User talk:VoluntarySlave

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

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade


Stop Your POV Vandalism[edit]

Deleting references from sections that aren't your POV just so you can make your POV look unchallenged is against wikipedia policies. Why don't you work on improving your own references instead? is obviously not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

MOP in Communist Society[edit]

You said: "Who, if anyone, owns the MOP in a communist society is too complicated to cover in a sentence in the lead, and anyway isn't very relevant here."

Actually, you're wrong on both counts. It's laid out in the Communist Manifesto: "In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they [the communists] always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

And it's extremely relevant. How can you say ownership of MOP is irrelevant when that's the whole foundation of communism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're an anarchist?[edit]

You just deleted all the theoretical criticisms of stateless communism. How can you consider that NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


Yes it should be debated whether the picture is relevant...however the previous picture was far too much...especially considering that wikipedia is free to everyone...i replaced it with an image so that those who are desperate to have an image can be happy and so that they can get more time to think about it Kshatriya knight 11:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism[edit]

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including keeping, merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. Again, thank you for your comments. -- Jonel | Speak 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Antonio Negri[edit]

Potere operaio and Autonomia operaia were not communist. These were forerunners of Autonomist Marxism, particularly in Italy. Nobody in Italy would think of their affiliates as "Italian communists". For a comparison, please see the category Italian communists. A category such as "Italian Marxists" would be appropriate though. Behemoth 19:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede for the moment that Potere operaio and Autonomia weren't explicitly communist, as I don't have access to any documents on the two groups right now (I'm fairly sure they did produce material calling for communism, etc). But Negri refers to himself as a communist again and again, up to and including in his most recent books. Unless you are going to restrict the Italian Communists category to members of the PCI, which is inconsistent with other 'Communists by nationality' pages, I don't see any reason to exclude Negri from the category. VoluntarySlave 21:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is a problem. In Italy, there is a well-established tradition of communism (as a political current), almost exclusively identified with PCI. Therefore, this is quite not in accordance with the view of people in many countries who tend to call leftist radicals as "communists". When it comes as a term to define, Negri calls himself as a communist, referring to communism as a political philosophy. Thus, this is never an assertion in public, he never identifies himself with the communist current or the so-called "Italian communists" present in the category. Behemoth 05:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies regarding the "common" revert—I had been working from memory and was obviously mistaken. Thanks for pointing that out and, especially, providing the reference to Multitude. Job L 22:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Indymedia article[edit]

I like your edit better than mine. 05:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for your support of the Indymedia page. Seems like a futile battle sometimes to keep it neutral, but you've been a great help! Thanks! JamieJones talk 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Nice to see you back at the article. Hope you stick around. Lots of socks and/or new an-cap recruits. Someone further up said something about coming to the page after getting an email message from an an-cap email list. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

--Halaqah 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)== User:Anarcho-capitalism ==

I'v lodged a complaint against him on the administrator's noticeboard that basically recounts his flagrant policy violations at the anarcho-capitalism article. If you would like to post a comment about his behaviour in other articles, I encourage you to do so. -- WGee 06:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Insitutional racism[edit]

YOu wil find your edits dont last long, i am not even allowed to have a discussion, there is a tag team of editors reverting everything i do. how is this fair?--Halaqah 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah, it seems that it is you who organizes a tag team here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I didnt organize any tage team, take a look at my history, i have no affliation with these people, i just strongly believe what you are doing is very very wrong, ur blocking everyone from discussing racism by the Israli governement. cant u see this?--Halaqah 12:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for those two very helpful points (i) that the postmodern critique of rationality does not necessarily mean that postmodern philosophers claim not to use rationality. Indeed. Many philosophers have been suspicious of rationality, e.g. Hume. But they use entirely rational methods to argue for this. (ii) And of course the use of the non-vacuous contrast principle by our friend was quite bizarre.

