's more of a worker and administrator: it makes the trains run on time, operates factories and shipyards, organizes parties, handles traffic control, etc. When it comes to public affairs, though, the Hub is still subject to the democratic norms of the Culture, both in the form of the General Board and through the processes of initiative and referendum. There's a paragraph about this in "A Few Notes on the Culture", and a practical example is discussed in the LtW chapter "Pylon Country". -Father Inire 11:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism

Confused as to why you changed the link bay from Collectivist anarchism to Anarchim.. Collectivist anarchism seems a more direct correlation to Direct democracy. Can you explain? I would like to add both if that's what you prefer. Jwiley80 01:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jwiley80 - Almost all anarchists, including individualist anarchists, support some form of direct democracy. Collectivist anarchism is distinguished from other forms only by its economic content. Collectivists advocate a combination of social ownership of the means of production with remuneration for hours worked, as opposed to market-based wages or totally free consumption. So because collectivists don't have a separate position on political decision-making, I think it's better to have just one link to the main anarchism article. -Father Inire 03:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

On Onomatopoeic

Regarding TARDIS: My mistake. Thanks for the clarification! EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Culture

[1]. \o/ Cool, thank you! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thurgood Marshall

Hi. I noticed your recent revertion of the above article almost didn't quite work. Have you thought about applying for rollback rights? This gives n extra feature, where one click reverts all the last edits from a particular user. Being granted the rights is no big deal, but abusing them will get the rights revoked very quickly. This doesn't guarantee perfect fighting against vandalism, but is a great help (with 2 consecutive vandals, only the efforts of the last will be rolled back). I have only been on Wikipedia about as long as you and was granted rollback rights about three weeks ago. Greetings TINYMARK 07:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Workers cooperative

I've replied to your comments on the talk page of worker cooperative. Thanks for the edits. EdGJones (EdGJones) 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I'm carptrash, the one who posted the snippet about eating |Joe Hill's ashes. That posting happened in a sort of random moment amidst all sorts of other goings on, and really, removing it was the thing to do. The event referred to, though having no place in wikipedia, did happen, I was there. my pictures from that memorable night were published in the Industrial Worker and I have a copy somewhere, but they will not document the moment mentioned, and I doubt that the accompanying text will either. So, thanks for cleaning up after me and, . . . . . . ............ life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

second hand goods ina parecon.

I hope I'm replying to you correctly, I'm new to Wikipedia. I think this is a good issue to understand, i don't know if I have the best answer, I remember posing it to Michael albert when I met him. I think the answer is that you can sell used stereos, books, etc back to be be resold, as long as you don't make a profit.

But then what do you do about things that might accumulate in value like wine, or houses?  With houses I think you might have to lease them.  If you can improve your house, then sell it again, then you can make a profit.  Which I don't think you want to allow. Thus a simpler thing is to make people pay leases on houses.  A bigger house with more property costs you more to live in.  So everyone is renting.  Then you can't inherit the house and profit that way either.  Can you lease wine?  I don't know.  This might be an area where parecon fails and people are just going to barter for things like wine.  Hopefully it won't do any harm...Mgrinder (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Commune (model of government)

The article Commune (model of government) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent, reliable, secondary sourcing for the "commune as a model of government"; none in the last decade and none forthcoming. An article for revolutionary government would be scoped too wide for our purposes. While Commune (Marx) could link to his The Civil War in France (where he discusses the Paris Commune), it would not make sense to use this "model of government" article title for that purpose. No other suitable redirect or merge targets.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. czar 19:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Commune (model of government) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Commune (model of government) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune (model of government) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

czar 01:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Commune (model of government) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Commune (model of government) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune (model of government) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

czar 04:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)