Misplaced Pages

User talk:Operation Spooner: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:24, 29 August 2007 editArcayne (talk | contribs)Rollbackers26,574 edits →Reagan, revisited: cm← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:07, 19 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(143 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Reagan==
A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be ] from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please ].
Please see the ] and read my comments there . I am willing to ''compromise'' with you. ] 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:Hi Spooner. As you know, myself, the other main editors, and you compromised on the lead. We decided that a generalization of what Reagan advocated is best for the lead; expansion of his advocations should go in the article. Let me show you how we have generalized his advocations and taken care of deregulation and taxation:


::"Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats, advocating less government regulation of the economy, although it is debated as to what extent this and other goals were achieved while in office. His economic policies, similar to those of supply-side economics, were dubbed "Reaganomics" and included substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981. After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering contoversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984."
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on ] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.


:Therefore, your edits are not needed, for your edits say he wanted "lower taxation" - already described in the lead, so why say it twice? Also, please discuss any changes you want to make to the lead on the talk page. Thanks, ] 02:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria ], ], ], or ]. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.<!-- Template:Nn-warn --> ] 04:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


::First of all, I'm willing to compromise but not to the point of doing a disservice to the reader. Wanting drastically lower income taxes, and a reduction in the size of the welfare state are equally important as to what he advocated. The way you have it above looks like deregulation is the only, or main, thing he advocated. That's a disservice to the reader. ] 03:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
* There is absolutely no sources in this article or any reason to believe the person in question exists as your word is simply not good enough to prove this person even exists or if they are notable. Unless some can be provided the article will be deleted according to Misplaced Pages policy. ] 04:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
:::That's your opinion. Those readers seeking more information can follow the links to the many other articles that go into deeper detail about his politics,e tc. The article ''is'' goping to be about the man. I strongly suggest you step carefully. - ] ] 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
::::"I strongly suggest you step carefully." Is that another veiled threat from you? A man IS his philosophy. A person's philosophy is the motivation behind everything that one does. If the article is about the man then it must be about his philosophy, including his economic philosophy. ] 06:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
::Um, okay whatever. If I were to ever threaten you, youwould most certainly know it. Please learn the difference between that and strong warnings. As for a man and his philosophy, that is ''your'' opinion. Please keep your opinions out of the article, okay, sport? - ] ] 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
:::A strong warning for what? What are you going to do to me if I make edits that you don't like? ] 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Spooner, I made some edits to your user page that you may like. Please take a look. The psychology section is not helpful unless you are actually a licensed psychologist. If you need any more help, please do not hesitate to ask. I would suggest keeping your comments about ownership of articles directed towards that end, rather than at specific editors. Happy editing! &mdash;] | ] 00:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes thanks. That's a good idea to name each strategy. I'll probably change a few of the names though. I wasn't direct my observations at any specific editors. About psychology, I don't think one needs a doctor's license to write I wrote. But thanks for defending my userpage from Arcayne. He's been harrassing me. ] 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


== hello == ==RJII==


Welcome back. --] 20:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
hello! welcome to wikipedia and all that :) just noticed your comments on ] - if you want to sign your name, you can write <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> insted of typing it out every time :) -- ]''']''' 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks..was wondering about that. ] 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC) :Thanks. ] 22:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
::What is the above IP talking about? <span style="font-family:Broadway;">]'']''</span> 22:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Not sure. ] 22:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


==Left-libertarianism==
== Re:'']'' ==


We've got the Rothbard types, and we've got the Vallentyne types. The two don't have much in common. I think the article should reflect that. Thus opening section shouldn't make blanket statements about left-libertarians. Does this sound right to you? ] 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You are ultimately correct in removing the contested material, but practically the entire article is unsourced and your rationale is highly questionable. ] is a fringe offshoot of ]; for example, the ] is the third biggest political party in the U.S., with . In American circles, ] refers not to an oblique strain of anarchism, but to the popular political philosophy. You yourself implicitly conceded this was true by pointing out that an ] would not criticize any form of anarchism. Ipso facto, he must not have been talking about anarcho-capitalism. It's not rocket science hombre. <font color="404040">]</font> <sup>'']''</sup> 18:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


:The problem is when anarchists read an anarchism-related article they tend to take "capitalist libertarianism" to mean anarcho-capitalism. It's not clear what is meant. Here's a reference: "Right-wing anarchism, is a branch of a modern political theory sometimes called libertarian capitalism. Capitalist libertarians usually want a minimal state, but a few are anarchists and want no state at all." - Teichman, Jenny. 1999. Philosophy: A Beginner's Guide. Blacwell Publishing. p. 108 ] 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC) :I think left libertarian has a pretty standard definition, which is the one that's referenced in there now and can be found in multiple sources. Konkin (agorism) has an idiosyncratic use of the term. Nobody refers to agorism as left libertarian except agorists. In the interview with Konkin he even mentions in a question about it that one of the reasons he calls it left was to make it marketable to the New Left. ] 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