It was nice to have that support, I really do feel I'm fighting a losing battle here, just by weight of numbers. Dbuckner 09:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you also for your careful point about not confusing rational method with 'rationalism'. I've also said this a number of times, but it needs to be repeated. I've been following your contribution to the discussion. You make careful, sound, clear points. A shame it is getting lost in the noise. Dbuckner 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with effort[edit]

I'm supportive of your effort. Richiar 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with effort[edit]

I am reverting again to your version of yesterday. Don't agree with it entirely, but it is a very good base to work from. I can't get involved in the talk page as it's just too noisy at the moment. Most of the participants have been perfectly rational and reasonable, but there is one seriously problem user. I don't think those of you who are new to this place realise how difficult it is to get rid of such users, especially when as determined as this one. So please support this reversion (or minor amendments thereof). Many thanks. Dbuckner 08:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

PS There is another similar version of the intro you suggest on the talk page. By all mains update my reversion to that. You see where I'm coming from. Thanks for your help. Dbuckner 08:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You just wiped out all my work[edit]

Please examine what you've done. And if appropriate, please revert. Thanks. --Ludvikus 08:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken - it's because we're on it simultaneously.
Best wishe, --Ludvikus 08:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, you seem to have cut out significant facts - why?
Please reconsider what you've done!

Thanks. --Ludvikus 08:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop major edits without Talk[edit]

see philosophy talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucaas (talkcontribs) 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

We need you[edit]

That's OK. I sure could use a VoluntarySlave.

Could you explain things to Dbuckner.
Thanks, and keep up your good work.
Dbuckner has accumulated much trash - he think's it's mine.
Could you have a look at it - and state your view on the talk page of Philosophy?
Thanks, --Ludvikus 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done[edit]

You are right to maintain the tighter, shorter version of the Analytic/Continental material, although it still needs work. Needless to say, the Ludvikus ramble about Marxism and Russell, or whatever, should never have been published in the first place. KD Tries Again 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)KD

Current disruption on Philosophy Talk[edit]

Hi - your comments on the talk page have been insightful and useful. Unfortunately it is very hard to locate them due to the current disruption on the page (mostly caused by Ludvikus, in my view, though there is one other, who is less disruptive). A community ban on one of the editors (Ludvikus) has been proposed by Banno, which I strongly support. However, other administrators feel there is not much evidence of any disruption. If you do feel that there is a problem, and that current conditions make work on the article difficult or impossible, please leave a message on FT2's talk page. FT2 is currently co-ordinating work on the Philosophy article. Dbuckner 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Chilean edits[edit]

Hello, VoluntarySlave, since you have made several edits to articles about Chile, you may be interested in looking at the Wikipedia:Chile-related regional notice board to pick up on other topics that need attention, or to express needs which you perceive pertaining to Chile. JAXHERE | Talk 01:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Contribution appreciated[edit]

Your comments in the philosophy talk section were well received. Would you consider participating in the consenus developing in the workshop here ? Richiar 15:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Tart card[edit]

The geographic specificity you complained about was necessary - tart cards are almost exclusively a London (and bits of SE England) thing. I live quite near Birmingham, and phone boxes there are usually completely free of them, even in the city centre. Same goes for most other cities. I've changed the article back to emphasise London, since that is justified here. 03:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Communist states" in Marxism article[edit]

Hi, I have temporarily undone your edits to the Communism section of the Marxism article. A discussion was developing on the talk page and I think it would be appropriate to wait to see the outcome of the discussion before making any changes. You can propose the changes you would like to make at Talk:Marxism and allow other people to comment and consensus to be reached before making the changes. Thansks JenLouise 04:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


By law, all local elected offices are non-partisan. That means that political parties are not involved, there's no party candidate, no primary. So Dellums is no more the "Democratic Party" mayor than he is the Baptist mayor or the Black mayor or the male mayor. His political affiliation is little more relevant than those characteristics. -Will Beback · · 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly.
Although the office of mayor is "non-partisan", that just means that the political affiliation of the candidates are not listed on the ballot. You better believe that behind the scenes, the parties work very hard to elect their endorsed candidates to those "non-partisan" offices. --Dems on the move 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Political theology[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Political theology, by Isotope23, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Political theology is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Political theology, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Political theology itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on BNP[edit]

Copies of this message are being sent to: User: Adambro, User:Fethroesforia, User:Lucy-marie, User:Marcus22, User:One Night In Hackney, User:Robdurbar, User:VoluntarySlave, User:WGee

I am writing to you because over the last few months you have all played a significant part in editing and debating the article BNP. Even though we have not always all seen eye-to-eye, it is the case that all of you have shown an interest in producing an article that is accurate and representative of the subject within WIkipedia policies. The purpose of this message is to alert you to a potential threat to the article and to ask for your help in keeping a watchful eye on it over the next few weeks. I am going to be away from home with only occasional access to a slow dial-up connection.

