User talk:MisterDub/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello MisterDub, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you have enjoyed contributing and want to stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you need any more information, plenty of help is available - check out Wikipedia:Questions; ask your question here and attract help with the code {{helpme}}; or leave me a message on my talk page explaining your problem and I will help as best as I can. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 19:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Biology[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you updated a few of the sections in Portal:Biology today, a portal with its featured status under review. If you get a chance, would you like to comment at the review, particularly on whether you intend to carry on more work on the portal in the future (either reorganising it so that it uses random subpages and a selection of articles, or popping back regularly to update the selected pages, or some other option). Thanks, BencherliteTalk 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back; I see you've been away from Wikipedia since leaving a message at this discussion at the start of November, so you may not have seen my reply to your comment. Are you interested in maintaining or improving Portal:Biology? Perhaps you could leave an updated message at the discussion so that the Featured Portal Directors know whether to close the discussion or keep it open. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 14:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ID proposal[edit]

You might want to start a new section on the talk page letting other editors know about the proposal on your sandbox. As it is, you request for comment is burried at the end of a lengthy and confused section, where I'm not sure anyone will notice it. You also might want to notify Dave Souza, Hrafn, Jim62sch, i kan reed, Just plain Bill, Noformation, Mildly Mad, Yopienso and any other editor whose opinion you would like to hear directly on their user talk pages. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for continuing to be reasonable with regards to the Drrll situation, whereas I reached a point where every sentence I read was causing me to pull my hair out. On the other hand, I don't think there's any hope of convincing Drrll, and your latest statements will likely not take any better than previous. If I'm wrong, shame on me for my lack of assuming good faith, but if I'm right, this is just not an argument worth continuting, per the lack of real substance. If you get another rant on WP:OR/incidents, csondier dropping the argument entirely, as the venue shopping going on here isn't likely to net any real support. i kan reed (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment! I know how frustrating this is, and I'm really quite frustrated myself; however, I think we have to remain calm when discussing it, even if this means taking a break to rest. When we write in our frustrated states, the discussion tends to descend into WP:FORUM and this can cause the admins to lose interest or even become frustrated with the situation entirely. In order to achieve a resolution, we must calmly and rationally present the evidence and await the admins' decision(s).
Actually, I wasn't even sure I should write that last post: I'm unfamiliar with the procedures of these noticeboards and an admin, User:Hans Adler, seemed to have "ruled" that Drrll was beating a dead horse. Do you know if there is an official resolution to these matters? I'm not really sure how these things work. Thanks again for the kind words and advice! -- MisterDub (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an admin deigns to interfere they have 2 approaches available to them.
  1. probating/banning a user: and if that were to happen to anyone, it would be me for my personal attacks. Seems kind of unlikely though. As persistant and unreasonable I believe Drrll to be acting, they're not in violation of any rules.
  2. protecting the article: there's no edit war going on, so that wouldn't help at all.
All we can do is treat the matter as closed, barring input from another user, or a remarkable change in the nature of arguments being presented. i kan reed (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-intellegent design[edit]

I responded to you on the talk page of ID and wanted to let you know.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.202.85 (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MisterDub is a cool Wikipedian[edit]

MisterDub has fans that are other Wikipedians, such as myself, who also studied Big History. Thanks for the taxobox on the Collodictyon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design and Darwin[edit]

I think you should reconsider reverting my edit. It's aim was to make this section of the article more neutral. The reference cited was from an Intelligent design point of view. Since Darwin did not hold this point of view, the best thing to do is to make it clear where the interpretation is coming from. If you think that the last sentence I added was not neutral in that section, I think it is appropriate to delete it. However, interpretations should be attributed. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree: the material in question cites Robert T. Pennock's Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism, a pro-evolution book by a pro-evolution author and philosopher of science. I don't see how this could possibly represent an ID point-of-view. However, if you have have other sources that cast doubt on the veracity of this claim, please add them and we can adjust the text accordingly.
Also, discussion of this sort would be better suited for the Talk:Intelligent design page rather than my User Talk page; the ID article is one of the more contentious on Wikipedia and a large number of editors are available there for comment and assistance. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick reply. As you can see, I'm new to Wikipeida and I'm trying to learn how the community works by gradually interacting with it. I somehow confused note 18 with 30 now that I look back. I'll have to look through Pennock's book to see if he ascribes the theological interpretation of Darwin to ID proponents. There is evidence that ID proponents do have this interpretation ("Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species". {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)) even though the article cited in this article does not actually support the ID claims of the article. When I take it to Talk:Intelligent design, do I just propose new edits with justifying references and arguments for why this is need improve the neutrality of the article? --I am One of Many (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! I think there are pretty much two reasons to justify changes in text: violations of policy such as verifiability and neutral point-of-view, and/or reliable sources. If you have either of these under your belt, you'll make a strong case indeed. In this specific case, Pennock quotes Darwin:
The pages cited are available online with Amazon's "Look Inside!" feature (URL: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0262661659/ref=rdr_ext_tmb).
Also, as an aside, most often you will not have to bring this kind of thing to the Talk page; being bold is often sufficient. On more contentious articles though, such as that of ID, changes tend to be reverted, and I prefer to go straight to the Talk page. In any case, I think you're doing well and appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia. And welcome!!! If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. I may not be the most experienced editor, but I'll try my darndest to help! :D -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Citation Barnstar
Committed to the objectivity of wikipedia! A great editor who researches complex and long texts and gives citation and reference to information he may not personally endorse. Rothbardanswer (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post[edit]