It's standard in academic political philosophy. That's why academic political philosophy books say that. The agorist definition is standard among the US libertarian political movement. Look up ] in an academic political theory reference book. I don't think it'll be there. It's still noteable enough to have its own article. You have a personal opinion that the Konkin/Long/neo-Tuckerite thing is phony; that's fine. But can we just have two nice little spaces in the article for each thing and leave it at that? ] 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::Granted, but this is not ] and we are not writing for anarchists, but for the general public. Your reference seems to validate my claim that capitalist libertarians are minarchists. Would you be opposed to restoring the phrase you removed and using this reference to clarify what is meant? That way the article is more informative, avoids contradiction (a without adjectives vs. ancap), is is supported by references. <font color="404040">]</font> <sup>'']''</sup> 18:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:It's not standard in the US libertarian political movement at all. It's very non-standard. Virtually no US libertarians consider themselves to be on the Left. Where are you getting this idea? ] 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::The source says most capitalist libertarians are minarchists but some an anarchists, otherwise known as anarcho-capitalists. I personally took "capitalist libertarianism" to mean anarcho-capitalism when I was reading that article. I can't be the only one. If you look at the discussions in the Fred Woodworth article I think that the person who wrote that into the Match article was talking about anarcho-capitalism as well. I don't trust that it's the newspaper is critical of even libertarian minarchism. I'm sure as an anarchist, Woodworth opposes minarchism, but whose to say without a source that the Match had articles written in opposition to libertarian minarchism rather than just ignored it? I don't want to risk putting out misinformation. I think this is why referencing is important. ] 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


We have two options here:
:::I agree, there seems to be reasonable doubt. I concede the point. <font color="404040">]</font> <sup>'']''</sup> 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
* Keep your version of the introduction. Excise all mention of the neo-mutualists and left-Rothbardians.
* Keep my version of the introduction. Leave the sections on the above groups in there.
Using your version of the introduction and keeping that section doesn't make any sense. Which would you prefer to do? ] 22:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


:I disagree with both of those alternatives. I suggest using the mainstream definition for the introduction, then going on to say late in the introduction that there are a few individuals that define it in another way, and then mention that Konkin chose to call his doctrines left libertarianism for the reasons he explain in his interview. This definition he uses is heterodox, so it really shouldn't be highlighted too much. That philosophy, including all anarcho-capitalism, would be considered right libertarianism by virtually all scholars. There are no secondary sources that call it left libertarianism. I think the main thing is to not put anything in that's not referenced. ] 23:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:Concnerning anarchists without adjectives, I have seen people argue that anarchism without adjectives necessarily opposes anarcho-capitalism for the reason the say that anarchism by definition is anti-capitalist. ] 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


:I don't think there's any such thing as a "left-Rothbardian." Are you aware of any writer that calls himself a left-Rothbardian? ] 23:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::I realise this, but let's take our cue from Woodworth here - "I have no prefix or adjective for my anarchism. I think syndicalism can work, as can free-market ], ], even anarcho-hermits, depending on the situation."
::I know that Kevin Carson uses the term, but it I believe it's a neologism he came up with that he hoped would catch on. I don't think it has any real meaning. A Rothbardian is a Rothbardian.
] 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


So in practical terms, if we were to reverse the order of the sections in both the introduction and the body, you'd be fine with it? ] 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
::From an essay by Fred Woodworth in {{cite book | last = Avrich | first = Paul | title = Anarchist Voices | publisher = AK Press |page = 475 | location = Stirling | year = 2006 | isbn = 1904859275 }}
:That, and to stop this claim of "academic" left libertarianism. There is no such understanding that there is a seperate "academic" left libertarianism. There is left libertarianism, and then there is an obscure philosopy that has no secondary references that calls itself left libertarian for idiosyncratic reasons. ] 00:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


::I believe in previous versions of the article, the title of that section was "Left-libertarianism in political philosophy". If it were changed back to something like that and moved to the top, would that be satisfactory? ] 01:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
== Ronald Reagan ==


::I did this in my latest revision. I hope this can avoid an ongoing revert cycle. ] 01:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. First off let me say that I am wwith you, not against you. Reagan should be prtrayed in a truthful light, but because this is Misplaced Pages we have to abide by Wiki's rules. Let me go through what you recently added:


Okay, now that the disputed general definition has been removed, does the article look broadly workable to you? ] 12:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"He was an advocate of economic liberty, advocated enterpreneurship, opposed redistributive economic policies in favor of private charity, and believed that people should be allowed to keep most of what they earned.<ref>Kubarych, Roger M. June 9, 2004. The Reagan Economic Legacy. Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/publication/7092/reagan_economic_legacy.html</ref>"


:It's much better, thanks, but I think needs a few minor changes in the introduction. Let me see what I can do. ]
Believe it or not, the left-wingers will demand that what you originally had (I shortened it slightly) be removed because it was POV. I am already engaged in a fiere FAC battle with two users and trying to make the article sound more netural. Like I said in my edit summary, we have had long, engaging discussions about the lead in the past. For the good of the article, '''please do not change the lead.''' Make edits anywhere else, but you addition about his philosphy belongs in the philosophy section. Maybe move the philosophy section...