On 1 June, I added to the BNP infobox the descriptor 'fascist', with appropriate references (as had been discussed a few weeks back - see archive discussion). I was happy for anyone to question this in the usual way and, indeed, had other references available if necessary. Almost coincidentally, an anonymous editor User:, began making a series of edits without justification. On the talk page, he referred to previous editors (i.e. you) as "the many militant liberals and communists" and indicated that he was "also going to be going through the whole article because I notice most of it is either liberals or nationalists posting their points of views". I asked him to identify his position and was told "You're fucked up, leave the god damn article alone" and he told me to "stop trolling the BNP article". He also made inappropriate comments on the user pages of other editors to the BNP article and, for no reason I can fathom, did this to the user page of a 14 year old: [[1]].

User talk: shows he received several warnings and was eventually banned from editing (having only recently, it seems, been released from an earlier ban). This might have been the end of the matter, but the following day a new editor appeared with the name User:Evianmineralwater and proceeded to make identical edits to BNP and some related articles. I reported my suspicions that and Evian were identical to adminUser:Anthony.bradbury who agreed it seemed to be the same person but told me had been banned again. In fact, he was banned for using a trade name and returned almost immediately as User: Mineralwaterisgreat. (I had misunderstood what the admin had told me and assumed he had been banned for vandalism and so reverted his edits on that basis, earning a rebuke from another admin for my mistake.)

Mineral has made the following statements, among others.

Wikipedia is "corrupt piece of shit populated with idiots". Rebuked by an admin, he replied, "Wikipedia IS corrupt AND populated by idiots."
On the references I had provided: "I'm not reading the references because they are obviously left wing and I'm not buying a god damn book."
About me: "This guy wants to keep adding fascism to describe the BNP when it has been refused on both the disambiguation page and the main page. Isn't it clear to see he's just a troll without the best interests of the article in mind?" (I'm not sure what he means by being refused.)

Elsewhere, he has said he is a BNP member and that he intends to edit the article to remove anything he regards as anti-BNP bias.

Now I can deal with personal attacks or ignore them as the mood takes me, but this user is clearly setting out with a POV agenda that we have, I believe, worked hard to keep out of the article. (And, yes, it has sometimes been heated but I still think we have done a good job between us.) I am even happy to debate with BNP members and supporters if they use rational arguments and respect the views of others. (An honourable mention here to Fethroesforia.) I would hate to see the good work we have done go to waste, so I ask that you keep an eye on the article and ensure that edits are made in the correct wikipedian spirit, backed up with sources as appropriate and discussed in the talk page where necessary. It is highly likely that this person could reappear under other names.

(Incidentally, it is ironic that this person has chosen to attack me so vehemently given that, apart from regularly removing the BNP ARE WANKERS type of vandalism and correcting references, the only edit I can recall ever having made to the actual article is to add 'fascism' to the infobox.) Sorry to go on, and I know you are all busy with other projects. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Emeraude 10:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As a follow up to avoid an edit war (which may be the only way in the past to have forced objective discussion) could you please contribute to the ongoing discussion on the Talk page. The discussion do though need to be objective and based on the wiki policies and most of the article sources such as the '05 manifesto are no longer available online due to the BNP re-designing their website.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wendy Brown source[edit]

Hallo, there is a possible incoherency in On_the_Jewish_Question#Karl_Marx_and_Judaism.

The article is displaying five quotes from OtJQ, and then the article reads "Others argue that these quotations have been taken out of context,... ", giving as a source Brown 1995. (Meanwhile, with the intention of clarification, I had changed this into "W.Brown argues that these quotation have been out of context...". But now I changed it back since I'm not sure that my frist edit was correct.) On the other hand side, this selection of OtJQ-quotes had originally been derived from the Peron treatise. I had removed the Peron source, mainly because it is from a private web-site. I think it could be possible that it is not exactly these five quotes of which W.Brown says that other argue that they were "taken out of conext" (or of which she herself says that). I think you have put in the Brown 1995 source. Maybe you can help to clarify if the source is used in an accurate way now, thanks.--Schwalker 20:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Gender Trouble[edit]

Hi VoluntarySlave, I see you've reverted my alteration to Feminism#Post-structural_feminism_and_postmodern_feminism. How would you feel about the sentence being changed to "The largest departure from other branches of feminism, is the argument that both sex and gender are constructed through language."?--Cailil talk 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great suggestion. I've just added it to the section :)--Cailil talk 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Landmark Education edits[edit]

Thank you so much for fixing the refs section! Pax Arcane (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interests on Communism - Your edits[edit]

