User talk:N6n

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, N6n! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Verbal chat 15:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

~~~~~~~~~Talkbacksection~~~~~~~~~~[edit]


BarbaricSocialistZealots[edit]

BSZ has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a notorious banned user who focuses on Libertarian and Economic topics. If you see someone posting in a similar style, shoot me a note and I'll help as I can (just an editor, not an admin). Taking it to WQA was a good step, and I think you handled his rather caustic nature well. I would suggest if you have to take something to WQA again where you quote another user, put quotes around their words. If you quote multiple parts, use separate quotes for each so other editors know the phrases aren't yours and aren't a single statement. Good luck! Ravensfire (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion about quoting is correct. Thanks. N6n (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

These anonIPs and Darkstar (some of whom might be socks or meats) don't realize that harassment is vs. wikipolicy, but disagreeing with them is not. Anyway, FYI, if I don't get any action from Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Users:97.93.109.174_.26_71.12.74.67 soon, I guess I'll have to do a WP:ANI, though it wasn't too successful last time I tried it, though that situation was more ambiguous than this one. Oi! It definitely does disgust me enough NOT to do research or editing, which of course is their purpose. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on page, realizing it was you quoting them, they dodged a bullet. But not for long if they keep it up!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Post on My Talk Page[edit]

Thanks for the note.

BTW dry ice is a type of ice, and, given a choice, more likely to go into an "ice" article than a "dry" article. :-)

For all of these compounded terms with "Libertarian" in them, e.g. "Left Libertarian", "Right Libertarian" "Libertarian Socialist" I am genuinely trying to find out a few things:

To what degree is the TERM used? If it has a real world meaning, what is it? Is its meaning related to the common meaning of Libertarianism?

1. If the TERM exists only in Wikipedia and a couple authors, the I think it should not even be in Wikipedia.

2. If the TERM exists substantially in real life, the it should be covered somewhere in Wikipedia.

3. If #1 and #2 are "yes" then where should the coverage be? If the meaning is totally different than the mainstream meaning, then

I'm thinking that it should be covered elsewhere and not here. But I could be wrong on that or convinced otherwise. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, actually, all that I have studied about 'libertarianism' is Murray Rothbard's 'right-libertarian' version. (He calls it simply 'libertarian', others call it 'anarcho-capitalism'.) I have read many other people who are called libertarian, but no 'libertarian theory' by them.
First of all, what TERM are we talking about. All the three people arguing for 'narrow', (except you) have been arguing for removing 'anarcho-capitalism' too. For more than a month, we have been engaged in this debate, which to me is basis-less. (e.g. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, [1]) I say this to point that other editors will have trouble taking their claims seriously now. It looks POV pushing through-and-through.
To just focus on 'left-libertarian', (1) is certainly wrong. As a post on the page says, even Rothbard acknowledges and uses the term. I don't know about "substantially" in (2). I haven't 'studied' 'left-libertarianism', but the meaning is certainly not "totally different", and suspect it is not even "substantially different". These are important issues, and I think the editors will welcome if you raise them on the l. talk page. However, right now, and for more than a month, we have been engaged in "it should not even be there" debate, with the only argument that minarchism is what the mass-media talks about -- and its other form, that this is the only thing they know of, through the TV. (--this has been offered explicitly, again and again!)
Hope it helped. N6n (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to know my viewpoint, by a factor of a 1,000 I'd rather read a good, informative article than one that follows my viewpoint. If material is useful to the article I'd like to see it in. If it distorts the article, including by obscuring the prevalent meanings etc, then I think it should be reduced if it's germane and removed if it's not. And I don't know the answers to these questions. The discussions have not been very informative on this topic. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Good" (and informative) is fine, but what is good? Is "good" simple? Is "good" straightforward? I don't think so. For WP, "good" is a comprehensive encyclopedic article--and coherent, in a pleasing language, etc, to the extent possible.
The article currently is not "good", as Carol, BigKHex and others have stated. As I said, an effort to do so would be welcome.
The discussion has certainly not been informative, for the simple reason that the discussion was only about whether "the most prominent" view should be covered, or all that the RS say.