You seem to have a personal POV that Kevin Carson, Roderick Long, the Movement of the Libertarian Left, SEK3, Charles Johnson, Chris Sciabarra and everyone else who calls themselves left-libertarian but does not conform to the definition found in your college textbook has no legitimate right to the title. Your edits to the introduction have consistently pushed that POV. If we can't agree on neutral wording I'm seriously considering taking this to arbitration. ] 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, I am supporting you efforts to help the article, but it's been through some rought times and please just trust me on this one. Get back to me on my talk page if you disagree. Best, ] 23:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:Take to arbitration or whatever. Do what you have to do. ] 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
:Again, I'm a friendly guy; I'm with you, not against you and getting mad at me isn't going to solve anything. It doesn't belong in the lead because:
:*I know from experience that it will not pass in an FAC (I've nominated it 6 times; all have failed)
:*Length is an issue in the lead
:*People want to know about his life in the lead; in the article, you can have a sentence like that because it deals with his philosophy.
:*You added something about the sharp decline of income tax rates, something that is covered ''at length'' in the "Reaganomics" section. It will not pass an FAC like that because other users will feel that you are giving the good and not the bad so then you will have to extend it again and make it say about the negative effects of Reaganomics. That's why we had to add about the Iran-Contra affair in the lead.
:*Per ], the lead should be an outline of the article and should try to mention something from each one of the sections/subsections ''in breivity.'' That sentence was not breif so it belongs in one of the sections/subsections.
:There I have outlined five (5) reasons why it doesn;t belong in the lead nd why the lead should stay as it was. Again, I respect you and I want your input (like you provided), but it was just in the wrong place. I'll ask for a third opinion. Best, ] 23:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


== Anarchist schools of thought ==
::First of all I'm not mad at you in slightest. I just think you're caving in to false claims of POV. Yes, people want to know about his life in the lead. Advocating laissez-faire was a huge aspect of his life. It's the vision he devoted himself to trying to further (though he wasn't entirely successful). I don't see why you say that I'm "giving the good and not the bad." It's just straightforward facts. That is what he advocated. If you're a conservative you think it's good. If you're a left-winger you think it's bad. How can it be denied that what he advocated is bad in the eyes of the left? ] 23:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Yo, there's a discussion underway at ] on what the article should be called. People seem to be happy with "schools of thought" but since you opposed that name in the ] article, I thought you might want to weigh in. Regards, ] <sup>]</sup> 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Well I put in for a third opinion. But they're going to call POV. I've been through 6 FACs and they've called POV on all of them. Tell you what: We can compromise. I'll work the page a little bit more and see what you think, ok? Give me 5 or 10 minutes then look. ] 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:P.S. Don't know if you've come across ], but it contains lots of juicy sources you might be interested in. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
::Nice. Thanks. ] 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


== Administrators' discussion of your user page ==
::::See what you think now. I worked with it a bit and tried to keep the gist of your idea. Why don't you add the full thing with the advocation of entrepreneurship and all that into the Beliefs and philosophy section? If you like it, I'll tell the third opinion guy not to bother. ] 23:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


{| class="notice" style="margin:0.5em auto;"
:::::My mistake - the welfare state opposition is fine to include. I think the section looks good now; nice woring with you! Best, ] 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding {{{reason|an issue that you may be involved with}}}. {{#if:{{{1|}}}|The discussion can be found under the topic ].}} You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the ] and "]" policies. Thank you.
:::::P.S. - would you consider supporting the article in the FAC? ] 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
|}<!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] 09:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


== Reagan Image ==
::::::Sure, I don't have that much of a problem with it as long as this is included. I'll have one last look at it. What bothers me in some accounts of Reagan is his economic philosophy is ignored. He wasn't just about preaching optimism and hating communism. That ignored the whole other side of him. He advocated laissez-faire capitalism. He was the opposite of FDR. Compare the two inauguration speeches. FDR blames capitalists and preaches more government. Reagan blames government and preaches more capitalism. This does need to be developed more. His advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism ought not to obscured, though some would like it to be. I don't see any reason to give in to the attempt to censor it. I don't even see the point of it having Featured Article Status if this is not explained. ] 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Hey Spooner. It's a great image you added to ], but not completely correctly licensed. Per Wiki policy, all fair use images must have a detailed fair use rationale for it to be legally used on Misplaced Pages. Plus, I'm still not sure if fair use images can be used on FA's; there were two under "Post-presidential years" and they were removed once the article hit FA. Anyway, the pic can't be used until then. Thanks for understanding; contact me if you need help. ] 04:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
==Reagan, revisited==
==Orphaned non-free media (Image:ReaganSocializedMedicineAlbum.jpg)==
: I've reverted your partisan edits, once again, I am beginning to find AGF harder to apply to your edits, specifically when you have pointedly ignored the requests of at least three different editors to discuss your edits on the Discussion page., As it stands, you ar at your revert limit for the day. s much as I would hate to do so, I will report you if you revert even the slightest bit again.
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, it is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).
: You are going to learn how to work within a community, or you are swiftly going to find yourself ostracized from that community and likely expelled from it as well. It doesn't matter what version was there before the FAC review, as concensus can occur at any time. Evryt time you revert the article, it risks de-listing the article as unstable. I must insist that you discuss your reasoning and seek a new consensus on the article Discussion page. I know you haven't been at this all that long, but the intelligence I sense in your edits will not help you if you ignore any opinion that differs from yours. - ] ] 02:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::You were warned about violating 3RR. Stand by for the block, okey-doke? :) - ] ] 03:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Orphaned --> ] 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::Wow. You're really worked up. It's just Misplaced Pages. Relax. ] 04:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