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. - Do not make further edits until dispute has been resolved. Dylansmrjones (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Communists not a class?[edit]

Slave, why do you keep removing references to the communist class from the class struggle article? Is there any doubt (in theory or in practice) that the communists are a unique class? Is there any doubt that the communist manifesto sets this class apart from the common people and grants it wide governing powers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

BNP article[edit]

I have provided a source that the BNP denies the fact it is Fascist and albeit there are sources that assert the party is Fascist I also have provided sources that they are either derived from opposed parties or are outdated or both. I am willing to make the concession of having that written in brackets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteTiger86 (talkcontribs) 21:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Help. I can't find that page 17. There is nothing on the homepage of BNP (which IMHO is very suspicious - wonder what they don't want us to see). Do you have a link or a title for that section? Then I can use Dylansmrjones (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, thank you very much :) - now let's see what they are hiding. Perhaps it's just me, but I always think the worst when documents disappear minutes after I've read them. It was there on the BNP-site before you added the reference, and then it was gone. POOF. Don't like it. Don't like it all. Dylansmrjones (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have provided an interview where Nick Griffin, the leader of the party, clearly states how he rejects Fascism and that he opposes the promotion of the Fascist ideology within his party. As for the work, there is no proof that they are scholarly, if so please show me their qualifications and I have proven that they are from biased backgrounds which makes them no more reliable than the statement of the BNP that they are not Fascist.While the other book is the same as the one in the reference. It has the same title and the same author and was published in 1988

--WhiteTiger86 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A World Without Jews[edit]

Since you did not post your comment on the bottom of the Talk page regarding On the Jewish Question I had to look hard for your recent query. Why don't you ask your question on the bottom? Anyway. I do not know what citation you want more. This is the title of the Book, published by that fello (named there) in 1959. I know of no other imprint of this text in English. The others keep telling about collected works or anthology/ies that have this text - but I'm still waiting for an exact citation! --Ludvikus (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Marx/Engels Collected Works[edit]

The Editor's Barnstar

Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
It is with great pleasure that I award you this Barnstar for your current diligent work on the important 50-volume (1975-2005) standard work above!!! Ludvikus (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Marx/Engels Collected Works[edit]

Hello. Regarding this article, do you think the list of the contents of each of the fifty volumes is necessary? What about the copy-and-paste of the Library of Congress catalog data? That's why I PRODded the article: it seems like an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory, not an encyclopedia article.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper grammar for prepositional phrases[edit]

When you have a prepositional phrase, you ignore the object of the preposition, because that is never the subject. For example, read this aloud:
The sweet potatoes in the vegetable bin are green with mold.
That sounds right because it is right, the "vegetable bin" does not dictate what "are". The potatoes do. Like I said, take out the prepositional phrase and it makes sense:
The sweet potatoes is/are green with mold.
If you don't get this, ask, because the grammar in California recall is right as I have it.
Blindman shady 00:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "The sweet potatoes are in the vegetable bin that is painted green." does not seem to contain a restrictive clause. Restrictive clauses restrict the adjective to its noun. "that is painted green" seems like it's a relative clause because "that is painted green" is not necessary; rather, it just provides one with excess information. In California recall, one could take out "of only 15 states" and the sentence makes sense because "of only 15 states" is an additive phrase, not a restrictive clause. However, the object of the preposition may very well be "only 15 states that allow(s) recalls". It seems to me that the way I had it was correct, but I can see how yours could be right as well. The basic rule of thumb for me is, if I can take it out, do it and see how it looks, so I based it on that. But if you see it the other way and are sure it is right, change it. It's not significant to change it back if it doesn't infringe upon one's ability to read it.
Blindman shady 01:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Feminism"/"Feminism (sidebar)"[edit]

Arrg, thanks for the alert. I thought I'd covered those cases. Will start repairing now. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello! :) I think you might be interested in this. Have a nice day and happy editing! --Grrrlriot ( ) 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


I would suggest that you not gut the article in such a way as to render it disjointed. You can always ask for better sourcing, though if you read the source in question you will see that it is quite well referenced.