The term 'libertarianism', being in politics, has proliferated to many meaning. Perhaps some of them are "sabotage" and what not. But as I read the WP policies (and using common sense), it is not for WP editors (qua WP editors) to decide what is right and wrong. I don't have a comprehensive knowledge on this issue, so I don't know if a coherent article can be constructed at all. But the article can certainly be made better. N6n (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much agree, with a few notes. I've been an active Libertarian for decades, as a matter of politics rather than academics. The common theme of all contacts has been simply smaller and less intrusive government, and Freedom. 2/3 of this article is Greek to me, with the various forms I've never heard of, and the thoughts of all of the various intellectuals and philosophers. I don't know whether that means I know less than or more than (forest for the trees situation) what's here. The "main question" does not seem to match the reality of the article. A huge part of the article is dedicated to these "unusual" aspects. The realistic question should be about reducing the "huge part" not eliminating it. North8000 (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have had no contact with politics, but only with political theory ("academics"). All I know is that Rothbard's version is very important in it. The "unusual" forms can be reduced, hopefully the current issue will settle soon and we can discuss that. N6n (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should just start now. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made my morning![edit]

"lets have an RFC every week" ... I found that to be hilarious. I'm glad I already finished my soup! BigK HeX (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shared WP Account?[edit]

Are there more than one person using your WP account? I ask, because you're usually polite and reasonable, but you've been rude, unreasonable and hostile today. BlueRobe (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, only one. I checked my recent edits, and I can see nothing unreasonable from my point of view. N6n (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't visited your talk page for many days. I took your comment here in good faith, but reading your talk page comments, I think I must have been mistaken. In future, please accuse clearly, or I will ignore the comment. N6n (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a good faith enquiry. Chill out. BlueRobe (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the last link you post goes nowhere[edit]

could you just post the actually words here? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link is indeed not working, I don't know what is wrong with it. What I was quoting there was:
"My characterization of Anarchism is based on what I read of Bakunin. It seems that many who call themselves anarchists would not agree with what I said about Anarchism." 06:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And what I meant was: Anarchism as used by Bakunin (at least according to my reading of him) just aims for the abolition of the state. But Anarchism "popularly" mean something in the socialist sense. So libertarianism is associated with anarchism in the broader sense, in what I called the Bakunin's sense, but not in the sense of the popular meaning. When Rothbard is using the term (in what you quoted), he is talking about the popular meaning, and so he criticizes it. But many others use it in the broader sense (e.g. in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought). Quoting from the WP anarchism article:
"Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[8][9] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain...."N6n (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to explore the link and idea you gave[edit]

A recent part of our exchange was :

"I think everyone here agrees with what you said about "primary sources". I had proposed a definition of libertarianism by Karl Hess with which most editors probably agree, but it was shot down as being a "primary source". (this thread: [63]) N6n (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look into that. But It will take me at least a day. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)"

I would like to explore that but that link doesn't work. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the quote was:

"Libertarianism is the view that each man is the absolute owner of his life, to use and dispose of as he sees fit: that all man's social actions should be voluntary, and that respect for every other man's similar and equal ownership of life and, by extension, the property and fruits of that life, is the ethical basis of a humane and open society. In this view, the only — repeat, only — function of law or government is to provide the sort of self-defense against violence that an individual, if he were powerful enough, would provide for himself. (Karl Hess) [2]."

It is the thread "Support for removing left/right ..." in Archive 16.N6n (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That sort of describes the common philosophical core common to most forms of Libertarianism. IMHO, not perfect due to being a bit ethereal, but much better than the current lead. BTW I think that the way that your idea was quickly dismissed was wrong on two levels. The norm in productive talk pages is to discuss the idea, and then to use sourcing in the discussion when needed, and then source it to put it into the article. There is no requirement nor is it the norm to have to have sourcing to put forth an idea in a talk page. This whole idea of denigrating talk page ideas SOLELY on not fulfilling this non-existent talk page requirement is way out of line. Second, it was certainly inconsistent, because many of the supposedly secondary sources used by this article are actually primary sources. They are basically an author or philosopher CREATING their own personal definition of "xxxxxx Libertarianism." I'll put something like this onto the article talk page as well. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ani[edit]

I just reverted your complaint against darkstar as it has already been posted there mark nutley (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(That was a 3RR) Yes, composing the message took some time, and I didn't check before submitting. It had some formatting trouble too. Thanks. N6n (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For your work on Wikiquote. DanielTom (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:N6n&oldid=1143186560"