Thanks for your post on my talk page. I wrote you back there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collodictyon revert[edit]

Hi, at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collodictyon&curid=35632441&diff=555381529&oldid=555348766 you reverted an editor saying their removal was unexplained, they actually used the talk page for this one! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Unfortunately, I jumped the gun a bit on that one and didn't see the Talk page section until after I reverted the edit. I have since participated in that discussion, so hopefully I can be forgiven this trespass. :D I appreciate you notifying me of this! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism[edit]

Not ONE of those sources say that Libertarians advocate a stateless society. They say that either Anarchists advocate such a society, or that libertarians debate the issue. How then, is the statement, "Libertarians advocate a society with no state at all." accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B11E:E418:9A7E:33E8:92AD:EFBD (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provably false:


Source: Friedman, David D. (2008). "libertarianism," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Libertarians differ among themselves... " aka they disagree with each other, aka they debate the issue - some believe one thing, others do not believe that thing and believe something different. Saying, "Libertarians believe..." is saying they agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B11E:E418:9A7E:33E8:92AD:EFBD (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a substantive difference between presenting a range of beliefs for libertarians and explicitly stating that these mutually exclusive beliefs are debated. The undeniable fact that one cannot both want the existence and non-existence of the state is enough to illustrate that this is a contentious point. That said, since your edit says exactly the same thing as was there previously, I have left it and made minor corrective changes to it. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated[edit]

Hi MisterDub. I note your two last posts on talk:intelligent design and felt I should drop by and say that I am starting to appreciate that I have apparently misunderstood your positions on some occasions. I am sure you do not need telling that the talkpage there is difficult. So sorry about that. You are right BTW that eventually an RFC might be necessary. But I think it will be just as difficult to make it come to a good consensus, and avoid a major downgrading of the article, unless we can at least get some clearer definitions of positions pinned down beyond answers like people constantly writing things like "fish with fins".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, thank you for your comments. I understand that discussions on that page get frustrating, so no worries. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any getting around a RfC in this particular case; without a clear consensus on the talk page, any changes are likely to be reverted, whether or not you are correct. I think we just have to trust in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess of Reason?[edit]

Hi MisterDub, I want to thank you for your involvement in the Cult of Reason article, and I also would like to ask your opinion about the legitimacy of deleting the article on the Goddess of Reason. It has irked me for a long time, and this discussion may energize me to actually nominate it for deletion. So that we don't muddy the waters with a discussion of a separate article, I thought I'd ask for your thoughts here, or on my own talkpage. Thanks in advance, SteveStrummer (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at that page much, so please allow me to peruse it and I will get back to you. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was a short perusal! lol. Yeah, I really don't see a reason for that page to exist. It seems to me that the namespace for that article would be better used as a redirect to the Cult of Reason article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

MisterDub, comments like these [1] [2] [3] [4] unnecessarily personalize the topic discussion and may be insulting in nature since they appear to negatively comment on other editor's intelligence or thought processes. If so, it is a violation of WP:NPA, which is a policy. Please avoid comments of that nature. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism FAQ[edit]