With the elimination of this entire section, the article does not flow. One jumps directly to a sentence that has no antecedent. You have made the article worse, not better. The source in question refers directly to Oakland events and phenomena. Many others exist, though they are not so specific. Apostle12 (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again you have gutted the Oakland "Crime" section, substituting your own prose for material that was developed over time, and well-sourced, by several editors. Also your edit description is inaccurate--Sowell refers specifically to Oakland and cites the liberal propensity to link poverty and crime (he quotes Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums' recent speech) as a factor enabling criminals in Oakland and elsewhere. Apostle12 (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oakland Crime II[edit]

Once again you have gutted the Oakland "Crime" section, substituting your own prose for material that was developed over time, and well-sourced, by several editors. Also your edit description is inaccurate--Sowell refers specifically to Oakland and cites the liberal propensity to link poverty and crime (he quotes Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums' recent speech) as a factor enabling criminals in Oakland and elsewhere. Other sources contained references to other theories about this controversial topic. No conclusion was stated, rather the section simply noted that various hypotheses have been advanced for the enormous increase in crime that took place during the 1960s and 1970s. Certainly the one drug kingpin you name was not solely responsible for that increase, which the article now implies.Apostle12 (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Harding[edit]

Hello. I realised you reverted my edit. I have reverted it back because it actually says within that page that Harding's real surname is Hardmaun.--Andrzejestrować Zajaczkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich 20:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Weatherman/Terrorism RfC[edit]

Hi! This is a form notice sent to several editors who have contributed recently at the Bill Ayers page or talk page (sent in accordance with WP:CANVASS). A proposal has been made near the bottom of Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC concerning the Bill Ayers article in connection with use of the word "terrorism" and discussion of it in the article. Other proposals have been made concerning similar articles, and a large amount of information about sources on this topic are available on the page. Please take a look and consider supporting or opposing some of the proposals. Also, if you think "violent" is a better description for Ayers or Weatherman, please take another look at Talk:Bill Ayers#Ayers and violence. Thanks. -- Noroton (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

BNP Infobox[edit]

The BNP infobox is currently being debated, please add to the debate before editing the contents.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


Nice rewrite of that controversial paragraph in the lead. Hope it survives! Thanks. Student7 (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop Revert[edit]

Please try to refrain from reverting my edit, They are well sourced from multiple reliable sources, Thank you. Xrxty (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


I reverted you. His planting of the haymarket bomb referenced in the article was a criminal act , and supported by the text. Please discuss on talk page before reverting again and engaging in an editwar. It helps to read the articles before making a judgment about their contents.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Was the planting of a bomb in the HAymarket a criminal act? If so into the category he must go.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Judy Rebick[edit]

Judy Rebick

Can you explain why you are removing material from this site rather than adding to it ?

The material is well sourced ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

quote requested[edit]

hi, i've tagged the cite at [this] edit, requesting a quote. my oxford universal dictionary has etymology going back to 1549, with no definition or use suggesting "just for you". if express has had a meaning of "just for you" since the 15th century, surely the OUD would mention as you claim the OED does. please provide a quote from the OED that supports this contention. i don't have a subscription to the OED online, nor i suspect do the majority of editors. i've never heard anyone use the word "express" to mean "just for you". thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Paris Hilton[edit]

You haven't answered my question. See the discussion. Not everything in a celeb's life immediately becomes proper material for an encyclopedia. Where would you draw the limit? Piano non troppo (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Acronym and initialism[edit]

I checked both articles for sources and references to prounciation and neither article has any. If i have missed them please specify. --neon white talk 12:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

With both we are talking about small minority opinions that in at least one are very much disputed. It would be better for the article to replace these with unambiguous examples. One i can think of off hand is URL. --neon white talk 21:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Replied on my talk page. Yworo (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


That image I got from, obviously the user who uploaded it isn't the copyright owner. I'll try to find it on the internet. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the image on Here's the link: And thank you so much for fixing the image's copyright status. --Ipodnano05 (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Hi, VoluntarySlave. I've warned RTG, but I also need to warn you: edit warring like the activity that has been going on on Positive action (disambiguation), can get you blocked even if there is no technical violation of WP:3RR. It appears that at least one other editor is watching the page, which may help. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anti-capitalism[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 Anti-capitalism. 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/Anti-capitalism. 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) 01:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I saw your discussion on the libertarianism disambiguation page. There's an rfc on the Talk:Libertarianism#RfC: Which form of libertarianism that we'd appreciate your input on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talkcontribs) 05:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reverting my takpage comments[edit]

Please do not do that, if you think that my comments are against policy then you have options for that, unless you consider my comments to have some major issue that would require that they be immediately removed then do not touch them thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi dude, what's up. Why the revert on my edit? Jstriker (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi VoluntarySlave. Is that your personal opinion? Also please remember 3RR. Best. Jstriker (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