== Ron Paul 1996 campaign controversy ==
::I'll just wait for the appropriate time to revert then. No worries. ]


Thank you for your help improving the Ron Paul article. I would greatly appreciate your opinion as to the recent edits made by Vidor and Terjen under "1996 campaign controversy". I am unable to characterize them neutrally right now and, if formal WP complaint procedures are applicable, I would rather not be the one to initiate them unless I am sure I have the right forum. For now your immediate comments and helpful edits would be highly valuable. Disclosure: I am sending this message to exactly 5 editors. ] 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
No, seek to change our minds. Try to tell us how your edit is a better Lead than what was substituted. As for your above post, are you suggesting that you intend to revert any edit that isn't your own? - ] ] 04:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

:I don't care whether you change your mind. This is how Misplaced Pages works. Someone puts something in, someone takes it out, someone changes this, someone changes that, and so on. I'm fine with you deleting what I put in because I can simply put it back. ] 05:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
== Invite to the Anarchism Task Force ==
:Please see ]. In particular, pat close attention to the flow chart presented there. You are not seeking a new consensus; you ar trying to enforce one that no longer exists. The present edit ''reflects the body of the article'', whereas yours attempts to cram as much of the Republican political platform as you can into it. In view of that, what makes you better than the ultra-liberal who comes to the page and (incorrectly) accuses Reagan of being a warmongerer, etc. Please, set aside your clearly strong political views, put ont he Neutrality hat and take a better look a tthe edits. Just becvause you didn't violate 3RR this time doesn't mean you cannot get blocked for edit-warring over the same point day in day out. Try to convince us that your edit is better than the one in place. Otherwise, you are just going to be frustrated and disappointed. I am not your political enemy here (although your behavior is starting to be a bit annoying); I am aiming to make the article better, not more political. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, you are certainly proving that they may be. - ] ] 05:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yo Spooner, if you're still actively editing, ], ], myself and a few others have started an ] to collaborate on anarchism-related articles; get a few up to ], create needed articles a la ], save worthy articles from deletion, and hopefully to have it serve as a central point to discuss what to do with all the splits from ] over the years, to keep the clusterfuck of pov-warring in check, and to keep ] free from all the usual meta-argumentation. We could use your particular pov to balance out the others! Look forward to seeing you around, regards, ] <sup>]</sup> 00:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

== Market anarchism ==

Yo Spooner, great work on rescuing that mess of a ] article. The info on Julius Faucher is especially interesting; I had always had the notion that Molinari was the first to advocate the private production of security. ] 21:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks, yeah there seemed to be a lack of focus on the essence of market anarchism (as defined by the sources). ] (]) 21:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yo, I'm wondering if it would be a better idea to rename {{cl|Free-market anarchists}} to {{cl|Market anarchists}} - firstly "free-market anarchism" seems a neologism, and a lesser used term; secondly, while "free market" is a distinct concept from "market" (in that the latter could be in a statist context), the "free" in "free market anarchism" is redundant - a market anarchy could not be anarchy if the market was anything less than free, correct? What are your thoughts? ] 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:I'm think "free-market anarchism" was the original term. The newer term "market anarchism" is shorthand. If you search with google for "market anarchism" and subtract "free-market anarchism" (to make sure the occurances of "market anarchism" that are found are not actually the portion of "free-market anarchism") and subtract mention of "Misplaced Pages" you get 1600 hits. If you search for "free-market anarchism" you get 6880 hits. I don't know if I explained that well. See what I'm saying? ] (]) 04:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:If what I'm saying is correct, then the article name should probably be changed too. ] (]) 04:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:Let me know if you are getting the same results. ] (]) 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:A market is not necessarily free, by the way. An unfree market is called a "controlled market." For instance, the government orders production of a particular commodity. Then it trades in a market. It's a market but not a free market because the government is regulating supply. In terms of anarchy, if it was a communist anarchy, if the collective ordered an individual to produce more than he wanted to produce ("from each according to his ability"), then sold the commodity on the market to another commune it would not be a free market. ] (]) 05:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

== Proudhon/Bastiat ==

The , in translation. Finally. Enjoy. ] (]) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

