User talk:Twobitsprite

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




I will be on vacation until the 10th of July, so don't expect any responses. Do feel free to leave messages though. Two-Bit Sprite 04:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ;)

I'm back Two-Bit Sprite

the attacks on Hogeye and all the rest[edit]

Hey. Thanks for the what you said on anarhcism talk. Every time I find an editor that isn't part of the obvious ugliness that goes on around here, I feel a little safer. This is not a very friendly place. Shannonduck talk 13:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I can't even remember the particular thing or things that you said. I just know that it was an intelligent argument against the POV pushing that happens in so many political articles. The rouge tactics are so sickening. When they want someone out of the way, for instance, they gang up together and start calling him names like deranged or mentally ill. Can you check this out? Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Anarcho-capitalism They are trying to take the featured status off of Anarcho-capitalism Can you help? Shannonduck talk 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Anarcho-capitalism is currently under featured article review. Any help in maintaining featured status would be appreciated. -- Vision Thing -- 21:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for asking Shannon to cool down a bit. According to her, I'm part of a vast Soviet conspiracy to undermine Wikipedia and destroy freedom. --AaronS 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a very heated and controversial topic, and it often times can be hard to be objective about, often simply due to the fact that the subject matter has an extremely complex history which is often misrepresented and distorted by primary sources on all sides of the matter. While I tend to disagree occasionally with your edits, you do tend to keep a cool head when discussing them, which I must credit you for. Two-Bit Sprite 00:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. And it's true, it's a very controversial topic. That's why special care and courtesy are required. I'm glad that we can disagree without making it personal -- because it isn't. Wikipedia's such a small thing, and it's really about having fun with knowledge. Objectivity is difficult to achieve in historical and political subjects. What you say about the primary sources is true -- which is why I try to stick to reliable secondary sources. There's way too much original research going on. --AaronS 00:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

response to your comments[edit]

I get what you are saying, Two-Bit Sprite, and actually agree with most of it. The only thing that I find offensive, unfactual and sort of attacking is this statement you just made. "there are plenty of other rude POV-pushers on the talk page". Rude in response to rudeness I have been and am working at not doing now. A POV-pusher I decidedly am not. I only wish to maintain the integrity of the few excellent political articles we have left here, and round out the others to be neutral and factual. Other than that, thanks for the advice. I will and am in the process of taking it. Shannonduck talk 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess I could have worded that better, I never meant to accuse you of being a POV-pusher, as I have not seen you explicitly pushing any POV. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration, it is rare to find someone willing to accept constructive criticism. Happy editing. :) Two-Bit Sprite 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As an addtion to this conversation I would invite any of it's readers to see the attacks on myself, Vision Thing, Intangible, RJll, Hogeye, and TheIndvidualist, and the psycho-warfare that has been played on the dissenters of these articles: anarchism, talk:anarchism; patriotism (a horror of an article) talk:patriotism; anarcho-capitalism, talk:anarcho-capitalism; (a deliberate attempt at destroying the integrity of this excellent, featured article).

I definately agree, it is completely unacceptable that any editor which attempts to preserve the integrity of these articles is immediately disregarded as being a "sockpuppet" or whatever without considering the merits of thier edits. Two-Bit Sprite 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am, however, more than willing to not attack or insult other editors even in response to their nasty attacks on me and other dissenting editors or on their attacks on certain articles. Shannonduck talk 19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks, Twobitsprite. I may steal the banner you have on your page. Shannonduck talk 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your comments[edit]