O rly? Have you asked "pretty much everyone" you think? Jstriker (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. Doubtful. Left leaners (yourself?) obviously dislike any association with National Socialism (same doctrine of jokes too soon ex post facto) but the clue as they say is in the name. The Nazis were a big government gang. Socialism as practiced all over the world meant putting the means of production in the hands of the state rather than the "masses". The Nazis did this to an extent which places them to the left of many Socialists today. Hence the socialism. That's not even mentioning many of what were considered contemporaneously socialist labour policies on things like working time, weekends, holidays etc.

I'm sure you can find plenty of biased left leaning sauces which would fight the opposite corner to the death but out there in the real world the link is self-evident.

Unless you're arguing the Nazis named themselves "Socialists" disingenuously simply to trade off of its "positive cachet" for short term political purposes? You'd have to have an opinion on this if you purport to have an opinion on the former. Or does self-identification not count for much? Jstriker (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. you're one of those who doesn't discuss topics beyond the quotation of rules. Mediocre. Jstriker (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists[edit]

neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Shulamith Firestone[edit]

Hello VoluntarySlave. Am I correct in assuming you have some kind of agenda in your agressive edits to Shulamith Firestone? You contribute nothing to the article and seem to make an extraordinary effort to conceal and muddle the substance of my contributions. Neutrality does not require vapidity, ambiguity, and prevarication. Surely that Firestone's racial theory and eugenics proposals are all but universally deplored is not controversial and the citation at length of some of the most celebrated and influential of her critics more than sufficient to illustrate the consensus. But you first remove the long quotes which more than adequately substantiated the paragraph's opening line - a line obviously necessary for prose flow and the chain of ideas - then complain of lack of substantiation. Which is to say, you seem to be creating pretexts for removing information you wish to suppress, including the existence new academic publications. You complain of the absence of what you yourself have hidden away in footnotes. Could you let me know what your aim is here? BelindaEdgeworth (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You say: “I moved the extensive quotations to footnotes in the interests of clarity - summarizing these positions in the text is easier on the reader than long quotations,’’ but in fact you removed the quotations to footnotes and replaced them with vague, inaccurate descriptions whose tendency was to mute the criticism and more importantly obscure the nature of the material to which there exists universal objections. You say: “while I appreciate the value of the quotations in providing further detail on these evaluations. I'm also concerned that we try and avoid inserting our own interpretations of Firestone and her reception into the article.” This is completely convoluted and nonsensical. Quoting verbatim one is sure to avoid inserting our own interpretations. This is why I used full paragraphs only eliding redundancy for clarity. Deleting the quotations from the text and replacing them with your own words, you achieve the opposite result, especially since your words bear little relation to the material they are presented as “summarizing”. You make no acknowledgement of or reference to the bulk of the criticisms in the quoted texts you removed from the article. The brief and vague remnants of your rampage of pruning and altering significantly misrepresent the work of the living feminist scholars and theorists concerned including Firestone herself. You deleted for example Simon’s observation that Firestone’s book exhibits “insensitivity to the oppression of black women”, which I directly quoted in the article, and replaced it with a wholly different (and arguably far milder) one of “ignoring the history of black women”. Your bogus “summary” additionally suppresses Davis’ criticisms – that Firestone “facilitates the resurrection of the timeworn myth of the Black rapist” and also consequently issues “racism’s open invitation to white men to avail themselves of Black women’s bodies” -- completely. You suppressed Simon’s deploring of Firestone’s “ethnocentrism”, removing that word which is the key term in the quoted paragraph. You suppressed Simon’s concise account of Firestone’s irrational claims that “the black race” are the “children” in the “Family of Man” and “the white race” the adults and their parents. You admit that you think most people who know Firestone’s work “agree” with “these criticisms”. I am sure these are matters of fact not opinion. I hope things have not come to such a state where you live VoluntarySlave that one needs a source to confirm that the notion that “the black race” are “the children” in the “Family of Man” is both ludicrous and offensive. I can assure you that in most of the world this is entirely uncontroversial. I am going to replace my impeccably sourced and informative paragraphs and trust you will restrain any urge you have to alter them again. BelindaEdgeworth (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BLPs and blogs[edit]

You asked a question a week ago about using self-published blogs as sources of literary criticism; as you may no longer be watching the thread, I wanted to let you know that I have posted a reply. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Is_discussion_of_a_person.27s_work_.22material_about_a_living_person..22 Cheers, --JN466 17:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss Conspiracy Theory[edit]

When I reverted's changing AN to A in the Conspiracy Theory article, I was following the procedure outlined in WP:BRD. I don't think your reversion of my revert (with a "no it's not" comment) was the best way to deal with the issue. After all, the Wikipedia-sanctioned policy is Bold-Revert-Discuss, not Bold-Revert-Revert-Discuss.

