User talk:TallNapoleon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Archives[edit]

Archive 1

Welcome![edit]

Hello, TallNapoleon! 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 clickingButton sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); 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! SwirlBoy39 22:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Request for mediation not accepted[edit]

Exquisite-folder4.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage,Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite
00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Arbitration[edit]

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[1]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand article[edit]

Combine Ayn Rand with no formal training in philosophy and the result is JazzFan. I'm ignoring him. CABlankenship (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is fascinating to find that people like that exist however, worth a paper in its own right.
TallNapoleon - re your question on Peter's page. You might want to look out Complex Adaptive Systems theory - increasing in use in IT systems and more generically in management and social science. My degree is Philosophy and Physics and I find it fascinating. --Snowded TALK 16:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Training in philosophy without training in science is a recipe for disaster. Rand's biggest flaw was her complete lack of interest and understanding of science. Her followers seem determined to repeat this mistake. CABlankenship (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree with that, and the naturalising tradition in Epistemology is among the most exciting developments in the field. Gives the word "objective" coherence! --Snowded TALK 10:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
So I have a good deal of training in science, but fairly little in philosophy--the only philosophy course I've taken was an ethics course on Morality and Self-Interest. I actually forwarded JazzFan the final paper I wrote for that course, which was a very, very harsh critique of Rand. Anyway, that will change next semester when I start my Master's in History, but even then most of the philosophy I'll be getting will be primarily critical and historical. Since my epistemological background is minimal, what do you mean by the "naturalising tradition"?
I'm curious what you guys think about the importance of philosophers knowing science. Certainly, I think it's very important for scientists to know philosophy, if only as a humbling experience. I know a great many scientists, mathematicians and engineers with very little understanding of philosophy, and this tends to breed an incredible intellectual arrogance. I remember very vividly a freshman last year telling me "Science is how we know EVERYTHING" and having a field day carving up the logical problems in that statement. Unfortunately, that attitude appears to be highly prevalent amongst many within the technical fields. Anyway, I've wandered a bit. Have a nice night! TallNapoleon (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand recognized and asserted the validity of science as the result of man's mind to perceive reality, that in fact there IS such a thing as reality, that it can be analyzed and understood, that to propose otherwise is absurd and self-contradictory. This isn't to presuppose infallibility or omniscience but that knowledge can be gained and applied. Or do you see some hole in this proposition? TheJazzFan (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in particular. I just find Objectivism's characterization of modern science as anti-reason or irrational to be ridiculous. Again, Rand did not accept evolution. Near as I can tell she positively rejected quantum mechanics. As Branden put it, she was profoundly skeptical of any scientific advances since Newton (perhaps because his billiard ball model of the universe was disproven in favor of a probabilistic one?). TallNapoleon (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
"...she was profoundly skeptical of any scientific advances since Newton..." Got any citations on that other than Branden? I find that to be a somewhat odd and broad assertion. I know she wasn't a big fan of the environmentalist movement, found it to be alarmist, based on pseudo-science and harboring a hidden agenda, just like contemporary crticisms of it. But she was certainly aware of space exploration, nuclear energy, etc. She exhalted technological innovation in her novels.
"...Rand did not accept evolution." From what I gather that's not an accurate characterization of what she said. She apparently regarded it as a theory, but didn't dismiss it, and didn't claim the expertise to make a definitive statement. As I understand it, in fact it's a work in progress to this day.
But even if she made statements about specific matters of science that were inaccurate it's really a side issue - it in no way undermines the foundation of her assertions regarding the efficacy of reason & logic, that it *is* possible to know.TheJazzFan (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Rand's rejection of Plato is in my opinion one of her most serious errors. Regardless of whether or not there is a "world of forms", the metaphor of the cave is an incredibly powerful epistemological concept--one that, as usual, Rand has misunderstood. True knowledge is rather more difficult to achieve than she makes out. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your paper on the Holocaust[edit]

Sure, I'd be interested in seeing your paper. I assume you have it in e-mailable form? Send it to izzaspamcatcher at yahoo daht com

And I see how CAB's been "ignoring" me.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, read through it. It's disingenuous to characterize it as a paper addressing the Holocaust which isn't even mentioned. Nazism is referenced only in passing. It's an anti-Objectivism polemic.
A book I'd suggest is "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff, which is an examination of the Holocaust.
From a summary of the book "Peikoff argues that the deepest roots of German Nazism lie not in existential crises, but in ideas — not in Germany's military defeat in World War I or the economic disasters of the Weimar Republic that followed, but in the philosophy that dominated pre-Nazi Germany. Although it was mediated by crises, Peikoff demonstrates that German Nazism was the inevitable climax of a centuries-long philosophic development, preaching three fundamental ideas: the worship of unreason, the demand for self-sacrifice and the elevation of society or the state above the individual."TheJazzFan (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't characterize it as a paper on the Holocaust. I characterized it as a paper concluding that Rand and her followers are idolaters. Certainly plenty of other people (see Ozick) have traced the Holocaust to idolatry, however.TallNapoleon (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The wording you used suggested to me it was primarily about the root causes of the Holocaust and somehow tying in Rand's ideas:

