Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nikodemos (talk | contribs) at 04:14, 23 June 2006 (→The Project). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello RJII, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --Flockmeal 06:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Wal-Mart, Criticism of Wal-Mart

In response to your recent edit to Wal-Mart, I assume you're moving that paragraph from the Criticism of Wal-Mart article. Either way, be sure to remove the copy you don't want so that it doesn't appear twice. Thanks. Tuxide 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone removed the study from the Wal-Mart article a few days earlier with a bad justification in his edit summary and was putting it back in. I hadn't even checked the Criticism article. But, thanks for formatting that. RJII 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I had proposed a change to Criticism of Wal-Mart that will end up getting this paragraph removed from that article. You might want to check out my proposal on Talk:Criticism of Wal-Mart#Local community impacts, rewrite; the whole thing needs to be rewritten anyways. Tuxide 02:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR investigation

Hello. I closed your report of User:Max rspct's violation of WP:3RR and marked it as time served. I coincidentally blocked the user first for 24 hours then extended to 31 hours on another matter right at the same time. I believe it would be unfair to block him again after he has just finished serving out that block and that the two blocks should be considered to have run concurrently rather than consecutively. I did leave a warning to him about 3RR, however. Please let me know if you believe this is unfair. Thanks. --Yamla 22:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks. RJII 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism the cult

I agree somewhat with your "alleged cult" suggestion, but really want to move that whole discussion to the movement article, hence the comment I made. However, I also want to give you a head's up about the argument Al presents, if I understand it correctly, about whether something should be categorized as a "cult" in Misplaced Pages (reliable sources saying it is). If valid, it would apply to "alleged cult" the same way. The problem with that is, if applied consistently, it would mean just about every article on any religion would have to be so labeled (whether it's "cult" or "alleged cult"). I think that's obviously problematic, and is the main reason nothing other than "movements" that are referred to as "cults" by the mainstream media (with citations) should be tagged "cult" or even "alleged cult" in Misplaced Pages. Food for thought... --Serge 05:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. The problem with the "Cult" tag is there is no way to indicate on the tag that there is not a consensus on the matter, so it's really POV. RJII 06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The Project

Interesting. Could I guess which one is you whenever "you're" online? I've sort of noticed the guy that goes online at 17:00GMT-20:00GMT is more easily angered than the guy that goes online at 21:00GMT-00:00GMT. I don't think I've talked to the guy that works the 03:00GMT-10:00GMT shift. I'm guessing that's the main editor?

You're in Atlanta, right? So the main editor works to about 5AM in the morning? How much is he being paid?

What's the point of the project? I doubt it coincides with wikipedia's goals, since you have almost purely edited right-wing articles on politics and economics.

I would have thought you'd want more accounts, so you could add comments from different accounts.

-- infinity0 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be against Misplaced Pages policy. You're not supposed to use sockpuppets to make edits or comments to the same article. It's deceptive and unethical. RJII has always operated with the utmost honesty and ethicality. RJII 23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But technically you are four people. It is deceptive to use four people to edit using a single account. It's also unethical to edit a public encyclopedia for private purposes. -- infinity0 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing that is not against the rules is unethical. There is no overarching ethical obligations that govern behavior on Misplaced Pages, or anywhere else for that matter. The only ethics that apply to Misplaced Pages are the policies. By the way, you're also editing the encyclopedia for a "private purpose" --your private purpose -- no difference. Besides, at this point it doesn't matter what's ethical. What's done is done. We don't regret a thing and are quite happy with ourselves with what we did and exactly how we did it. RJII 23:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing that is not against the rules is unethical.? You don't believe in ethics? Interesting. That explains much. You're a sociopath. (Before someone claims that's a personal attack, even though RJII claims not to be a person — it's a significant part of the definition, even in sociopath.)

It depends on who you're talking about. I'm personally a sociopath. I don't know about the lead editor and the other assistant editor. I do know that the lead editor is a very moralistic type. We have our disagreements. He's on the day shift if you want to ask him. RJII 23:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, much as I would like to think that one (or four -- in violation of the rules, actually) people can make a significant change in a culture with thousands of individuals, it seems unlikely without actual power. I'm looking forward to the final installment of the RJII project (although you might restore rjii.com from its current parked status, first, if you claim to be associated with the site.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We'll see. RJII 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hah Just one look at your userpage shows the opposite. -- maxrspct leave a message 23:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

People get upset when they can't get their way. What can I say? RJII 23:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You might. A good many people are open to discussion and compromise. Try not to generalize your shortcomings onto all of humanity. --AaronS 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't make personal attacks. It's Misplaced Pages policy. I have no shortcomings. RJII 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure.. thats why u say stuff like '..he's full of it' and the rest of your behaviour. After encountering you I think it should be[REDACTED] policy for ONE USER - ONE ACCOUNT.. ETC. You have inspired us even further. -- maxrspct in the mud 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said. RJII 17:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memory: . Also you have gradually let that cat oot the bag - that you have 3+ people using this account and are actually paid to edit wikipedia. How honest is that? not much. -- maxrspct in the mud 17:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What's dishonest about it? There is no rule requiring one person per account, nor will there ever be, because it would be impossible to enforce. Nor is there a rule against someone paying you to type for them. RJII 17:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Check ebay's system. As to your project.. I hope for your sake it's not LaRouche Movement or similar stuff. It's probably all a wind-up anyway (are you terminally ill?). But keep teasing. --maxrspct in the mud 18:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. This is all one location. There are not several people using one account under different ISP'S. It's one location. When one person gets on, another person will log in later. RJII 18:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it a scientologist project then? LOL. 'Eternal battleground of Misplaced Pages'. Talk of 'the enemy' and such like... Isn't that the kind of mindset you accuse us of having? Your latest edit to Talk:Anarchism seems a bit that way too. --maxrspct in the mud 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Scientology other than Tom Cruise. RJII 18:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So you have violated the rules? And because u have had three folk working on blogging the articles.. U think that you have put a virus out there? It took employing folk? Well ..just shows the strength of the ideas behind that. They are minor fringe viewpoints.. as i have proved in the few times I have got that involved. A/C and other philosophies are not some golden apple thats going to take off from wikipdia ramblings. Out there, beyond the WASPy burbs.. folk know real life and the nature of the beast. When you've gone.. your projects 'work' will go. -- maxrspct in the mud 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure we've violated rules. The 3 revert rules a few times and the personal attacks rule a few times. So what? That's part and parcel with heavy duty editing of Misplaced Pages. I find it humorous that you think any of this has anything to do with anarcho-capitalism. I couldn't care less what happens to the "Project" after I'm gone. I'm just doing my job. You're talking to the wrong person. This talk page is the employees (soon to be ex-employee) speaking personally now (which one you're talking to is a matter of chance). Nothing being said here is the official position of the RJII Project. So, you're probably wasting your time. This "RJII" that you've thought you were talking to simply doesn't exist anymore (and never really did in the first place). RJII 02:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So who's your boss? Surely anyone who would finance a web-based project must have a website. I'm really curious to find out who you're working for, because that would finally settle the question of which side you were on. I have a few bets to settle, too... Does one of the I's in RJII stand for Individual or Individualism? -- Nikodemos 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)