| Revision as of 08:04, 5 December 2005 editElectionworld (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users46,563 edits Insults← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:27, 5 December 2005 edit undoKDRGibby (talk | contribs)2,454 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| This was the content of ], which was used orginally by this user. | |||
| Please do not replace Misplaced Pages pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Misplaced Pages because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please ] it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been ], please ] it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please ] the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the ] for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages!<!-- Template:Blanking1 (First level warning) --> -- ]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 18:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Again== | ==Again== | ||
| Line 10: | Line 8: | ||
| :Dear Patrick, please read the talk pages of ]. This is not an article about classical liberalism, but about liberalism, which has a broad meaning. The article tries to outline the meaning of the word. You might not like social liberalism, but it is a fact that it a form of liberalism. I protected the page, since you were reverting the page often. You are now vandalizing the page. I will unprotect the page soon, but please stop imposing your view. ] 19:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | :Dear Patrick, please read the talk pages of ]. This is not an article about classical liberalism, but about liberalism, which has a broad meaning. The article tries to outline the meaning of the word. You might not like social liberalism, but it is a fact that it a form of liberalism. I protected the page, since you were reverting the page often. You are now vandalizing the page. I will unprotect the page soon, but please stop imposing your view. ] 19:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *This note is regarding the page ]. Please do not post random comments in places where they don't belong. Thanks. ] 19:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :*If you have comments regarding a specific administrator, you can ask on their talk page, or follow the ] process. -- ]] 20:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 21: | ||
| Dear Gibby, | Dear Gibby, | ||
| Reading your last comments on ], do I have to make my point more clear. A fact is that Hayek argued what he argued. It is also a fact that some institutes will produce evidence for what he argued. At the same time, and that's usual in politics, there will be other scientists and institutes that will prove the opposite. I didn't delete Hayeks argument, just deleted the paragraphs saying that he is right. I am not saying Keynes or Beveridge were right, but their argument should be in. Your are the one deleting the description of Social liberalism in the section of forms of liberalism. I am not making the article on ], I am just one of the contributors, and was attacked some months ago as being to economic liberal. So what the heck. My own position in this debate is not so relevant, but I am supporting most of the Dutch government policies in its reform agenda. I am not an American liberal, not a Keynesian, but am a supporter of the free market in most areas. But some areas are government responsibilities. Even the economic liberal party in the Netherlands (VVD), wants forms of regulation, eg. in the new health care system, guaranteeing that every citizen can afford a healt insurance. For me liberalism is about more than economics. It is also about rule of law, liberal democracy, individual liberty for all, respect for each others opinion. One can have a free market without political freedom (see Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship). You say you are a liberal, but you started calling your fellow Wikipedians (me) names, so you placed yourself beyond the range of rational discourse. It doesn't make sense to discuss with you, since you are not open for any vision contrary (or even slightly different) to yours. I hope you treat your students with more respect. I will try not to react to your comments anymore, even when you insult me, but will keep on editing the text, as I did this morning (Dutch time). ] 08:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | Reading your last comments on ], do I have to make my point more clear. A fact is that Hayek argued what he argued. It is also a fact that some institutes will produce evidence for what he argued. At the same time, and that's usual in politics, there will be other scientists and institutes that will prove the opposite. I didn't delete Hayeks argument, just deleted the paragraphs saying that he is right. I am not saying Keynes or Beveridge were right, but their argument should be in. Your are the one deleting the description of Social liberalism in the section of forms of liberalism. I am not making the article on ], I am just one of the contributors, and was attacked some months ago as being to economic liberal. So what the heck. My own position in this debate is not so relevant, but I am supporting most of the Dutch government policies in its reform agenda. I am not an American liberal, not a Keynesian, but am a supporter of the free market in most areas. But some areas are government responsibilities. Even the economic liberal party in the Netherlands (VVD), wants forms of regulation, eg. in the new health care system, guaranteeing that every citizen can afford a healt insurance. For me liberalism is about more than economics. It is also about rule of law, liberal democracy, individual liberty for all, respect for each others opinion. One can have a free market without political freedom (see Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship). You say you are a liberal, but you started calling your fellow Wikipedians (me) names, so you placed yourself beyond the range of rational discourse. It doesn't make sense to discuss with you, since you are not open for any vision contrary (or even slightly different) to yours. I hope you treat your students with more respect. I will try not to react to your comments anymore, even when you insult me, but will keep on editing the text, as I did this morning (Dutch time). ] 08:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | |||