"I have in fact given a great deal of thought to the root causes of the Holocaust, and assure you that I feel no moral ambivalence whatsoever about it. My conclusion is that events like the Holocaust are caused by idolatry--the worship of human constructs or worse, human beings. Having read all of Rand's novels and much of her nonfiction, I also conclude that she and her followers are idolaters, and would be glad to forward you a paper I wrote a couple of years ago that argues just that."
At any rate you've greatly misunderstood & mischaracterized what she said. In short, "you don't get it". I would largely attribute it to the fact that you embrace religious tenets as valid. Objectivism and religion are incompatible.TheJazzFan (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, I do "get it". If man lives by self-interest and reason, what happens when his reason tells him that it is in his self-interest to violate the rights of others? The best Rand can come up with is a feeble "it won't". Unfortunately Rand does not and cannot govern the reason of her followers. All her arguments to the contrary, selfishness--the idolatry of the self--is not a virtue, and if embraced will lead naturally to the sacrifice of others. Look at Rand's own life and what she did to those around her if you do not believe me. Furthermore, her worship of the superman must necessarily end with human sacrifice--despite all her assertions to the contrary. Let me be perfectly clear. Her hero, John Galt, is directly responsible for the deaths of millions, and the entirety of Atlas Shrugged screams at the reader, "They had it coming." Any philosophy that justifies the casual destruction of millions is insane. John Galt is Moloch personified--and Ayn Rand worshipped him.
As for my religious beliefs, unless you can substantiate an error in my argument that is attributable to them, they are irrelevant. But please, enlighten me: what don't I get? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


"what happens when his reason tells him that it is in his self-interest to violate the rights of others?" For example?

"...idolatry of the self--is not a virtue..." I would first dispute your use of the term "idolatry". You're simply labeling any principle, anything valued as "idolatry". She stated each individual should value their life primarily, that no one - the State, the Fuehrer, has the right to declare a greater claim on your life than you. To state that valuing reason leads inevitably to slaughter is beyond ludicrous. The alternative is to NOT hold reason as the ultimate standard. That's what gives you death camps with the meaningless "Work Makes You Free" over the gate.

"...her worship of the superman must necessarily end with human sacrifice..." Really? Define sacrifice. Then show an example of this superman worship ending with human sacrifice as an obvious result.

"Her hero, John Galt, is directly responsible for the deaths of millions..." He did nothing whatever to them. He removed himself from a society that proclaimed he owed them his life simply because they demanded it. He had offered them his abilities in a value-for-value exchange, but they demanded he live and work as a slave. As a rough analogy, he and the others essentially "escaped to the North", leaving the slaveholders to tend the fields themselves.

"As for my religious beliefs, unless you can substantiate an error in my argument that is attributable to them..."

You state by quotation of someone else that idolatry is valuing (which is what you really mean by "idolatry") “Anything that is instead of God. Anything that we call an end in itself, and is not God Himself”

Given the rest of what you've said, "anything" means any principle, any moral value, value of self, of life, of loved ones, of material possessions, achievement, triumph (all being not "God") to be a sin of the highest order, but worship of some vague, undefined, unknowable mystical entity is the only virtuous state. The inner contradictions are endless - how do you know this being exists? How do you know what this being wants of you? How do you know any of these things are sins? How do you know ANYTHING? Certainly not by way of reason, you've already proclaimed holding reason as a virtue is wrong. TheJazzFan (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it appears that it is you who has not understood my paper. If you truly believe that I have confused value with idolatry--or that Ozick has--then there is frankly no point in having a conversation with you, because it is very clear that you don't "get it". But I think it's necessary to make the distinction between value and idolatry clear anyway. An idol is, essentially, a moral trump card. It is not just a value, it's a value that supersedes all other considerations, including moral ones. For example, I love (in Rand-speak, value) my family, but I do not worship them. Thus, this is not idolatry. However, if I were to worship my family, or to believe that I must obey their every dictate without question, or that the interests of my family trumped all other moral considerations, including, for instance, the lives of innocent people, that WOULD be idolatry. So when Rand writes that man's happiness is his highest moral purpose, that essentially means that it's a moral trump card--i.e., an idol. On the other hand, if she were to hold simply that happiness is ONE of man's moral purposes. The only possible moral trump card is God, because God, if he exists, is by definition moral. Note that this definition does not excludes atheists. An atheist need not be an idolater, so long as he does not seek to replace God with something else. Similarly, the most outwardly pious can in fact be idolaters (NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!), if they project themselves onto the God they worship. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Your words "Rand worships three idols of particular relevance: individual happiness, the “heroic being”, and Reason." There's no question you've confused "idolatry" with "value". She arrived at her conclusions not by way of indoctrination but by a process of investigation.
How she arrived at her conclusions are irrelevant; they are still idolatrous. Marx (with later help from Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot) and Hitler both founded idolatrous philosophies, and so far as I can tell they arrived at their conclusions "not by way of indoctrination but by a process of investigation." How you can maintain that I have confused "value" with "idolatry" when I have explained the distinction quite clearly is beyond me. As for parroting, I quite comprehend Rand's words--that is why I find them so repugnant.
Sure, I understand quite well. You've parroted a few of the words she used but with no grasp of the meaning behind them. If you were to present this paper at an Objectivist forum, I expect you'd be laughed off the stage.
To quote Victor/Victoria: "Being thrown out of here is significantly better than being thrown out of a leper colony." I wouldn't be caught dead at an Objectivist forum.
"God, if he exists, is by definition moral" He is huh. "If" he exists? You're not sure but still have some (yet unspecified) definition for him? And if this God happens to think you should toss virgins into volcanoes, then that's what defines moral behavior? And you determine what God is or dictates by way of....?
My point is that the argument about idolatry is not predicated on the existence of God. Granted I am making the assumption that if God exists he is benevolent--i.e., that he does not want virgins tossed into volcanoes--but I believe this is a reasonable premise. My point is simply that the argument works if God exists, and if he doesn't.
I saw your original paragraph above stating there's "no point in discussing it with me." I've raised specific questions regarding specific points. I've asked you to define terms, to explain your meaning, provide examples. In your revised paragraph you've gone on some more about idolatry but added nothing new. It's incumbent upon you to support your position and clarify these points. You challenged me to point out a flaw related to your religious beliefs and I did so. If you had any genuine interest in intellectual discourse you'd make an attempt. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I challenged you to point out how my religious beliefs negatively impacted my arguments. My point is that my arguments stand independently of my religious beliefs. They draw strong inspiration from rabbinic Judaism (not my religion, incidentally), but my arguments are not predicated on an existence of God.
Words have meaning, Jazz. You cannot claim that happiness is a man's highest moral purpose and that he must rely for knowledge solely on his own reason, and then insist that the rights of others should be inviolable. Again, what if a man should conclude that killing his neighbor would make him happier? The ONLY answer Objectivism has in reply is "Well, no it wouldn't, so you shouldn't kill him." Doesn't that strike you as a little... feeble? Do you think that would stand in our hypothetical would-be murderer's way? Seriously, Jazz, doesn't the way Rand systematically dehumanizes her opponents--both real, and in her novels--seem a little... well, dangerous? Doesn't the way she so casually tosses around the world "evil" to describe things or people she disagrees with strike you as a little, well, odd? The woman wrote a novel whose plot is, essentially, "Everyone who disagrees with me dies, and deserves to." Doesn't that bother you in the slightest? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