You are alright, Twobitsprite. I like you. Not that that probably means a whole lot to you, why would it? But I mean that sincerely. You seem like a level-headed guy. We need you down here at anarchism and also Intangible is getting Wikipedia:Requests for arbitrationed here Can you help him. I'm getting ready to defend him and am throwing some stuff together now. I hate the way so many good editors get bullied and driven away here. Anyway thanks, again. Shannonduck talk 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again, Twobitsprite. Being polite is one thing, but aiding and abetting those who would bias many articles and destroy excellent articles is another. Also, Vision Thing asked that we don't get into reverting their edits too much at that article because that is exactly what they want. (It destabalizes the article.) Shannonduck talk 14:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I only meant this in the most respectful way, you understand. Shannonduck talk 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback and comments, but I guess I have to make it clear that I am not here to join some clan or take sides. The us-vs-them mentality is not what wikipedia is about. Whether or not I support anarcho-capitalism as a theory is entirely irrelevant, my goal here is to see it acurately and fairly presented from a historical and academic point of view. Your acusations of "aiding and abeting" implies your own biases and personal convictions, which should not be present on wikipedia. I am trying to restore balance to the article, and I think there are too many people attempting to pull the article to shreds with this tug-of-war, of which both sides are guilty. The fact that I even have to use that terminology is indicative of the biases involved. Thanks again and happy editing. Two-Bit Sprite 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Twobitsprite. First off the 'aiding and abetting' comment was a jokical one. I didn't think you would take it seriously. I hope you didn't take offense at this. However my comment does not imply my own biases and personal convictions. The facts are these:
  1. anarcho-capitalism is an excellent article.
  2. There is an obvious attempt at lowering the quality of this article, through a campaign of sabotage and endless reverts, in order to destabalize it. Destablizing an article is one way to get it to lose it featured status. If you are really interested in helping this article please go to the featured review that Aaron and Blah started and add your comments there. I'm not suggesting not editing the article ever. I'm saying this article is under attack by a group who would love to see it lose it's featured status and are doing their best to insert their POV.
  3. Any editing of it now is what AaronS and Blah and The Ungovernable Force want. That is what I meant by the 'aiding and abetting' comment.
  4. You said both sides are guilty of trying to pull this article apart. All the editing going on will pull this article apart. Sorry to have to say this but it's the truth, the comunist-anarchists are the ones who are deliberately trying to wreck this article.
I agree with what you said about it being irrelevant whether one is or is not anarcho-capitalist where editing this artricle is concerned. I have been accused of being an anarcho-capitalist because of my defense of this article. The funny thing is I am not an anarcho-capitalist anymore than those that accuse me of being one are anarcho-capitalist.
As far as clans go I'm not asking you to join a clan, even though there is a strong division here. All I ask is that all of us leave this great article alone before it is no longer a great article. Shannonduck talk 00:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Featured status is not immortality. I feel it has been too long since this article has had a dissenting voice in it, and I am definately not going to just "leave it alone" because it was at one point a featured article. I feel we should instead embrace the opportunity to further improve the article by taking heed to those who disagree with us. Two-Bit Sprite 12:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Stick around[edit]

Well, keep in mind that all of your edits -- which are much appreciated -- have been countered by a few users who refuse to budge an inch in the other direction. While I assume that they are acting on good faith, and respect their opinions, TheIndividualist/IndividualistAnarchist and company haven't really tried to reach a compromise at all, whereas a lot of other editors have. The sockpuppet charge, while tiresome, is unfortunately understandable, considering the proven and self-admitted harrassment, disruption, and POV-pishing that has occurred on anarchism-related articles on the part of RJII and Hogeye. Further, it has always been added as an afterthought, and has never really been the meat of anybody's claims. There are other, more important issues at hand. I understand that you feel strongly about the subject of this article, and I respect that. I certainly hope that you won't leave as a result of the recent heated discussion. Your input is appreciated, and you're welcome here. You're right that the sockpuppet argument is very, very difficult to substantiate. But, like I said, I'm sure that, after thinking a bit about the situation, you might understand where some people are coming from. For years, we've dealt with sockpuppet abuse on these articles. The people behind the abuse have no lives outside of Wikipedia and troll it like an AOL chatroom. Sockpuppets are probably Wikipedia's greatest weakness -- along with gaming the system. Both will probably contribute to Wikipedia's demise, if nothing is done about it. Anyways, I hope that you decide to stick around and not let any of the heated debate get to you. It doesn't need to be this heated -- I agree with you on that -- so maybe we can work to calm it down a bit. --AaronS 18:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if our suspicions were well-founded, anyways. TheIndividualist/IndividualistAnarchist has admitted to being one of the people who edited as RJII. Now that that's cleared up, I do hope you come back to the article. --AaronS 19:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi, regarding your recent change to percent sign and %, where is that convention for other symbols? I ask because Category:Punctuation has no such examples. Cheers, Ziggurat 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

hmm... perhaps you are right, and I was a bit hasty. I was seeing ¢, $, , £, ¥, &, etc... I saw a pattern and jumped on it without double checking. Two-Bit Sprite 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it must be a convention for currency specifically. No probs, as they say, that's why pencils have erasers :) Regards, Ziggurat 00:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings[edit]