== Ownership strategies ==

Hey, I just came across your ownership strategies and I ''love'' them. Would you mind if I blatantly plagiarized them and used them on my page (modified, but effectively the same)? With credit of course! ] (]) 14:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

: Sorry to bother you again, but since you didn't respond in the negative, I took your silence as an affirmative. I hope you don't mind! :-) ] (]) 00:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

::Sorry, I forgot. I'd rather you just provide a link to it. Thanks. ] (]) 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

::: I'll certainly remove the text from my page if that's what you want, but have you taken a look at it yet? You'll find that I've edited your original quite heavily, and expanded each of the tactics. I tried to personalize them, so as to not be ripping you off too blatantly. I've also changed the tone to read more like an editor's guide. If you have read it and still object, I'll remove it ASAP, with apologies, and no offense intended. :-) ] (]) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Have you been keeping up with the changes going on in this article? We are in need of a serious discussion about the future of the article, because one editor has made a large number of sweeping changes in the last 24 hours, and I have been almost alone in telling him to knock it off. Carol Moore is now involved, and I have stepped back because of 3RR concerns. Can you take a look and tell me what you think? Thanks. ---<span style="font-family:Celtic;">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

== ] & ] merge? ==

What is the status of this debate/discussion? It seems to have been going on for quite some time but with no conclusion having been reached. Where do you stand on the matter? I am ambivalent, to be honest. My main concern at this point are the wide-ranging changes being made by ], who has merged content from ] into the ] article without consent, in addition to changing the merge template in a manner that makes no sense. We need to establish consensus and get this matter settled before one or both articles ends up mangled. What are your thoughts on the matter? ---<span style="font-family:Celtic;">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

:Hello. I've been gone for awhile. I see that someone moved "market anarchism" to "free-market anarchismm." I think "free-market anarchism" is best. Not only does it come up the most in searches, but it's more encyclopedic. Reference works nearly always call it "free-market anarchism." "Market anarchism" is just informal shorthand or neologism that some people on the internet are using. On the other issue, I don't oppose just redirecting "free-market anarchism" to "anarcho-capitalism," because it's pretty rare that "free-market anarchism" is ever used to refer to anything to anarcho-capitalism. So far only one source has been found that refers to Tucker as a free-market anarchist. But I don't oppose it being it's own article either. ] (]) 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

== Capitalism lead ==

Lo there,

I'm happy with the changes over at capitalism relatively, I think the ] article is actually awful, but that's a discussion for a different day, but I treasure stability for the lead over agreeing with it (as an advocate of the theory of ] I'm never going to be happy with the current formulation, but hey...) Cheers for good work.--] (]) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

:State capitalism is not what is referred to by the term "capitalism." That's a much different concept. ] (]) 15:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry, wasn't trying to spark argument (but, by way of passing, (adjective) capitalism is still capitalism...so I'd be happier if the lead reflected that, but I realise my view is heterodox and so prefer to try and keep it as near as I can get to being right whilst keeping it stable.)--] (]) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Why don't you just put something about state capitalism in there then? ] (]) 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I tried, it led to the edit war to end all edit wars, so accept my place :)--] (]) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

== Some matters for your attention ==

Yo Spooner, in light of all the disputes over referencing claims in anarchism-related articles, as well as other concerns, the ] has started a reliable source guideline at ]. Your interest in, and experience of, referencing anarchism-related content to reliable sources would be most appreciated in developing the guideline.

Secondly, on the matter of market anarchism vs. free-market anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism, I think we've been talking past each other. I propose two articles; one specifically on the anarchist capitalism of Friedman, Rothbard et al., and another, a split of ], on the full range of market-friendly forms of anarchism. The naming and terminology is a secondary issue, but how do you feel about this idea generally?

Thirdly, I'm hoping to bring our ] article up to Good and Featured status in the next month or two. As you are one of the main contributors, and the major immediate problem with the article is the improperly-formatted (e.g. non-{{tl|cite journal}}/{{tl|cite web}} etc.) references, a ''forte'' of yours, I would really appreciate your help with this.

Finally, ] seems to be going around accusing you of being a sockpuppet of a banned user (see their ]). Just thought you might like to now.

That's all from me for now, hope to hear from you soon. ] 12:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

== TfD nomination of libertarianism template ==

I invite you to share your opinion about the . I am doing this since there appears to lack a broad range of libertarians reaching a consensus. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 20:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

==]==
] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the ]. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ]. --] (]) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

== Agorism sidebar ==


I invite you to share your opinion about the nomination for deletion of the ] and ]. I am doing this since there appears to lack a broad range of libertarians reaching a consensus. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

== Plagiarism/copyright violation issue ==

This edit of yours carries verbatim wording from the source, without quotation marks and without making it clear in any other way that it's a quotation. ] (]) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

== ] nomination of ] ==
]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]").

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 ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).