Please come discuss it on the Talk page. Hope to see you there! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 21:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Walter Benn Michaels[edit]

Hallo, you've added the template:Unsourced to article Walter Benn Michaels yesterday. I've removed the template for now, since in my opinion, there are (many) references to sources in the text, for instance Benn Michaels own books to begin with. I believe, if the template would be reinserted, then together with an explanaition on the article talk page which facts or passages exactly seem to be unsourced, Greetings --Schwalker (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Born This Way[edit]

I'd like you to show me where consensus has been reached on WIKIPEDIA about it being her third studio album. nding·start 20:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read this page: WP:CON. And it is has been being discussed on The Fame Monster's page. I doubt anybody even saw what you wrote on the Born This Way talk page. The discussion begins there. Born This Way cannot be her third studio album, if she doesn't have a second one. nding·start 21:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. How could she just not have a second studio album?! They are forever linked. Nobody is going to talk in the Born This Way page. It's already been discussed and decided that it is her SECOND STUDIO ALBUM. It's really getting tiring and just damn annoying. nding·start 00:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Your view of potentially misleading subjunctive[edit]


You have changed back a Zack Snyder quotation in reported speech on one of his own films (Sucker Punch) from the subjunctive mood that I had put it into to indicative, here, saying were as subjunctive of are was unusual. Thank You, very much, for the advice — I am always happy when I am taught how to use the English language. Even where I am quite sure that I know the grammatical rules, I experience, again and again, that the real use differs from what I have expected, and I know from own experiences with people who are not able to express themselves really correctly in my mother tongue (German), how quickly that can be misleading. Language is a very fine tissue; any slightest variation can have decisive consequences. But I am now a little confused about how I should express the appropriate inner distance to assertions of others in texts which are demanded to be neutral, like that of this encyclopedia. I really have no idea how I should do this. I have been taught the subjunctive of verbs in the present tense was the past tense and the subjunctive of verbs in the past tense was the pluperfect. Is that wrong? Or do You think one should not expect of the readers of Wikipedia that they know to distinguish, here?

The sentence ran:

You say, "readers are likely to take [were] as past tense", but do You really think that anybody could believe such thoughts behind the title of a film may get outdated within a few weeks? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Amazon and Lady Gaga[edit]

You keep rephrasing the sentence to make it seem like it's unknown how much of the album was sold through Amazon's 99cent promotion. According to Billboard (the source which is now removed from the intro) 430,000 of the 440,000 sold through Amazon was at the 99cent price, which is roughly 38.8% of the album's overall first week total, and 97.7% of Amazon's total sales. So please state the facts in the article and don't sugarcoat it. Orane (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Neo marxism[edit]

I have nominated Neo-marxism for deletion, Please see: [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for the copyedit. --Efe (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi VoluntarySlave. Regarding the capitalization, thanks for checking on the reference-I did not. On the interpolation of "[o]" on techn[o], I again had to revert one of your edits. The source has actually had typo, so it must be done that way. Anyway, your edits have been very helpful. As you can see in the Peer Review, a thorough copyedit must be done before it can stand a chance at FAC. Thanks again. Regards, Efe (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, i see. I've been too conventional. Thanks for the link and explanation. Please copyedit if there's more to be done. Again, thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Hi VoluntarySlave. Thanks for explaining that I need to delete. I didn't know since I don't have much time to learn all there is to learn about wikipedia. Over the last few years I've on rare occasions corrected something, always using strikethroughs. Until recently nobody complained. Again, thanks. I'll mend my ways. (Imyoung (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

When the Sun Goes Down (Selena Gomez & the Scene album)[edit]

I removed the see also section you added. I understand that what is in see also sections is an editorial judgment but I cannot see how anything in the linked to disambiguation page adds to a readers understanding of this particular article. I don't think linking to a list of shared names adds anything other than that the album name is not original. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

On Class Struggle[edit]