Regarding the sock template, I just wanted to make sure we weren't jumping the gun. The more that user edits, the more I start to wonder if he/she is a sock. At the very least, the user is nowhere near new as the account creation would imply, and has a very narrow focus in his/her edits. I wouldn't wager on a sock for Intangible, but we've had two or three major sock accounts of banned users knocked out in the past week, and I'm starting to smell a rat on this new one. Let's just bide our time though. I'm sure if it's a sock we'll get something more definite and traceable than the suspicion we have now.--Rosicrucian 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my suspisions are being confirmed after each comment/edit by this account, and the name looks like something someone would just punch randomly on the keyboard. I do agree we should be patient though, eventually they will rat themself out through their actions. Ohh, and no hard feelings at all, I am always open to constructive criticism and appreciate your comments. :) Two-Bit Sprite 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the repeated reverts to a version that's older than the user's registration, harping on the featured article status right out of the box, and only editing on one article to push a PoV whilst wikilawyering left and right. It's somebody we know, but I doubt it's Intangible. Like I said, Lingeron and RJIII recently got banned again, so I'm leaning towards one of them, most likely Lingeron because the featured status was her justification for all the reverts she kept doing. Just a hunch though, and we've had enough sockpuppet wikidrama to last me a lifetime recently, so I'm just hoping this new-old user hoists him or herself by their own petard.--Rosicrucian 16:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, you requested a mediation cabalist. I am willing to help, where would you prefer to start? ViridaeTalk 04:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not entirely sure where to start, we've been trying to drill into User:Uiofvnondc's head that Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy, and s/he keeps arguing in circles, often times not making any sense, asserting that it isn't... I just wanted an outside voice to try to be objective about it. This user is holding up the developement of the article and generally causing a ruckus on the talk page. I thought maybe they would listen to a neutral voice, so I thought I'd try to bring one in. Just take a look at the talk page sections I cited on the request, plus the ones labeled "split 1[,2,3]". Thanks in advance for your help. Two-Bit Sprite 19:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The other user hasn't been involved for a couple of days. Do you believe there's still a problem to be resolved through mediation? (I see two other mediators have joined in.) -- Cri du canard 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didnt see your reply. I will let Cri du canardtake over. ViridaeTalk 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
No, no, my fault -- I volunteered on the mediation page before checking the talk pages. You were first. -- Cri du canard 06:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the troll has gone back under its bridge for now, so we'll call a stand down for the time being. Thanks for your help anyways though. :) —Two-Bit Sprite 01:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't give up[edit]

I read your comment on talk:anarchism. Please don't give up on editing Wikipedia. If it was something I said, or how I said it, then I'll consider changing it. I apologize if I contributed to any frustration you might have. Whiskey Rebellion 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not you, it's wikipedia. I think I'm just giving up on the idea that such a structure can give rise to meaningful articles. I mean, think about it, wikipedia embodies the worst aspects of pure democracy, socialism and oligarchy all at the same time. I've felt this way for a long time, but I thought I try to improve things. Of course, as soon as it looks like things are calming down, something else comes up for the people to bicker endlessly about... It's just not worth my time any more. —Two-Bit Sprite 16:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see you go because I thought you were doing some good work. But at the same time I'm glad for you. Unless you're getting something out of it for yourself, such as education, there is no point and just a waste of time. It's defintely not the place to get your hopes up about building something that lasts. It will never happen. Take it easy. And, thanks. DTC 16:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You should stay. If you feel tired from bickering on Anarchism, take a few days of (or even weeks) from editing. It would be terrible waste if you were to give up from Wikipedia, since you are one of editors with more common sense then most. Stick around. -- Vision Thing -- 16:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck[edit]

And thanks for all of your effort. I may be following in your footsteps very soon. --AaronS 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Twobitsprite, I know I'm being selfish, but please don't go. I agree that the bickering is horrendous on many articles, not the least, anarchism. I believe the reason for this is that many articles are controlled so tightly that a separate or differing addition is not allowed. If enough of us stick with this on that or other pages, we can make a difference. Consensus is important here, right? You, DTC, That'sHot, and I all agree on the addition of more (US) libertarian input in this article. Also, you are obviously very intelligent and well-read. I can tell that from what you just said above about the different political philosophies. Please don't leave. We all need you here! Whiskey Rebellion 16:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)