"Doesn't that strike you as a little... feeble?" It strikes me that again, you're not even being accurate. Rand spoke of rational self-interest. If you read and understood what she said, you'd understand the distinction. Rand recognized mens rights - personal and property rights. Men are entitled to live their lives free from the unprovoked initiation of force by others. This is an explicitly stated, fundamental tenet of Objectivism that you've managed to remain ignorant of despite alleged familiarity with the subject. Self-interest does not equal lawlessness or acting on malevolent whim. If killing your neighbor because you want his property was fair game, then you too are subject to being murdered by another neighbor. Life in Somalia -vs- Mayberry.
No, I KNOW it is an explicitly stated by Objectivism. I am stating that it contradictory and feeble. See here's the thing: Rand doesn't get to be the judge of rationality or of what makes people happy (utility). Only individual actors can judge the rationality and utility of any given action. Thus if happiness is my highest moral purpose, and my own personal reason my only means to knowledge, then if I judge that violating the rights of others will further my happiness the most then it follows that I must do so. The only answer Objectivists have is that it wouldn't really make me happier. That's what it boils down to. Thus Rand's belief in the absolute nature of human rights is contradicted by other elements of her philosophy.
The ONLY answer Objectivism has.. Again, that's just factually wrong as outlined above.
"How she arrived at her conclusions are irrelevant" Apparently you find the fundamental differences in the substance of their beliefs to be irrelevant.
Their beliefs are equally dangerous because they are all rooted in radical idolatry. The only reason Objectivism does not have the blood of millions on its hands is because it has never gained power, and God-willing it never will. I will note, however, that the 19th century, which Rand so adored, was a pretty shitty time to be a worker, or an Indian (of either type), or an African, or really anything other than a wealthy white male. The Social Darwinism of the time was itself idolatrous, willing to sacrifice the lives and health of workers and subjugated, colonized peoples on the altar of "progress".
"my arguments are not predicated on an existence of God." It's preposterous for you to state that only belief in God is virtuous and nothing else - anything that is not God - is, which is the closest you've come to defining idolatry and then declare that your religious beliefs have no impact on your assertions.
If God exists, then He is infinite. If he does not exist, nothing is. One of the definitions I offered in my paper for idolatry was the conflation of the finite with the infinite. Now, an atheist could make a very, very strong case that ANY religion is inherently idolatrous, but that is neither here nor there. Incidentally, idolatry does not mean belief. It means treating something as a moral trump card, as I said before.
""Everyone who disagrees with me dies, and deserves to." I guess you just wanted to punctuate how profoundly you've misunderstood. Re-read what I've said above about John Galt's withdrawal from the world of the slavers.
The world of the slavers... yup, that's about it. Everyone except Galt's little band of supermen is a slaver, or supporting the slavers, and so deserves to die, and does. And oh, I do understand that Objectivists consider taxation and regulation to be slavery. It amuses the hell out of me that y'all can say stuff like that and still hope to be taken seriously. You guys ought to look up a little something called social contract theory some time. It will rock your world.
"Words have meaning" Yup. Here's a list including points that I previously brought up that you've failed to address.
Define idolatry
I already have, repeatedly and in detail. You have either failed to read what I have written, failed to understand it, or are trying to waste my time. None of these reflect well upon you. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Define sacrifice
The term has many meaings. However, in my paper I am using it in the sense of "killing something--in this case, someone--to appease a bloodthirsty deity". Think Aztecs or, for that matter, Moloch. Incidentally, Rand's definition is highly idiosyncratic, and is used by virtually no other philosophers. She defined the term for her own purposes, and then uses her definition to attack philosophers who were using it in a different way. So she was either being shoddy, or disingenuous. Take your pick.
Define virtue
A very tricky question to which there is no easy answer. As you well know, books have been written on it. For the purposes of my argument, the only ethical premise that needs to be accepted is that murder is morally wrong.
Define God
Any God for which I could provide a satisfactory definition would be an idol, because it would be a creation of my own imagining. Again, my arguments do not stand on the existence of God.
Define Faith
The acceptance of any proposition without definitive proof. Note that this does not mean "without evidence".
How do you know God exists?
I accept it on faith (see above). I also accept on faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, though I have no way of proving it.
Show an example of this superman worship (as per Rand) ending with human sacrifice as an obvious result.
Read Rand's train scene in Atlas Shrugged. She is quite explicit that everyone on that train deserves to die... and it is a very short leap from saying someone deserves to die to doing the deed. Or, when Dagny shoots the guard at the end. To her he's not even a human being any more. The lives of the people Galt
Is there a way of obtaining knowledge other than through reason, logic, use of one's senses and mind?
If one includes emotions and intuition under the rubric of mind, then no. I would also note that there are many different kinds of knowledge, and most of what we "know" is really just a probabilistic estimate. In this case the only things we can know for certain are those which we derive deductively and rigorously from axioms. However, I would submit to you that "almost certain" is usually good enough. Furthermore I would argue that tradition forms an important body of wisdom that should be drawn upon, although not uncritically.
Who has a greater claim on your life than you?
Not who, but what. I believe in a deontological morality: that morality exists independent of human interests. Proper ethics does not create a moral system, but exposes existing moral truths, rooted in human and--if one accepts the existence of God, which is not necessary for deontology--divine nature.
Is self-sacrifice virtuous?
Short answer, it depends. Slightly longer answer: In Judaism, it is permissible to break any of the religious laws to save a life, including one's own, except for three. Under no circumstances may one murder, and under no circumstances may one commit sexual crimes, and under no circumstances may one commit idolatry. So, while an observant Jew might lie to save a life (and indeed would be obligated to), or eat a ham sandwich to avoid starving to death, he could not worship an idol or kill an innocent person to avoid being killed. Obviously, to risk one's life to save others is noble and heroic, but I would not argue that there is necessarily an obligation to do so. However, the argument is again irrelevant to my arguments against Objectivism.
When you've addressed all of these points, I might consider continuing a discourse.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why I should consider that a privilege. So unless you wish to actually engage with my thesis, we're done here. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well...you said that you don't find reason something to be held in high regard and by golly you've presented no evidence to the contrary.TheJazzFan (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup, we're done. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