You're right, and my edit summary was mistaken because I mistakenly thought that you added the term. I plan to put it my edit back in on a BRD basis (as you suggested) but there's no hurry and we can discuss even before the "B" if you prefer. We'd have to pick which talk page we ant to have it on. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite following... what edit will you be putting back? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of the the same edit that I made. No biggee, because this FAQ sentence is a hypothetical question from somebody, not a statement, but these are my thoughts:
  • "Libertarian socialism" is I think too narrow of a term to essentially describe non-US libertarianism. You may know this better than me, but isn't there a whole lotta non-US libertarianism that is not libertarian socialism?
  • "Pro-capitalism" is generally not a plank in common US libertarianism. Common US libertarians tacitly accept motherhood, apple pie, capitalism, puppies and other things, but that does not make it "pro-apple pie" type libertarianism.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be offensive here, but... have you read any libertarian philosophy? From your statements, it doesn't seem that you have. Yes, libertarian socialism (aka left-libertarianism) covers all non-US libertarianism, and yes, capitalism is a primary component of US libertarianism (aka right-libertarianism, which includes both neoliberalism and anarcho-capitalism). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have expertise on left libertarianism to comment on what you said and so I posed it as a question. Regarding the most common forms of US libertarianism, if you are looking at developed philosophies, you are looking in the wrong place. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you haven't read any US libertarianism either? Robert Nozick? David Boaz? Milton Friedman? David D. Friedman? Murray Rothbard? Ayn Rand (questionably)? Anyone??? I'm just baffled as to why you think your opinion should have merit when you don't seem to have any expertise in the subject at all. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking Boaz actually writes about US libertarianism and supports what I said. The others are creating / detailing particular libertarian philosophies and are not describing US libertarianism. That's like trying to learn about / define / describe Communism in the USSR or Cuba by reading/using Karl Marx as a source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course Boaz speaks of US libertarianism; he's a neo-classical liberal! And obviously one ought to read Marx to understand communism... Marx, Engels, and Lenin, at the very least. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the FAQ wording (in it's context of being a hypothetical question) this issue at the article is minor and I'm viewing this exchange as more about being potentially helpful to each other. I have come to the conclusion that, at least as exhibited in Wikipedia, in the two areas that we have interacted, your are more learned and well read than me, and I'm a better logician and analyst of what's written, including the definitions / working meanings of terms. In this last exchange you (I assume inadvertently) modified "Communism in the USSR or Cuba" to "Communism" thus completely losing or missing my main point which is that reading a philosophy created by somebody is not informative about a instance of presence of a philosophy/ideology/system in a society or country. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that Soviet Russia and Cuba were/are Marxism-Leninist nations, yes? The history is important to detail as well, but it was a direct consequence of the philosophy they propounded. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to invent an extreme example to illustrate my point. (I am NOT claiming that it is analogous, it is only to illustrate a point) Let's say that Otis Belinski creates a philosophy called XYZ with 10 tenets. It doesn't catch on during his lifetime. Then later somebody gets interested in the XYZ philosophy (actually in only 3 of the 10 tenets) and founds the "XYZism" club which turns into 100,000,000 person movement calling their movement "XYZism". Then we start the "XYZism" article. I woulds imagine that MisterDub would say that since the article is "about" a philosophy, that it can be written mostly or solely by writing about what Otis Belinski said. North8000 is saying no, even though the title of the article is taken from the name of a philosophy, true coverage of "XYZism" would consist of heavy (if not majority) coverage of the 100,000,000 person movement. Including what their "philosophy" is (the 3 tenets). Further, North8000 is saying that Otis Belinski, for at least two reasons, might be a very limited source on "XYZism": 1. They are a creator not a coverer, and sources are "coverers" 2. They have no expertise on the 100,000,000 person movement (it occurred after their death), and the tenets that they follow. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what point were you trying to illustrate exactly? That philosophy evolves? That not every proponent of a given philosophy believes exactly the same thing? That people can give lip service to a philosophy about which they don't actually know anything? All that stuff is plainly obvious, and has no bearing on what I've said... ever. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference[edit]

The reference does indeed support the statement. The link is not to the source, it's to a copy of the source on a website slightly less reliable than Time Cube. Do feel free to find a reliable site that has it. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to delete the reference, you should at least delete the REF tags that bound it, if not the entire quote that it's supporting. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism[edit]

You appear to be edit-warring on Libertarianism, and should discuss the dispute on the talk page. Further reverts could lead to your being blocked. See WP:3RR. TFD (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperation on Libertarianism article[edit]

I would be glad to try to work together on it, and I was very surprised to see how much better your sandbox version is than the current article, especially given our edit warring over a statement that your version doesn't even have. I'm not sure about editing your sandbox, though, even though you can revert it easily. If others see it with my edits before you get a chance to revert them, they would probably assume it was still completely your version since it's your sandbox.

