Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:28, 11 December 2005

Welcome!

Hi KDRGibby! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Rd232 17:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism

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)

They only appear as truths because the government did in fact do everything hayek said they did!!!! You didnt like it because it runs counter to everything you've learned! How can macroeconomists blame the free market for the problems of something like the great depression if the government intervened so heavily? This new information must have come as such a shock to you that you assumed it was a POV arguing in favor of itself... Its just facts that when made observable make the opposition seem...well stupid because they havnt taken account for those variables. You deleted it because you didnt like it. Period

(Gibby 22:26, 7 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!

In in regards to students...they aren't trying to revise the entire history and understanding of liberalism!

-Gibby

After you started editing (first anonymous) I made five edits in reaction to your edits. The first edit (1 December, 19:48 Dutch time) I deleted negative qualifications on American liberalism, restored the text about social liberalism (the text you deleted: you started to delete paragraphs) and deleted the paragraph about Hayek since in that text Hayeks opinions were presented as truth. The second edit, 10 minutes later, I had to restore the text on social liberalism again. I deleted in reaction also your new version of the text on Hayek (It could have stayed in, but I read it in combination with your other edits). The third edit was on 4 December 13:18: I mades omme small corrections in the text on Hayek and removed the socialled Atlee prove of Hayeks arguments, since that text was presented as truth, not as an opinion. Later that day 4 December 22:46, I removed the text on Atlee again and adjusted the text about Hayek, to make it more neutral. The sixth edit (5 December 08:37) was minor.

As I see it now, I should not have deleted the text on Hayek in my second edit. I did this because of the context you made your edits and your comments in the talk page. The line of your edits was a disqualification of other forms of liberalism than yours, even a denial that these forms are also liberal. In my edits you cannot find a preference for any of these versions, though I am a supporter of (what you might dislike) a mixture of economic and social liberalism, but more focused on the ethical and political side of liberalism. Never (as far as I remember now) I argued in Misplaced Pages that social liberalism is more liberal than classical liberalism. Never I insulted my fellow wikipedians. That is the way people should edit Misplaced Pages. We have to keep in mind that the liberalism page in Misplaced Pages is not a page of or for liberalism, but on liberalism, and also opponents of liberalism can edit this page. You tried to impose your interpretation of liberalism to Misplaced Pages and were not ready to accept other views. The text as it stands now gives attention to the major forms of liberalism without a preference for any of these forms. Electionworld 14:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

-- If that was true, why would you delete it rather than edit out a POV? Or perhaps its because the evidence given by Hayek destroys the line of thought you support and hold dear? (Gibby 16:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

Closing remark: You still forget that YOU started to delete sections which you didn't like (the text on social liberalism) and your first text on Hayek was presented as truth, not as his position. It was this combinations of edits and the text of your comments on the talk page what led to my deleting and editing your edit. You might have seen that my edits of 4 december and later had only the purpose to edit out a POV. You started to insult me. So I have to remember you of three official Misplaced Pages guidelines: Please respect Wikiquette, assume good faith and be nice. Electionworld 07:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted until I discovered that my edits giving an alternative viewpoint of both the great depression and the rise of totalitarian dictators was deleted. I had first posted those in October then again in late novemeber. Once they were deleted twice, I reposted for a third time and began editing the page liberalism to reflect fact and theory rather than political rhetoric and propoganda. -Gibby

We'll never agree on what happened: I cannot see your edits in October. Your edits 29 november (if you are anon user 68.97.49.51) started with presenting the Hayek and Friedman interpretation as true adn disqualifications of other forms of liberalism. but 1 december the same user 68.97.49.51 (later identified as you) at 19:26 Dutch time the paragraph on Liberalism and the great depression and two edits later at the same time you deleted the text on Social liberalism. Electionworld 22:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

Gibby, you are clueless. Under your anonymous account, you removed my cleanup notice on Classical liberalism while calling it "socialist vandalism," but then you went ahead and did some copyediting. Nice duplicitous start to your "collaboration" with other Wikipedians. 151.203.182.244 04:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I copied my own work from Classic Liberalism and liberalism...

Other than calling things a rant you provided no useful evidence or no helpful instructions. I deleted your note because it was useless and added nothing.

Great Depression & FairTax

Sorry I edited your FairTax submission but it was a little POV. I'm an advocate myself but I had to tweak it a bit. While I agree that the FairTax is progressive, it is a debated point and discussed a little further down the article. Read your Bio - Thought you might like these audio streams for your debate on the Great Depression. As I'm sure you know, FEE is an excellent resource for those that hold classic liberalism views and appreciate liberty. Three Startling Myths about FDR and the New Deal & Myths of the Great Depression Morphh 20:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

With your recent post in "Indirect Effects", I think you duplicated the 2nd paragraph under "Monthly Entitlement Checks". I did not know if this was intentional or not. Also in this post, the prebate checks are not given to all members of society. They are only given to legal residents of the U.S. Perhaps you were referring to income levels? Morphh 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Communism

Please discuss your edits on article Communism with Natalinasmpf directly - Try to avoid an edit war! --Intimidated 17:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for initiating discussion on the Free Trade Communism issue on Talk:Communism.

New topics are added to the bottom of discussion pages rather than the top, though. If you scroll down the page you'll find a discussion that I started yesterday about the passages in question (topic no. 29 on the list). I have taken the liberty of moving your comments there, with the rest. A few editors have tried to explain why they feel the sections are inappropriate and these issues need to be addressed before the passages are added back in. Yours discursively, Mattley 12:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)