⬅ You might want to ask one of the admins with authority (I can never remember what they are called) to permanently delete your article from TheJazzFan's talk page, otherwise it remains permanently available. A simple request here with the diff should get it actioned quickly. Let me know if you get it published by the way, useful reference and I liked the use of Milton --Snowded TALK 11:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

World domination[edit]

Hi. World domination is really a mess, as you pointed out. Would you care to join the discussion there on major changes? Steve Dufour (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand[edit]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In your evidence section you might want to add diffs showing Nilges pushing an anti-Rand POV and you defending the article from him. I'd add it to mine, but I'm right at the word limit. Idag (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration evidence[edit]

Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Albert Ellis[edit]

Albert Ellis's own Wikipedia page calls him the second-most influential psychotherapist in history, and provides a citation for the claim based on the collective opinions of the psychiatric community. -- SmashTheState (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Accepted neologisms or offensive terms?[edit]

Here is something that will probably interest you. After reading a few of the warnings on the Ayn Rand talk page to stop using "offensive language", I thought it would be interesting to research which terms are used in the media and how. Here -- to my surprise -- is what I found: Randian and Randians are commonly used neutral synonyms for Objectivist(s) in the print media. The other terms -- which I thought were neologisms to the Ayn Rand talk page only -- are also used in the print media, but less frequently. I see no immediate evidence (obviously I haven't read them all) that most of these synonyms are used in a derogatory manner. Interesting, I thought. J Readings (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Randians"[edit]

Newspapers (Lexis): 195 articles*
Web-based publications (Lexis): 19 articles
Magazines and journals (Lexis): 76 articles
Aggregate news sources (Lexis): 49 articles
Newswires and press releases (Lexis): 7 article
JSTOR: 29 articles
Google Books: 659 books (282 books if used as a noun)
Google Scholar: 488 articles

  • New York Times: 13 articles
  • The Washington Post: 6 articles
  • The Boston Globe: 4 articles
  • The Guardian (London): 6 articles
  • The Village Voice: 3 articles

"Randites"[edit]

Newspapers (Lexis): 9 articles
Web-based publications (Lexis): 19 articles
Magazines and journals (Lexis): 1 article
Aggregate news sources (Lexis): 0 articles
Newswires and press releases (Lexis): 0 article
JSTOR: 7 articles
Google Books: 7 books
Google Scholar: 6 articles

"Randroids"[edit]

Newspapers (Lexis): 10 articles*
Web-based publications (Lexis): 0 articles
Magazines and journals (Lexis): 0 article
Aggregate news sources (Lexis): 0 articles
Newswires and press releases (Lexis): 0 article
JSTOR: 0 articles
Google Books: 8 books
Google Scholar: 3 articles

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education: 1 article
  • The Guardian (London): 1 article
  • The San Francisco Chronicle: 1 article

"Randism"[edit]

Newspapers (Lexis): 10 articles
Web-based publications (Lexis): 8 articles
Magazines and journals (Lexis): 3 articles
Aggregate news sources (Lexis): 2 articles
Newswires and press releases (Lexis): 1 article
JSTOR: 0 articles
Google Books: 53 books
Google Scholar: 9 articles

"Randists"[edit]

Newspapers (Lexis): 10 articles
Web-based publications (Lexis): 0 articles
Magazines and journals (Lexis): 1 articles
Aggregate news sources (Lexis): 0 articles
Newswires and press releases (Lexis): 0 article
JSTOR: 0 articles
Google Books: 23 books
Google Scholar: 18 articles

Shannon lark[edit]

Hi. Regarding your speedy tagging of the article. I think it does not fall under WP:CSD G11; it is neither a product nor a company. Could you please consider removing it or tagged it properly. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the criterion says: "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." So it usually falls under such subjects, although it can also used for, say, a person. But reading the article isn't a blatant advertising. Perhaps a little tweak. --Efe (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand arbitration[edit]

This is a courtesy note to all editors who have submitted evidence. Some contributions to the evidence page have been moved to the evidence talk page, per the prior notice given. General comments, observations, analysis and so forth should be posted to the evidence talk page and workshop pages. Main evidence page contributions need to be supported by linked evidence. Material moved to, or posted on, the arbitration case talk pages will still be noted and taken into account by the arbitrators.

Some portions of evidence moved to the talk page may be appropriate for the main evidence page. In the process of moving material, keeping some material on the main evidence page would have required rewriting the evidence, taking bits clumsily out of context, or otherwise deeply affecting the presentation. Editors should feel free to rewrite and reintroduce such evidence (with supporting links) to the evidence page.

Some submissions remaining on the evidence page still require further supporting evidence. For example, claims about broader pattern of behavior need to be supported by comparable evidence. A paucity of diffs, links only showing some mild infractions, or otherwise weak evidence may result in your assertions being granted much less weight.