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

'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

== RfD: Libertarian anarchism ==

== Libertarian anarchism listed at ] ==
]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Libertarian anarchism'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] (if you have not already done so). <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> -- ] (] | ]) 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692057745 -->

Latest revision as of 15:07, 19 February 2023

Reagan

Please see the Ronald Reagan talk page and read my comments there . I am willing to compromise with you. Happyme22 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Spooner. As you know, myself, the other main editors, and you compromised on the lead. We decided that a generalization of what Reagan advocated is best for the lead; expansion of his advocations should go in the article. Let me show you how we have generalized his advocations and taken care of deregulation and taxation:
"Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats, advocating less government regulation of the economy, although it is debated as to what extent this and other goals were achieved while in office. His economic policies, similar to those of supply-side economics, were dubbed "Reaganomics" and included substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981. After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering contoversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984."
Therefore, your edits are not needed, for your edits say he wanted "lower taxation" - already described in the lead, so why say it twice? Also, please discuss any changes you want to make to the lead on the talk page. Thanks, Happyme22 02:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm willing to compromise but not to the point of doing a disservice to the reader. Wanting drastically lower income taxes, and a reduction in the size of the welfare state are equally important as to what he advocated. The way you have it above looks like deregulation is the only, or main, thing he advocated. That's a disservice to the reader. Operation Spooner 03:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Those readers seeking more information can follow the links to the many other articles that go into deeper detail about his politics,e tc. The article is goping to be about the man. I strongly suggest you step carefully. - Arcayne () 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
"I strongly suggest you step carefully." Is that another veiled threat from you? A man IS his philosophy. A person's philosophy is the motivation behind everything that one does. If the article is about the man then it must be about his philosophy, including his economic philosophy. Operation Spooner 06:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Um, okay whatever. If I were to ever threaten you, youwould most certainly know it. Please learn the difference between that and strong warnings. As for a man and his philosophy, that is your opinion. Please keep your opinions out of the article, okay, sport? - Arcayne () 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
A strong warning for what? What are you going to do to me if I make edits that you don't like? Operation Spooner 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Spooner, I made some edits to your user page that you may like. Please take a look. The psychology section is not helpful unless you are actually a licensed psychologist. If you need any more help, please do not hesitate to ask. I would suggest keeping your comments about ownership of articles directed towards that end, rather than at specific editors. Happy editing! —Viriditas | Talk 00:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes thanks. That's a good idea to name each strategy. I'll probably change a few of the names though. I wasn't direct my observations at any specific editors. About psychology, I don't think one needs a doctor's license to write I wrote. But thanks for defending my userpage from Arcayne. He's been harrassing me. Operation Spooner 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RJII

Welcome back. --71.235.80.123 20:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Operation Spooner 22:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the above IP talking about? Mr.Z-man 22:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure. Operation Spooner 22:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Left-libertarianism

We've got the Rothbard types, and we've got the Vallentyne types. The two don't have much in common. I think the article should reflect that. Thus opening section shouldn't make blanket statements about left-libertarians. Does this sound right to you? Bacchiad 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think left libertarian has a pretty standard definition, which is the one that's referenced in there now and can be found in multiple sources. Konkin (agorism) has an idiosyncratic use of the term. Nobody refers to agorism as left libertarian except agorists. In the interview with Konkin he even mentions in a question about it that one of the reasons he calls it left was to make it marketable to the New Left. Operation Spooner 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's standard in academic political philosophy. That's why academic political philosophy books say that. The agorist definition is standard among the US libertarian political movement. Look up paleolibertarianism in an academic political theory reference book. I don't think it'll be there. It's still noteable enough to have its own article. You have a personal opinion that the Konkin/Long/neo-Tuckerite thing is phony; that's fine. But can we just have two nice little spaces in the article for each thing and leave it at that? Bacchiad 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not standard in the US libertarian political movement at all. It's very non-standard. Virtually no US libertarians consider themselves to be on the Left. Where are you getting this idea? Operation Spooner 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We have two options here:

  • Keep your version of the introduction. Excise all mention of the neo-mutualists and left-Rothbardians.
  • Keep my version of the introduction. Leave the sections on the above groups in there.

Using your version of the introduction and keeping that section doesn't make any sense. Which would you prefer to do? Bacchiad 22:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with both of those alternatives. I suggest using the mainstream definition for the introduction, then going on to say late in the introduction that there are a few individuals that define it in another way, and then mention that Konkin chose to call his doctrines left libertarianism for the reasons he explain in his interview. This definition he uses is heterodox, so it really shouldn't be highlighted too much. That philosophy, including all anarcho-capitalism, would be considered right libertarianism by virtually all scholars. There are no secondary sources that call it left libertarianism. I think the main thing is to not put anything in that's not referenced. Operation Spooner 23:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any such thing as a "left-Rothbardian." Are you aware of any writer that calls himself a left-Rothbardian? Operation Spooner 23:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that Kevin Carson uses the term, but it I believe it's a neologism he came up with that he hoped would catch on. I don't think it has any real meaning. A Rothbardian is a Rothbardian.