But I do have one question first, just out of curiosity, about your views instead of this article, if you don't mind me asking. It seems from your user page that you support Locke's labor theory of property, and also support socialism. How do you reconcile the two, given that "means of production" are created by labor ("they originally come about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources")? According to Locke's LTOP, "means of production" are legitimate property (even if compensation is owed to society for the value of the natural resources used), in exactly the same way any other private property would be. Locke's LTOP makes no distinction based on how the property is used (for production or not), and no such distinction would alter legitimate ownership according to it. And I'm specifically referring to "means of production" created privately by "voluntary associations of free individuals", not those created by a state, or in the context of state interference or control, or any "non-voluntary" context.

I have read various explanations regarding the distinction socialists make between productive and non-productive property, but for the most part they were purely consequentialist arguments against Locke's LTOP (for productive property). I'm just curious what your take on it is. Lockean One (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get caught up on the Lockean proviso: I don't think anyone today would seriously argue that the enclosure/appropriation of natural resources as private property has left "as much" and "as good" for those who are dispossessed of it, and if they did, I would strongly object. (I wish it were possible for Locke to time travel to the present so we could press him on this issue and hear what he has to say.) Because—I propose—the Lockean proviso has been ignored, people are genuinely cut off from the means of production, and thus, the just remuneration for their labor.
I also tend to see property as a created thing, and not something simply worked. So, whereas a wild fruit picked is "owned" through possession, a crop grown and tended, whose very presence owes to the consistent labor of sentient organisms, belongs fully to those who caused it into being. Natural resources obviously existed before any human applied his labor, and therefore cannot be owned in the same manner as personal property. Instead, we ought to hold natural resources, most importantly the land and freshwater needed to satisfy our natural, individual economic debts (i.e. the persistent cost of homeostasis and the prolonging of one's life), in common, as usufruct. To do otherwise, I feel, is to hold another rational being's life in the hands of proprietors, to allow masters, and consequently, slavery—something so plainly vile from a natural rights viewpoint.
At least, that is my current conclusion. I enjoy reading philosophy and try not to censor myself from opposing views—even going so far as to actively seek them out—so my beliefs may change; however, I honestly don't think they will stray far, barring a significantly innovative and more robust justification for property. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 01:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I worded my question poorly, but I was specifically referring to property created by labor, not the enclosure or appropriation of natural resources. As a left-libertarian (as defined by Stanford), I agree with you about natural resources, particularly the Lockean proviso. And I would note that your statement above (which I agree with) "...a crop grown and tended, whose very presence owes to the consistent labor of sentient organisms, belongs fully to those who caused it into being" clearly contradicts socialism, since "those who caused it into being", not the rest of society, rightfully own the crop.
And to reword my question, how do you reconcile Locke's LTOP with socialism's denial of private property rights for property created by labor, such as tools, machinery, buildings, etc.? Lockean One (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To that, I'd have to say that you have a vastly different conception of socialism than most anarchists: I would not characterize socialism as the ownership of my products by "the rest of society," nor would I call the products of labor private property, but personal property. I think the answer you're looking for with the last statement is that I don't agree that the factories and sessile machinery therein were ever created by a single person's labor, and therefore ought not to have ever belonged to a single proprietor as private property. They were created by many hands, exploited by the capitalists whose ownership consists of mere decree and legal privilege, and ought to return to their rightful possessors, i.e. the workers of that industry, organized into democratic labor unions (the syndicates of anarchist syndicalism). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should just give up here, but Locke's LTOP does not just apply to property created by "only a single person's labor", it applies to all created property, regardless of the number of people involved. Without putting words into your mouth, is it fair to say that you support Locke's LTOP for property created only by a single person's labor, but reject it for property created by "many hands"? Lockean One (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My position is more nuanced than that, but if you prefer to see it that way, that's fine. I don't treat Locke like gospel, and I don't accept the legitimacy of private property, only personal property and usufruct. I'm not sure how to make that any clearer. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have made it clear now, thank you. I disagree with your position, but at least now I understand the position I'm disagreeing with. Lockean One (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your efforts in improving Libertarianism — goethean 15:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welkommen[edit]

MisterDub, My most sincere apologies for doing the wrong things. I can only plead ignorance. Thanks for you advice. Divadyendis (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism[edit]

Please refrain from personal attacks in edit summaries. Lockean One (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Left-Lib[edit]

Hi Mr Dub, Should this edit be reverted?[5] — goethean 15:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgism[edit]

There is an RfC at Talk:Georgism concerning scope of the article. This is a neutral notification. Collect (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MisterDub/Archive_1&oldid=1073131282"