I encourage all parties to finalize their evidence and focus on the workshop over the next few days as the case moves towards resolution. If you have any comments, questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict[edit]

Your change to the last line looks fine to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

About your last edit[edit]

You made some changes to the criticism of Ayn Rand article and the edit description said to see Talk - I can't find anything you might be referring to on the talk page. Could you either revert the changes, or put an explanation somewhere so that we can discuss the changes (which it is better to discuss before making a change). --Steve (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


There shouldn't be any sides. I'm all for keeping the facts straight, just let me know if you need a source for one of my edits. Thanks!User:Utahboysranchnetwork (talk)

Regarding Utah Boys Ranch Page -

How could say a picture of a Mormon missionary talking to a boy in a Utah Boys Ranch uniform "not particularly helpful"?

I say it is proof that the Utah Boys Ranch is a Mormon facility for one. I hope there isn't any bias going on here.

User:Utahboysranchnetwork (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.82.49 (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Lately Inactive[edit]

This is my first edit in a long time for wikipedia. I have been more active on Bulbapedia. I have been thinking about rejoining this place soon but i want to change my username and start fresh without starting a new account. So the real question is, "How do I change my username," --Anfish (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand[edit]

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

  • TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
  • Snowded (talk · contribs) and Idag (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
  • Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hubbard and censorship[edit]

Hi, TallNapoleon. My removal of that comment certainly was not an attempt to censor the Talk:L. Ron Hubbard page. After searching for any information which might even remotely connect some "secret child named Angel" whose was tortured and abused to Hubbard, I found nothing anywhere -- including in the Time magazine archives as had been suggested. The problem is: the comment was not simply unfortunately worded, rather it was given as fact, was defamatory and unsourced. That constitutes libel. The WP policy on slander (WP:LIBEL and Wales statement) is to delete it from any page. As you may undoubtedly know, the L. Ron Hubbard article is a magnet for POV pushing -- from both ends of the spectrum. I would like the pages kept neutral and focused only on well-sourced info. I mean, the weird thing is, there is plenty of odd accusations against Hubbard which are sourced and can be written about, without anyone needing to make stuff up. Anyway, I just wanted to explain my position. Cheers. CactusWriter | needles 15:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Mohammad Din Mohammad[edit]

Thank you for your interest in the article Mohammad Din Mohammad. I took your view on the creation of the article, and would contest the existence of the article. As you may have realised this article is still in its development stage. Another thing about Mohammad is that he's the first Malay artist in modern-day Singapore to excel and be known worldwide - i take it that that knowledge is not in your purview, given that you're not from Singapore or a person with invested interests on this little island country.
So i'd like a little patience from you, and from the rest of the body of contributors, to the development of the article, and see how it flowers to one article befitting to your expectations, and that of Wikipedia. Thank you for your time -- Marcuslim (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The second coming/ Trivia Section[edit]

BUT BUT BUT the poem was mentioned in the 19th episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer! :) Thanks for doing the dirty work; the hard part is keeping it clean; for some reason this article is a lightning rod for connective trivia. Mrathel (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Collective (Ayn Rand) Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Discussion here.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Proposed deletion of Masaaki Tanaka[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Masaaki Tanaka, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable author.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cunard (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

James S. Valliant[edit]

You might want to add James S. Valliant to your watch list. I just placed a prod tag on the article. If no one provides verifiable proof that Valliant is notable based on Wikipedia's book, people, or academic notability criteria, the article can be quickly deleted without further discussion by 7 May 2009. J Readings (talk) 08:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course accusations shouldn't be thrown around, and I agree there is no proof that IP 160 is Valliant; but I do think "a generic whois that shows 160 being around San Diego" understates matters. The IP address tracks to a more specific city than San Diego, and Valliant lives in a small town just outside that city. More compelling, for me, is that the IP had two interests on WP, Rand and Valliant's schooldays: see this diff. This certainly does not mean that IP 160 is Valliant, but it completely convinces me that it's someone who knows and/or is unusually interested in Valliant, and my good faith is therefore shaken somewhat. Either way, we now have an invasion of Valliant's interlocuters from various Objectvist websites bringing their issues here.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Urdhva Pundra Tilak[edit]

Hi,

Iv wikified Urdhva Pundra Tilak that you recently tagged and have added references: in case of any further problems pl. list on article talk page. Thanks, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 22:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Titan (disambiguation)[edit]

Your edit summary for your changes here say the term must be in the title. Not necessarily true: see Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Exceptions. That said, I think the edits might be okay on notability grounds and don't plan to revert them myself, but others who know more about them might. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless Self-Promotion[edit]

Taking a break from my day-job to share a thought. The next time an author wants to write a book on Wikipedia, it should include a chapter on all the obscure fourth-tier fringe authors who have tried to shamelessly promote their work on Wikipedia and have gotten busted. I suspect that it happens a lot more on Wikipedia than some people may think. The fringe noticeboard, for example, is filled with these types of cases. Get them involved in this case and forget about it. They won't tolerate this kind of crap, especially when you show them the research results from LexisNexis, Factiva, Google News, JSTOR, Google Scholar, Google Books, WorldCat, etc. Take care, J Readings (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If this doesn't blow over in the next day or so, I will. I have a life, and I simply cannot be arsed to keep going round and round in circles like this. Let someone else sort this out... TallNapoleon (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Fringe Noticeboard. I have a statement almost ready to go for them if this doesn't blow over by Sunday. (I wasted my lunch hour on it!) Good news is that thanks to admin Ed Johnston's latest comment I think that's pretty much it (hopefully) for this brouhaha. J Readings (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

wikEd problem: Ctrl-click[edit]

Hi TallNapoleon,

there seems to be a problem with the gadget wikEd that caused the insertion of "Ctrl-click" in your recent edit to David Frost. Please could you help me locate this problem by reporting your browser name and version and possible other gadgets that you might have checked (under My Preferences - Gadgets) on User talk:Cacycle/wikEd#Very odd Ctrl-click issue.