Operation Spooner 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So in practical terms, if we were to reverse the order of the sections in both the introduction and the body, you'd be fine with it? Bacchiad 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That, and to stop this claim of "academic" left libertarianism. There is no such understanding that there is a seperate "academic" left libertarianism. There is left libertarianism, and then there is an obscure philosopy that has no secondary references that calls itself left libertarian for idiosyncratic reasons. Operation Spooner 00:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe in previous versions of the article, the title of that section was "Left-libertarianism in political philosophy". If it were changed back to something like that and moved to the top, would that be satisfactory? Bacchiad 01:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I did this in my latest revision. I hope this can avoid an ongoing revert cycle. Bacchiad 01:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that the disputed general definition has been removed, does the article look broadly workable to you? Bacchiad 12:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's much better, thanks, but I think needs a few minor changes in the introduction. Let me see what I can do. Operation Spooner

You seem to have a personal POV that Kevin Carson, Roderick Long, the Movement of the Libertarian Left, SEK3, Charles Johnson, Chris Sciabarra and everyone else who calls themselves left-libertarian but does not conform to the definition found in your college textbook has no legitimate right to the title. Your edits to the introduction have consistently pushed that POV. If we can't agree on neutral wording I'm seriously considering taking this to arbitration. Bacchiad 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Take to arbitration or whatever. Do what you have to do. Operation Spooner 17:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist schools of thought

Yo, there's a discussion underway at Talk:Anarchist political theory on what the article should be called. People seem to be happy with "schools of thought" but since you opposed that name in the Anarchism article, I thought you might want to weigh in. Regards, Skomorokh 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Don't know if you've come across this, but it contains lots of juicy sources you might be interested in. Skomorokh 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice. Thanks. Operation Spooner 02:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrators' discussion of your user page

Hello Operation Spooner. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

Sam Blacketer 09:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Image

Hey Spooner. It's a great image you added to Ronald Reagan, but not completely correctly licensed. Per Wiki policy, all fair use images must have a detailed fair use rationale for it to be legally used on Misplaced Pages. Plus, I'm still not sure if fair use images can be used on FA's; there were two under "Post-presidential years" and they were removed once the article hit FA. Anyway, the pic can't be used until then. Thanks for understanding; contact me if you need help. Happyme22 04:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ReaganSocializedMedicineAlbum.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ReaganSocializedMedicineAlbum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul 1996 campaign controversy

Thank you for your help improving the Ron Paul article. I would greatly appreciate your opinion as to the recent edits made by Vidor and Terjen under "1996 campaign controversy". I am unable to characterize them neutrally right now and, if formal WP complaint procedures are applicable, I would rather not be the one to initiate them unless I am sure I have the right forum. For now your immediate comments and helpful edits would be highly valuable. Disclosure: I am sending this message to exactly 5 editors. John J. Bulten 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Invite to the Anarchism Task Force

Yo Spooner, if you're still actively editing, Cast, Murderbike, myself and a few others have started an Anarchism taskforce to collaborate on anarchism-related articles; get a few up to GA status, create needed articles a la Dyer Lum, save worthy articles from deletion, and hopefully to have it serve as a central point to discuss what to do with all the splits from Anarchism over the years, to keep the clusterfuck of pov-warring in check, and to keep Talk:Anarchism free from all the usual meta-argumentation. We could use your particular pov to balance out the others! Look forward to seeing you around, regards, Skomorokh 00:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Market anarchism

Yo Spooner, great work on rescuing that mess of a market anarchism article. The info on Julius Faucher is especially interesting; I had always had the notion that Molinari was the first to advocate the private production of security. скоморохъ 21:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah there seemed to be a lack of focus on the essence of market anarchism (as defined by the sources). Operation Spooner (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yo, I'm wondering if it would be a better idea to rename Category:Free-market anarchists to Category:Market anarchists - firstly "free-market anarchism" seems a neologism, and a lesser used term; secondly, while "free market" is a distinct concept from "market" (in that the latter could be in a statist context), the "free" in "free market anarchism" is redundant - a market anarchy could not be anarchy if the market was anything less than free, correct? What are your thoughts? скоморохъ 04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm think "free-market anarchism" was the original term. The newer term "market anarchism" is shorthand. If you search with google for "market anarchism" and subtract "free-market anarchism" (to make sure the occurances of "market anarchism" that are found are not actually the portion of "free-market anarchism") and subtract mention of "Misplaced Pages" you get 1600 hits. If you search for "free-market anarchism" you get 6880 hits. I don't know if I explained that well. See what I'm saying? Operation Spooner (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If what I'm saying is correct, then the article name should probably be changed too. Operation Spooner (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if you are getting the same results. Operation Spooner (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
A market is not necessarily free, by the way. An unfree market is called a "controlled market." For instance, the government orders production of a particular commodity. Then it trades in a market. It's a market but not a free market because the government is regulating supply. In terms of anarchy, if it was a communist anarchy, if the collective ordered an individual to produce more than he wanted to produce ("from each according to his ability"), then sold the commodity on the market to another commune it would not be a free market. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proudhon/Bastiat

