Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:43, 23 July 2009

Capitalism

I saw that Introman edited your inclusion of state provided goods and services in the capitalism article. He seems to be confused about what capitalism is. If you need a partner in dealing with him let me know as I'm a PhD economics student and instructor. I'm also in complete agreement with you that there are state provided goods and services in a capitalist system. This is also what the rest of the article says. Introman states on his page that he only writes intros and that the body of the article is “beneath him”. Given this, he should not run around changing intros into something that is completely inconsistent with the rest of the text. Is there somewhere to report him? I’m new to Misplaced Pages so I’m not sure. MoralMoney (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Austrian School: First sentence, second paragraph "...The Austrian School" please change it to "the Austrian School" (lower case "the"). It's killing me and I'm blocked. Thanks. - SlaveryOrDeathSaysTheBanker (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm finished (permanently barred, being tracked and shot down at every move). My last edits are shown here in red on the left hand column (KeepGoldThrowBondsAway). You may want to pick and choose which of these edits should be re-inserted, in your considered, non-biased view. I really strongly believe Pascal Salin should be deleted. He's a pro-FRB pro-bank Mont Pelerin Society infiltrator who was a disruptive influence within Austrianism and is now thrown up by mainstreamers on every occasion to defend against Rothbard, Polliet, Shostak, de Soto, and other FullRB supporters. He should be removed in the lede and replaced by Lew Rockwell, or Walter Block. Good luck keeping balance against the onslaught of the barbarians. I'm out of the game.

Competition law

You have other editors willing to help out if you ever decide to take another look at competition law. I have a list of suggestions on the talk page. THF (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Typos on Austrian School

Sorry, if you have the time, please remove the unnecessary full stop to the right of the 3,4 footnotes. I'm blocked and you've helped out in the past. It's not your fault, but you're one of the only genuine editors out there. Thx. - WatchinTheTideRollAway (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Karl Marx

What consensus version? I believe that particular proposal failed: Misplaced Pages:Flagged revisions/Consensus versions.

Keep in mind that should you baselessly remove my factual and referenced material on the debate of Marx and antisemitism without an appropriate justification again, I will be reporting you.PasswordUsername (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But it would be POV to simply imply things that are well rejected by historians. Where was this consensus reached, and how long ago? May I have a peek? PasswordUsername (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But why are you so adamntly against adding a 20-word paragraph? This is material not previously discussed in the "On the Jewish Question" article -- where the consensus decided to move the lengthy allegations of anti-Semitism you posted -- and it gives the mainstream rebuttal to the "Marx called Lasalle a 'Jewish nigger'." PasswordUsername (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "consensus version" agreed to at the end of August 2008 didn't have any references to Marx's remark: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Karl_Marx&oldid=235477337. That was added in afterwards...

Has your position on consensus changed after you had your edit inserted? PasswordUsername (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Individualist anarchism and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduen (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 May 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/individualist anarchism, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages: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, Eduen (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a kind of provocation. Be cautios with this new user. Have a good day. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You know which are the templates of "original source" or "essay" for these two articles of Eduen: Anarchist naturism and Individualist anarchism in Europe. I don't trust in the consistence of content with the refferences, and even I'm dubious of relevance of the issues. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For dropping in on Fascism where you have been instantly reverted, it would appear :(. Collect (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And aspersions are being gleefully cast -- you might well wish to look in again. Collect (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Hi Vision Thing.

I'd like it if you felt you were able to discuss the changes you would like to see made on the Fascism page in talk, rather than repeatedly deleting properly sourced material which has the support of other editors, without discussion. As I have indicated a few days ago, I think the minor objections you have raised about the paragraph are potentially resolvable, but they are not justification for deleting the whole thing, particularly if it is in favour of material that is badly sourced.

Many thanks. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Breaking WP:BLP

VT, you have twice reintroduced misleading, improperly sourced, critical comments into a biography of a living person, once after I have warned you to be careful about doing so. You are breaking Misplaced Pages policy. Please stop. I have added a sourced statement about Paul Krugman's actual position on the housing bubble in 2002. In the future, please research your subject before adding critical comments into biographies of living persons. LK (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware that a 1RR restriction has been placed on Fascism. You may make only one revert in a given 24 hour period; it is not punishment but is intended to force discussion and hopefully consensus. I have also posted the restriction at WP:AN#Fascism 1RR limit.. KrakatoaKatie 04:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Krugman

You need to use the talk page prior to reverting working. Scribner (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Because I have no objection to the content of Four Deuces' edit. And also because he made it after that wording had been under discussion for about two weeks, with most editors supporting it. I'm sure we can get there without edit-warring, but only if no-one reaches for their pistols too quickly. --FormerIP (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, okay if that's what you want. --FormerIP (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Krugman

Article tagged POV for your changes, use the talk page. Scribner (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Left-right politics reversions

Hi! I noticed you and Rick Norwood have been reverting each other's work on Left-right politics. Why don't you two discuss your differences on the talk page? PStrait (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Before I noticed the reversions, I added a section in the chart on the article about how the right and the left both oppose science in their own way -- the left is hostile to genetically modified food and nuclear power (and on the extreme fringe, things like vaccines). The (Christian) right is hostile to orthodox beliefs regarding climate change and humanity's role in causing it, the teaching of evolution, scientific treatment of the Bible (i.e., historical and textual criticism), stem cell research, human cloning, etc.

As for the question of original research, it seems to me like both parties could be satisfied if you quote from some source that draws a general conclusion about the views of the Right or the Left regarding science, rather than by establishing this inductively (i.e., by presenting many examples of people on the right or the left attacking or supporting science). PStrait (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are correct re: your comment that no referenced sources draw conclusions about the relationship each side of the political spectrum has with science. For example, see Levin, Yuval. Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy. Encounter Books, October 2008. I think it is not terribly controversial to identify a few trends: there is a certain Luddite element in the Left that opposes biotechnology and nuclear power, just as there is a certain traditionalist element in the Right that opposes stem cell research, the teaching of evolution, etc. But I welcome opposing viewpoints -- I just think the debate needs to be centered on what the sources actually say... PStrait (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fascism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. (As explained to you about this article is subject to WP:1RR.) The Four Deuces (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)