Thanks in advance, Cacycle (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand[edit]

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban imposed on TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) (see WP:RANDARB#TallNapoleon topic-banned and warned) is removed. In place of a mainspace topic ban, TallNapoleon is subject to a zero-revert restriction (0RR) on Ayn Rand and related articles for the remainder of the six-month duration. He is instructed to seek talk page consensus before undertaking any potentially controversial edits. TallNapoleon is encouraged to continue his efforts to develop a functional consensus and improve articles related to the subject.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 22:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Lindsay Perigo[edit]

Hoary and I are discussing the fate of another minor Objectivist-related article on his talk page. Hoary thinks the subject is NN. After reading Hoary's research results, combined with my own, I'm not sure what to think -- might be a simple case of merging the subject with the Objectivist movement article. What do you think? Let us know your thoughts. J Readings (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Enjoyed your metaphor[edit]

Sorry for the naked IP, I have a satellite internet connection at my parent's house and I've never been able to keep a user name here because of it. I liked your use of the Jorge Luis Borges quote relatively recently in the Ayn Rand talk space. It's a particularly apt metaphor for the goals of any encyclopedia, and Wikipedia in particular. I've got no questions, no position in the Rand debates, and I'm only interested in the article because I get a voyeuristic thrill from reading the internal struggles of Wikipedia editors; I just thought you chose and applied a metaphor very, very well. Good luck with things. Cheers, 97.73.64.162 (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

It seems like I may have worked with you in the past, but I don't have a specific recollection on what topic. Regardless, when there is a disagreement, consensus is sought and then action is taken. We don't operate independently and just assume that consensus is irrelevant. I have stated my concerns on the West Ridge Academy article that I do not think the Mormonism category belongs, (which I think you have also agreed does not belong, but an ANON seems determined to continue re-adding it), and the LDS wikiproject page does not belong. You re-added without achieving any degree of consensus and then accused me of being tendentious.

Please do not re-add anything that other editors have indicated there is a problem. No evidence has been supplied that this institution has any formal relationship with the LDS Church, its leaders, or anything else. What has been demonstrated is that members of the LDS Church have been employed and been executives at this independent school. However, having LDS members work for an organization does not make the organization part of the LDS Church. The institution has already been marked as having to do with Utah, which is proper, but it has nothing to do with the LDS Church. If it does, please share the information, if not, then I see no reason to present to the world that this Academy belongs within the LDS movement. That is both untrue and deceitful to readers. --StormRider 20:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have said this before, and will say it again: it does not need ANY formal relationship with the LDS church to be part of the LDS wikiproject. The LDS Wikiproject banner doesn't even apepar on the article page. It's simply saying that this topic appears to be LDS related, and so editors who are on the LDS project might be interested in it. That's it. There is nothing more sinister at work. There is no implication that this is a church-sponsored institution. This is not a content issue. It is just an internal tag for other editors. Indeed, no one will ever see that tag unless they go to the talk page. So I do not see what the problem is.
That said, if it's such a big concern for you, why don't one of us bring it up at the LDS wikiproject talk page, and let them decide? That seems the simplest, best solution. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with West Ridge Academy[edit]

Can you please help even out the unbalanced tone of the West Ridge Academy article. If you'll notice, it has become terribly one sided due to recent pressure from the Academy. --DoyleCB (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WestRidgeAcademy, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, DoyleCB (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


John Galt[edit]

Since you've redirected the page John Galt to Characters in The Fountainhead, I'm wondering if I can't move John Galt (novelist) to John Galt with a disambiguation link to the Characters page. John Galt is an actual person, and is fairly important. Ollie Garkey (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for directing me to the Objectivism cross talk. I like what you guys are doing in cleaning up the Objectivism pages. It'll be great when those pages look professional. Anyway, could you or another member of the Objectivism wiki bounce over and clear up the reasons for the John Galt redirect? Some people tried to revert your work, and I did my best to maintain the decision of the Objectivism Wiki Project. Now that there's an issue with the real John Galt, people have tried to revert it rather than merge it, since the discussion for the merger happened at your Wiki Project cross talk. Ollie Garkey (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Established Editors[edit]

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Query as to your various degeneracies[edit]

Since when where you upgraded from racist to perverted homophobe?  Skomorokh  12:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What can I say, I like to keep my degeneracies varied. Spice of life, and all that. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My user page[edit]

I did forget to log in, but no need to apologize: I appreciate your treading on the side of caution. LaszloWalrus (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:AEE[edit]

I was just wondering if you'd still be amenable to having WP:AEE moved into your userspace, as you stated on the MfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I would be glad to. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've moved it to User:TallNapoleon/Association of Established Editors for you. You should be aware that there's also User talk:TallNapoleon/Association of Established Editors/Templates, though I'm not sure what exact purpose it serves. Cheers, man. lifebaka++ 20:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Parable of the Talents[edit]

Hi - how could that quote be "out of context"? Please tell me how one could place the quote "in context." It is the next line after the "lesson" of the talents (19:26) and the last thing Jesus says in the parable; the next thing is, he leaves for Jerusalem (19:28). Clearly it is an essential part of the story, and you should not have censored it. MithrasPriest (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of World domination[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article World domination has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is strictly original research. No evidence is given that any of the real historical information is related to the topic of "world domination." No references are given for fictional "world domination", or that it has even been discussed in secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rand sandbox[edit]