Please see my updates to the article on Class conflict. You'll see that I've copied most of the text from Class Struggle and pasted it into the Class conflict article. I did not include the different categories of working class though. This is not a "struggle" oriented section, IMO. What's more, I noticed we have a editing difference of opinion on the Socialism and Anarchism banners being in the Class Struggle article. Until now. You're right. The way the Class Struggle article reads, you may very well have a very good point. However, with the reemergence of the term "Class Warfare" in contemporary pop-politics in the USA and other Western nations, (heck, even Muslim nations) the banners simply do not belong in the Class conflict article. Nor have you moved to do so. Finally, I believe with the way the Class Struggle article reads it should become a sub-article or even two and linked to the greater, more comprehensive Class conflict article. Simply from seeing the avalanche of Communist/Marxist editing you do, you appear to be a passionate, motivated expert on it. Kudos! :) I think you'd be perfect to edit the now Class Struggle article into a "Class Struggle - Anarchism" and "Class Struggle - Marxism" article. Then have them re-titled. I'll support you in the initiative to rename them. They will become YOUR domain. :) --XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Good edits[edit]

Thanks for your recent edits to Christine Amanpour. I missed that strange interjection[3] about the article's content when I was editing the page recently. Good catch. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tourist[edit]

Hi, VoluntarySlave. I meant no disrespect by undo-ing your removal of the "cultural reception" section in "The Tourist". I am writing a thesis on film, and it took me a very long time to find these public statements from notables about the movie. They are particularly relevant precisely because there were so many negative voices among the critics. This discrepancy (highest discrepancy between netflix vote - 70% - and rottentomatoes vote 20% ever!) is noteworthy, especially in an open encyclopedia, and it is reflected in this section. All of these people are extremely notable. Perhaps we need a different heading for the section. Perhaps: "Notable comments" or "Public Opinion" or something like that? I am open to suggestions. But please be respectful of this contribution which took me many days to compile. Thanks. --Bob Random Thoughts (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Bangerz[edit]

I've nominated Bangerz for retargeting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 6#Bangerz. Since you participated in the RM discussion for Bangerz (album), you may be interested in commenting on this proposal. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]


nice page!

DarkPrincessX (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Why Did you Revert my Clapton Edit?[edit]

You seem to have reverted an edit I thought was pretty uncontroversial. I removed the brackets from the following section:

The Beatles, unlike Cream, would give him full scope to play his guitar.[27] Years later, Clapton commented on the absurdity of this idea: "There may have been [a suggestion that I would be asked to join The Beatles in January 1969]".

I see no reason for those brackets by any rules of style or grammar that I know of. I assumed they were a typo or something. Why do you think they belong or am I misunderstaning the edit? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ban Bossy/Censorship edits[edit]

Dear VoluntarySlave, please see the talk section for Ban Bossy. Your edit summaries seem to indicate a misunderstanding and/or selective interpretation of the word censorship. Your edits have been reverted. I beg of you to please garner some consensus before summarily changing an article to such an extent in the future. Thanks much! Lexlex (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Adam Kotsko[edit]

The phrase is "...on the ways that thinking of the Devil are..." The subject is not "thinking", it is "the ways". The "ways" are plural. You wouldn't write "How many ways is there to skin a cat?" Keri (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I've self-reverted, having caused an intense and heated debate among my colleagues regarding the correct grammatical construction of the sentence. We can't agree here, so I'll defer to your argument :) Keri (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leader of the Labour Party (UK), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party leadership election, 2015. 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) 09:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


Regarding your edit at Meghan Trainor and inappropriate use it f the term "singer-songwriter", I agree with your edit. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, there are editors watching the article who aren't interested in encyclopedic accuracy at the article and, at an RfC several months ago, decided to go in favor of "what the reliable sources say" than what's correct. Interestingly, there were enough reliable sources that correctly used singer, songwriter to challenge those in favor of the incorrect usage, but, even in the face of that reasoning, the incorrect term was decided upon by questionable consensus. Which is a losing situation for the encyclopedia and its readers. If you choose to challenge the issue of your edit being reverted and the continued improper use of singer-songwriter, I will back you on it. And thanks for knowing the difference between the two types of songwriters, by the way. -- WV 15:23, 11 October 2015 (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)

Capitalizing complete sentence quotations[edit]

Hello, just wanted to drop you a line that I've started a discussion about capitalizing complete sentence quotations on the Manual of Style talk page. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, VoluntarySlave. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)