The debate, in translation. Finally. Enjoy. Libertatia (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ownership strategies

Hey, I just came across your ownership strategies and I love them. Would you mind if I blatantly plagiarized them and used them on my page (modified, but effectively the same)? With credit of course! CreepyCrawly (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but since you didn't respond in the negative, I took your silence as an affirmative. I hope you don't mind! :-) CreepyCrawly (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot. I'd rather you just provide a link to it. Thanks. Operation Spooner (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll certainly remove the text from my page if that's what you want, but have you taken a look at it yet? You'll find that I've edited your original quite heavily, and expanded each of the tactics. I tried to personalize them, so as to not be ripping you off too blatantly. I've also changed the tone to read more like an editor's guide. If you have read it and still object, I'll remove it ASAP, with apologies, and no offense intended. :-) CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Have you been keeping up with the changes going on in this article? We are in need of a serious discussion about the future of the article, because one editor has made a large number of sweeping changes in the last 24 hours, and I have been almost alone in telling him to knock it off. Carol Moore is now involved, and I have stepped back because of 3RR concerns. Can you take a look and tell me what you think? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Free-market anarchism & Anarcho-capitalism merge?

What is the status of this debate/discussion? It seems to have been going on for quite some time but with no conclusion having been reached. Where do you stand on the matter? I am ambivalent, to be honest. My main concern at this point are the wide-ranging changes being made by Singwaste, who has merged content from Anarcho-capitalism into the Free-market anarchism article without consent, in addition to changing the merge template in a manner that makes no sense. We need to establish consensus and get this matter settled before one or both articles ends up mangled. What are your thoughts on the matter? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've been gone for awhile. I see that someone moved "market anarchism" to "free-market anarchismm." I think "free-market anarchism" is best. Not only does it come up the most in searches, but it's more encyclopedic. Reference works nearly always call it "free-market anarchism." "Market anarchism" is just informal shorthand or neologism that some people on the internet are using. On the other issue, I don't oppose just redirecting "free-market anarchism" to "anarcho-capitalism," because it's pretty rare that "free-market anarchism" is ever used to refer to anything to anarcho-capitalism. So far only one source has been found that refers to Tucker as a free-market anarchist. But I don't oppose it being it's own article either. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Capitalism lead

Lo there,

I'm happy with the changes over at capitalism relatively, I think the free market article is actually awful, but that's a discussion for a different day, but I treasure stability for the lead over agreeing with it (as an advocate of the theory of state capitalism I'm never going to be happy with the current formulation, but hey...) Cheers for good work.--Red Deathy (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

State capitalism is not what is referred to by the term "capitalism." That's a much different concept. Operation Spooner (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't trying to spark argument (but, by way of passing, (adjective) capitalism is still capitalism...so I'd be happier if the lead reflected that, but I realise my view is heterodox and so prefer to try and keep it as near as I can get to being right whilst keeping it stable.)--Red Deathy (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just put something about state capitalism in there then? Operation Spooner (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I tried, it led to the edit war to end all edit wars, so accept my place :)--Red Deathy (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Some matters for your attention

Yo Spooner, in light of all the disputes over referencing claims in anarchism-related articles, as well as other concerns, the Anarchism Task Force has started a reliable source guideline at WP:ANCITE. Your interest in, and experience of, referencing anarchism-related content to reliable sources would be most appreciated in developing the guideline.

Secondly, on the matter of market anarchism vs. free-market anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism, I think we've been talking past each other. I propose two articles; one specifically on the anarchist capitalism of Friedman, Rothbard et al., and another, a split of Anarchist schools of thought, on the full range of market-friendly forms of anarchism. The naming and terminology is a secondary issue, but how do you feel about this idea generally?

Thirdly, I'm hoping to bring our individualist anarchism article up to Good and Featured status in the next month or two. As you are one of the main contributors, and the major immediate problem with the article is the improperly-formatted (e.g. non-{{cite journal}}/{{cite web}} etc.) references, a forte of yours, I would really appreciate your help with this.

Finally, User:Radical Mallard seems to be going around accusing you of being a sockpuppet of a banned user (see their contributions). Just thought you might like to now.

That's all from me for now, hope to hear from you soon. Skomorokh 12:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of libertarianism template

I invite you to share your opinion about the nomination for deletion of the Libertarian sidebar. I am doing this since there appears to lack a broad range of libertarians reaching a consensus. Thank you for your time. PublicSquare (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agorism sidebar

I invite you to share your opinion about the nomination for deletion of the Agorism and Agorism sidebar. I am doing this since there appears to lack a broad range of libertarians reaching a consensus. Thank you for your time. 71.175.40.80 (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism/copyright violation issue

This edit of yours carries verbatim wording from the source, without quotation marks and without making it clear in any other way that it's a quotation. Yakushima (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Anti-capitalism

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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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) 01:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RfD: Libertarian anarchism

Libertarian anarchism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Libertarian anarchism. Since you had some involvement with the Libertarian anarchism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)