I just discovered the existence of the page Talk:Ayn_Rand/Sandbox and its companion talk page. Looks like it hasn't had any meaningful edits since April, and therefore represents a rather antiquated version of the article considering how many mainspace edits there have been since then. To me, it seems like a leftover from a time when the article's editors had trouble maintaining a cooperative environment for editing in the mainspace. We seem to be past that now, and sandboxing has only been useful on limited occasions recently (and then handled in userspace). So I was considering nominating both pages for deletion. But since you were the creator and main editor of the sandbox page, I wanted to ask you first whether you still see value in keeping it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and get rid of it. The idea never seems to have caught on, and the level of conflict/tension has reduced considerably, so I honestly don't think we need it. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you were the only contributor of substantive content, I zapped it.  Skomorokh  03:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad I could help. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of nixing it recently actually. Now for all the stale userspace forks. *deep breath*.  Skomorokh  03:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Two Kings Book Series[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Two Kings Book Series. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Kings Book Series. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello TallNapoleon! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,682 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Masaaki Tanaka - Find sources: "Masaaki Tanaka" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) as Pseudophilosophy[edit]

Dear TallNapoleon, Thank you. Apparently the Randist right winger sycophants are in control. And they don't think we should have any mention of dissenting opinions. Whether it is WP:reliability or WP:Source is apparently irrelevant. Not to mention that she wrote fictional books that laid forth the precepts (albeit without the magic words "Objectivism") and they are part of her mystique, and fictional basis for her later words explicitly using the phrase -- but we are forbidden to mention this? These people have an agenda, and I walked into the middle of it. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Stan

You beat me to restoring it by two minutes .. --Snowded TALK 00:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't belong on the objectivism page, although it should be defended on here page - I see it is already there. --Snowded TALK 00:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thirteen, please see WP:AGF. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand that. But I have been dogged between two articles over some small things, i.e., classifications. The arguments are apparently agenda driven, and are evidently pretextual, i.e., moving toward a foreordained solution, irrespective of what is put forward. These sources qualify as WP:reliability at least on the reputation question. We are not adjudicating WP:truth. I don't work much on these interesting but contentious articles; and I have elsewhere encountered those who treat articles as their personal fiefdom. Frankly, I don't like it. We should be able to illuminate both sides. I would not take it upon myself to stifle them from documenting a relevant argument, no matter how much I might disagree with it or not. But I have not been accorded the same courtesy. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Stan

prods[edit]

Lakshmi Girls’ Hindu College even has an full article about it in the Guardian. Please look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE. (anyway, all secondary schools are considered notable, because, as this shows, there is always information) DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nelonen 2009 League Tables[edit]

In response to TallNapoleon (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC) that this page be proposed for deletion I make the following objection:


1. Context Nelonen 2009 League Tables (the fifth tier of Finnish football) is an integral part of the Finnish football league system which in turn is part of the League system which can be viewed on Wikipedia on a national basis.

2. Content and Consistency With reference to the League system the respective leagues for countries are usually shown firstly by listing the Grouping of Teams and their Locations and secondly by providing their League Tables (sometimes on a historical basis). Examples of league tables include Division 2 1956–57 for Sweden and Serie D 2008–09 for Italy.

3. Linkages The Nelonen 2009 League Tables page links via a right hand column through to the other league tables at the different levels of the Finnish football league system. It also links to appropriate Grouping of Teams and their Locations pages which enables users to quickly identify league position and promotion and relegation movements. The Finnish football league system template page links to the Nelonen 2009 League Tables page and all the other tiers.

4. Geographical Format The Contents List has been placed in a Geographical Format (with appropriate links) to enable the user to appreciate the regions of Finland that are covered by the respective leagues.

5. Popularity Football league systems are a popular section and Nelonen 2009 League Tables over the last 4 days has averaged over 40 page views a day.

In summary if league tables are excluded it would make it very difficult to appreciate how the Finnish football league system operates. I have tried to give the user the best possible insight into a dynamic league structure.


Finnish Gas 15:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan[edit]

Please specifically define how each portion of the properly sourced information regarding Andrew Sullivan I added is "biased" and/or violates Wikipedia rules. Please state how each addition I made is biased and how it specifically violates a rule. If you continue to just generally call my additions biased and point to Wikipedia rules without explaining why the additions are improper I will continue to add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.55.226 (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to Fisk you, however I will cite the three most glaring examples. in particular it is not Wikipedia's place to claim that Sullivan's claims regarding Palin's pregnancy have been debunked--especially since so far as I know they have not--and referring to Sullivan's "transient views" on the war on terror has introduces a tonal bias (and again it is not for Wikipedia to judge whether Sullivan's views are transient). Finally, changing the word "torture" to "enhanced interrogation", besides being in direct contravention of just about every prior definition of torture I've ever read, is misleading in that the whole point of Sullivan's opposition is that he considers those practices to be torture. So it is tendentious at best to change the phrasing to "enhanced interrogation", as doing so misrepresents Sullivan's point of view.
I would also note that you should read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:WAR, and WP:3RR, as it is extremely likely that you will be blocked from editing if you continue reverting to your changes without consensus. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Clearly YOU are the one who has the bias and that bias is leading you to try censor relevant material. The question of whether the enhanced interrogation methods used are "torture" is certainly not a settled issue and your attempt to say that it is is more clear evidence of your bias. Would you feel better about "enhanced interrogation techniques that some, including Sullivan, believe to be torture"? That I believe is the most accurate way of conveying the issue. As for Sullivan's position on the war on terrorism, transient is the ideal word to describe it (assuming you understand the definition). Why is "transient" not a proper adjective to describe Sullivan's ever-changing views on fighting terrorism? The word "transient" is not pejorative in any way. In case you're not fully familiar with the word, it means "not permanently settled in place", which I think describes Sullivan's views on the issue to a tee. As for the dedunking of the Palin rumor, even The Daliy Kos has said that it was debunked so your claim that it wasn't just betrays YOUR bias even more. I will clean up my additions a bit to make them more neutral but I will continue to make sure they stay part of the page. Your threats of "blocking" me are meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.55.226 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
See WP:CIVIL, WP:WAR, WP:3RR, and WP:CONSENSUS. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN[edit]