| The way the depression and the totalitarian sections were phrased made the macroeconomic assumptions appear to be correct. Thus you give defacto support for their belief. Which you do in fact believe in. I called you a name because its taken this long just to get you to leave up PART of a segment where I defend liberal interpretations other than the one you support, to NOT GET COMPLETLY DELETED. Then you insult my position by calling it propaganda, thus showing your lack of intelligence. Again, I hate to call names, and I rarely do it. I only save it for the people who disserve it the most! -Gibby | |||
| ------- | |||
Revision as of 16:27, 5 December 2005
Again
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did at Liberalism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. PJM 18:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Please stop making test edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Liberalism. It is considered vandalism, which, under Misplaced Pages policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. PJM 18:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Patrick, please read the talk pages of Liberalism. This is not an article about classical liberalism, but about liberalism, which has a broad meaning. The article tries to outline the meaning of the word. You might not like social liberalism, but it is a fact that it a form of liberalism. I protected the page, since you were reverting the page often. You are now vandalizing the page. I will unprotect the page soon, but please stop imposing your view. Electionworld 19:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
---
Liberalism needs to be completly deleted. Its now about modern liberalism as defined by individuals throughout the world. Not liberailsm the ideology. I complained about this and they finally got rid of the disclaimer that the perverted article was not following. Now the article is about what it once said it would not be, and is now about something it is not. If you follow me. If not, the article on liberalism is really about socialists calling themselves liberals. Aka a bunch of crap! - Gibby
--- Dear Gibby, I suggest you send comments to a libertarian/classic liberal website. WIkipedia is not,. The article on liberalism describes liberalism as it stands now.. I am sorry for you it is not your liberalism. But please do not vandalize my talk page by suggesting I am saying that the Green Party (which Green Party) is a liberal party. I am just a European liberal democrat, triying to develop the article, which gives space to diverse forms of liberalism. Electionworld 21:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Insults
Dear Gibby, Reading your last comments on Talk:Liberalism, do I have to make my point more clear. A fact is that Hayek argued what he argued. It is also a fact that some institutes will produce evidence for what he argued. At the same time, and that's usual in politics, there will be other scientists and institutes that will prove the opposite. I didn't delete Hayeks argument, just deleted the paragraphs saying that he is right. I am not saying Keynes or Beveridge were right, but their argument should be in. Your are the one deleting the description of Social liberalism in the section of forms of liberalism. I am not making the article on Liberalism, I am just one of the contributors, and was attacked some months ago as being to economic liberal. So what the heck. My own position in this debate is not so relevant, but I am supporting most of the Dutch government policies in its reform agenda. I am not an American liberal, not a Keynesian, but am a supporter of the free market in most areas. But some areas are government responsibilities. Even the economic liberal party in the Netherlands (VVD), wants forms of regulation, eg. in the new health care system, guaranteeing that every citizen can afford a healt insurance. For me liberalism is about more than economics. It is also about rule of law, liberal democracy, individual liberty for all, respect for each others opinion. One can have a free market without political freedom (see Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship). You say you are a liberal, but you started calling your fellow Wikipedians (me) names, so you placed yourself beyond the range of rational discourse. It doesn't make sense to discuss with you, since you are not open for any vision contrary (or even slightly different) to yours. I hope you treat your students with more respect. I will try not to react to your comments anymore, even when you insult me, but will keep on editing the text, as I did this morning (Dutch time). Electionworld 08:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The way the depression and the totalitarian sections were phrased made the macroeconomic assumptions appear to be correct. Thus you give defacto support for their belief. Which you do in fact believe in. I called you a name because its taken this long just to get you to leave up PART of a segment where I defend liberal interpretations other than the one you support, to NOT GET COMPLETLY DELETED. Then you insult my position by calling it propaganda, thus showing your lack of intelligence. Again, I hate to call names, and I rarely do it. I only save it for the people who disserve it the most! -Gibby