User talk:Panlis

Welcome

Hello, Panlis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Anarchist economics have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! the skomorokh 12:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions of categories in the Inclusive Democracy entry

The same that said Skomoroth. So, ID could be very related but instead it doesn't support a basis in individual liberty, non agression or free asociation is difficult to consider it anarchist. Also it's theoricals doesn´t afirm they are any kind of libertarians (left or right).

Independent of economy it's a values issue (example, anarchism could be communitarist or support direct democracy, but direct democracy and communitarism aren´t synonimous of anarchism). Have a good day. -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in Parecon you have direct relation, that ID doesn't have. The references support me (you can write about a relation, but is not the same to categorize, because it means Wiki supports that information). -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilo, you have reversed the order of importance in sources set by Wikipedia rules themselves: "Primary sources (my note: as such used to justify what you call "direct relation" of anarchism to Parecon) are NOT considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources."

Thus, reliable secondary sources, as those used in the ID entries to closely relate it to anarchism are valid whereas your "direct relation" of Parecon to it (which is based on what the theory itself... thinks of itself) is not. -- Panlis (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Please stop that categorization, a relative relation is not a direct relation or pertenence (you can mention it, but not categorized it), rejected by their own original theorics (direct democracy is not a synonimous of anarchism). Also, why you put your interpretation in a first place, over important schools of anarchism, self-recognized like that.-- Nihilo 01 (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, refferences explain that are commons points, but never support that ID is the same than anarchism (don't confuse). I ask, all ID adherents are anarchists?, there are any of them that don't consider ID a direct form of anarchism?, there are many question you might do before add any category. -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, they could be anarchists that sopport ID, but that don't means that all ID supporters are anarchists. I hope you can understand me, excuse my english. -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very silly argument indeed. By the same token, very few anarchists support Parecon (as verified by the strong critiques against it in reliable anarchist journals like Anarchist studies, anarchist books like Getting Free by James Herod etc) and yet you characterise Parecon as anarchist just because its author says so, although he also says he is a socialist, he does not explicitly rule out the state etc! 27 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by -- 81.151.103.212 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Anonymous IP, that was not my question. I asked, not if all anarchists accept ID, but if all ID supporters consider themselves anarchists? (consider that Fotopoulus, the father of ID, reject be an anarchist). I continue remember that direct democracy it's not a synonimous of anarchy. -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why you put it first, all the other schools, not only are explicit anarchist, but there are more kwnowed and traditionals. ¿? Why yoy don't put "anarchist schools" in cronological order, or in political economy order, or in popularity order (in any way ID couldn't be first in the list). -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilo, your arguments continue to be very fable. First, who says that if a supporter of a theory calls himself an anarchist, that his theory really is. You have to understand that this is why these kinds of statements ("my theory is anarchist") come from Primary Sources which, according to Wikipedia rules, justifiably are not correct for interpreting/analyzing if a theory is anarchist or not or anything else. Meaning that even if a supporter or a theorist of a theory considers explicitly himself an anarchist, this doesn't mean that he really is (in rational terms) but there should be reliable Secondary Sources to stress this connection. Of course direct democracy is very related to anarchism and nothing truly is "synonymous" with anarchism (where have you seen any secondary sources stating that something is identified with or is synonymous with anarchism?? Even mutualism isn' t identified with anarchism per se in Anarchist economics!).

Second, if you think and you have valid Wikipedia data that state that the articles have to be ordered by a specific order other than chronological (By the way, who says they are NOT listed by chronological order, where the last entry -ID- goes on top, as I said?) or in another way, you have to show what you think of and not make "guesses" about the correct order and, of course, you can't DELETE valid entries instead, something that is blatant vandalism. I hope you can understand these elementary and rational criteria. -- Panlis (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- MySpace isn´t a refference, stop putting that template. You know you are wrong. And please learn about how is a taxonomical order: A contents B, not A relates to B. -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. -- Nihilo 01 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilo 01, who said that there is a MySpace reference? Have your senses been under attack or something? There is not any MySpace reference in the Wiki entries, nor have I posted any MySpace references. And before you "teach" me what to do you' d better learn the basics of dialogue (that you so much... care about) and give rational and evidenced, rightfully sourced justification for any change you make. About who is wrong and who is not wrong this is not something arbitrary as your vandalisms are, but the enty additions are based on third party sources which are the only reliable sources, according to Wikipedia rules. And what about your sense of "dialogue" in which you write once in a while 1 or 2 incomprehensible lines of supposed (not justified) arguments, compared to my analysis of all my actions.

Therefore, you go on distorting stuff and making important mistakes without even knowing what your impact of your reckless activity is. "To be taxonomical" doesn' t mean anything specific in Wikipedia, if you don't have to show me solid wiki sources/rules saying that the taxonomy has to be as you say, else your actions are arbitrary. The WP:POINT that you linked probably has to do with your anti-social activity where you make 'disruption to illustrate a point'. So, what you did is you deleted all categories in ID that you "divinely" think they do not fit with the ID project entry and then you justify this with fake and irrelevant arguments, like the bad taxonomy of a talk page (!!) and a non-existent "MySpace reference" in an entry!

So Nihilo 01, if you don't have a clue about what you are doing and just want to make fuss, you' d rather stop fiddling and distorting entries, dialogues and sources(something which is a characteristic of authoritarianism and not of...anarchism of course) based on fake and malicious arguments. -- Panlis (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, please references that ID IS anarchism. Cats works A contents B, that should be clear, and shouldn't be redundant. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References, Secondary sources are included in the entry and additional ones have been added by me long ago under "Deletions in the Inclusive Democracy entries" in your talk page, Nihilo 01. As for the categories, I really cannot understand what you are saying. This phrase does not make any sense: "Cats works A contents B, that should be clear, and shouldn't be redundant". If you have a reference to a wiki rule that states how the categories are managed according to this just post a link to them (without deleting first everything you don' t like just to make this point!!) and I will take it into account but just don' t throw fireworks without justification and evidence. Panlis (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Hello, I have reverted your edit here [1]. Please review WP:NPA. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for pointing this out, but I don' t see how my addition does imply a personal attack. According to WP:NPA, to which you prompted me to review, a significant aspect of a potential possible personal attack is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users.." (my emphasis)

In my addition, there was very serious and concrete evidence of what was systematically attempted in the entry by this user and his/her proven socket puppet, and therefore, there was no need to revert it, as it had to do with the systematic distorting attempt of the content of the entry which has been documented and revealed by adiministrators. Panlis (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to review my edit though, in any case. Thanks again. Panlis (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally sock puppet investigation pages are the place for such evidence. It is normally not spread to other pages, as it tends to be counter-productive to positive editing atmosphere. It is best to keep such evidence on sock puppet investigation pages. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you may have a point here that I didn' t take into account. Thanks for the guidance.Panlis (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please stop making edits such as these [2], which I have reverted once again per WP:NPA, as they serve no further purpose other than to beat a dead horse. The editor in question has been blocked, it is best to move on and focus on the content of the article rather than the editors involved. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban notification

As I stated in closing this discussion, because of the concerns expressed there, you are topic-banned from all articles related to Inclusive Democracy, broadly construed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Panlis. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]