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you posted this to my page, but I have not been following that article and really am in no position to comment. Furthermore, I'd point out that this looks a lot like canvassing... which is a dubious activity at best. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah I get it now. I'm honored that you think I'd be good for this, and I'll certainly add it to my watchlist and see if I can do a little bit of gnomish help on it, but it's really way beyond my realm of knowledge and I've got way too much on my plate to learn an entirely new field, so I don't think I can really help that much on the content side of things. I will point out that Wikipedia generally has problems with really big, broad articles like this. The Holocaust, for instance, is a B-class article, and World War II was just promoted to GA status today. Given that articles like these are probably the most important in the encyclopedia, it is dispiriting to see their tendency to languish. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability of UKC France MAX 2010[edit]

Because its part of K-1 world series and the event also featured three World and European muaythai titles. Here's over 200 K-1 events covered in wikipedia. At least Mabel, Guidon, Valent and Lallemand will have their articles created, dont worry about that.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Corporatocracy[edit]

This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but in view of its long history and number of contributors, and the fact that there are corresponding articles on a number of other Wikipedias, I have taken it to AfD to get more opinions. I am notifying you because you have contributed to the article. Your views are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Corporatocracy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Republic of South Moluccas [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Republic of South Moluccas , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sutematsu (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Would you kindly discuss in detail why the section titled "Scientific Significance of Circling the Kaaba" was preferred to be deleted by you? I don't understand the significance of questioning the authority of the newspaper. The newspaper merely published the article. The article's substance, as it appears to me, is what should be in focus. The section I added was only making a reference to the 'probable' scientific significance of circling the Kaaba. I am adding the word "Probable" at the beginning of the title. Let me know what you think. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iftinali (talkcontribs) 08:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Would you kindly discuss in detail why the section titled "Scientific Significance of Circling the Kaaba" was preferred to be deleted by you? I don't understand the significance of questioning the authority of the newspaper. The newspaper merely published the article. The article's substance, as it appears to me, is what should be in focus. The section I added was only making a reference to the 'probable' scientific significance of circling the Kaaba. I am adding the word "Probable" at the beginning of the title. Let me know what you think. Thank you. Iftinali (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

On the deletion of the section on the significance of circling the Kaaba[edit]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply! You are indeed right in saying the idea stated about the circling of Kaaba is not 'prominent'. However, I do not understand why it is required to be prominent. If a section titled "Possible Significance of Circling the Kaaba" includes (with reference) all the probable significances so far suggested by people around the world in different media, how is there a need of prominence? The Daily Sun, where the article stating the possible significance of published happens to be a highly esteemed newspaper. Let me know what you think. Thank you again!

Iftinali 10:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iftinali (talkcontribs)

Proposed deletion of Frank O'Connor (actor)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Frank O'Connor (actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This goes to a page which mentions O'Connor only as having bumped into Ayn Rand and marrying her.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Content farm[edit]

Hello TallNapoleon. I have rewritten the Content farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and responded to suggestions on the talk page, please see this diff. I don't know if this will compel you to comment but I thought it might be worth a moment to notify you of what I did, since you have tagged the article as having NPOV concerns. Sswonk (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I made some additional minor changes; I think it's mostly good now. Let's leave the NPOV notice up for a couple days to see if anyone else comments, and then take it down. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks good, significantly more balanced than it was before. Sswonk (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism[edit]

You have been reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I think the report was without merit, and I have declined it, as you can see here. However, I thought it worth mentioning to you as a matter of courtesy. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good grief, some people have too much time on their hands. Thanks for the heads up, James! TallNapoleon (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Stevens (politician)[edit]

I noticed that you redirected this page. If I recreated it using the following sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], would you object?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would. Most of those sources are either "Hey, this guy kind of exists" with a little bit on "hey look at the weird politics within this third party". For the most part they aren't anything approaching major news sources, either. They don't show that Tom Stevens is notable in his own right. The only way in which he is notable (barely) is as part of the objectivist party, which means that I think it's redundant and unnecessary for him to have his own page. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
After an edit request on the talk page of United States presidential election, 2012, a discussion on this issue has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections#Thomas Stevens. Please keep in mind that if consensus there supports recreation and you bring the issue to AFD, the likely outcome will not support deletion: "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success."--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Water Fuelled Car Deletion[edit]

Hello TallNapoleon, is there a reason my post in the Water Fuelled car discussion was deleted? I was just adding a peer-referred reference. I am not complaining, just inquiring so I know what went wrong. Thank youSantilli.Carla (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)--Santilli.Carla (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You appeared to have overwritten other people's comments, as I noted in the edit summary. Please feel free to re-add it without overwriting previous contributions. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TallNapoleon. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion.
Message added 11:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Mind Looking At Now_I_Lay_Me_Down_to_Sleep[edit]

Thanks Neil Smithline (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. In future, feel free to send a private message (use the "E-mail this user" link on the left). TallNapoleon (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

SantasOnSteps.jpg Happy new year!
we wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

January 2012

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited John McWhorter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ankheg[edit]

Hello,

Because you participated in the previous AFD for Ankheg, I am notifying you that it has been nominated for AFD again. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Some simple help maybe needed - the new papabili list[edit]

If you have the time and the possibility the new List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave WP article could need some help. You could start by taking a look at the talk page. Thanks Pgarret (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

Speedy deletion nomination of ZergNet[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on ZergNet requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clerics Regular Minor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charleston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, TallNapoleon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reactivation of WikiProject Objectivism[edit]

Hi TallNapoleon,

I am reactivating WikiProject Objectivism. You are currently listed as a participant of the project. I am going to purge the list. If you would still like to be on the list, please comment below on whether or not you would like to be on the list. I will wait two weeks and update the list on August 22nd.

Thanks,

Michipedian (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I won't be participating. Good luck. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)