User talk:Darkstar1st/Archive 1

Archive 1

Paul A. Bonacci

Please stop re-inserting biased, unrelated, conspiracy-theory based POV material into this article. As stated in what Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: ... Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

Your material does not display a neutral point of view. It is basically a soapbox or cheering section for Bonacci, his attorney, and people who allege the existence of a conspiracy involving so-called satanic ritual abuse, mind control, etc. This is not appropriate for Wikipedia. MCB 17:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, that looks fine to me as far as this article goes, the name of the attorney definitely belongs in the article. However, apparently you have just moved the same biased, soapbox, POV material to an article on the attorney himself. That does not address the overall issue. This sort of material just does not belong on Wikipedia. MCB 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: another editor has discovered that the material from this article was copied from another site (which apparently copied it from a copyrighted article in a newspaper). Wikipedia cannot use copyrighted material; the material cannot remain in the article regardless of any other merits. Please see the Wikipedia copyright FAQ. MCB 00:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Discovery Channel

You have added the bit about "conspiracy of silence" more than once. please note that it is currently listed as a see-also at the bottom. To essentially post the article in multiple places, including articles that aren't about that as such, is overkill. We're not cendoring you; we're keeping the information where it belongs. Anyone can click that link and look at it. Jacqui ^★ 00:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I will copy the discussion on my talk page here to be sure you will see it.

Discovery Channel

"By the way, regarding the Censored section, I checked who contributed that and also what other things they had contrubuted, and they had mostly spammed other entries with the same paragraph (or similar). I'm going to take that one out now. If anyone comes by later who disagrees with the three of us so far, revert me and we'll talk more here. (Also, if we want to mention it in passing at some later point, we have the edit history to get it back) Jacqui ★" Did you write this?

and this:

"I'm not sure if I'm the Jacqui you're talking about, or if you mean someone else, but I've never seen most of those links in my life. In any case, the facts remain at Conspiracy of Silence, etc. THis is a page about the Discovery Channel, itself. Please respect that. There are see also links on this page, and that is one of them. Thanks. Jacqui ★"

I don't understand why you would call my contributions SPAM in one post, then deny reading the contributions in the next? Yes, you are the Jacqui to which my comments are directed, as well as the one that removed my post about censorship in the USA. This page is a living history of a company. The fact that a show that was listed in several guides, then pulled from the line-up under political pressure, belongs in this page. The actual show and its contents are less important than the fact it was censored. I don't think people will gather the Discovery Channel has been censored from your "see also" link. It is important for people to know when the Media has been compromised.

Oh. Now I get it. Yes. I am sorry that I used the verb "spammed"; it's imprecise, rude and not quite what I meant anyway. However, from your contributions when I checked it was apparent to me that the only contributions you'd made to Wikipedia were ones related to this topic. I hadn't seen half of the links you listed because at the time I had checked your contributions, they didn't exist (or at least, you hadn't edited them yet). Most of the others, I hadn't ever clicked on, because you made it clear from your edit history what you put in.

The article about the Discovery Channel is not the living history of the company, it's about the living history of the channel. Those are two different things. If you'd like to click on the link on the Discovery Channel page that indicates what company owns it, you are free to edit that article. I stand by my feelings regarding the see-also in the Discovery Channel article enough. I also think you will find that when you do edit the article about the company, they probably won't let you put in quite that much about Conspiracy of Silence there either, as there are limits to page sizes in Wikipedia. That's why Conspiracy of Silence should have its own pgae -- so it can say on that page what would not fit on the other pages.

Happy editing! Jacqui ^★ 01:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Jacqui, you are prone to assumptions. You should have read my post before your statement. We may be splitting hairs on the Channel/Company issue, Wikipedia has bigger fish to fry. Limits to page size sounds like censorship to me, type is free on the Internet. The fact remains this debate is about an actual event on the channel. No matter how small your opinion of this documentary, it still has a significant role in the history of a major media outlet, the Discovery Channel, as the only advertised show to be canceled. As MCB has stated, legal departments screen all content(I might add the show was cleared to be aired), in addition, this takes place well before the TV guide is published and distributed.

Darkstar, you too are prone to assumptions. You have assumed that "type is free on the Internet" when we have a policy here at Wikipedia about size of articles. You also have assumed that my opinion of this documentary is "small." Please source all claims from now on... Jacqui ^★ 22:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Jacqui M Schedler, My only assumption is that you will debate the smallest points. Like the Discovery Channel/discovery Channel Business debate, once again we appear to be spliting hairs. My exact words were, "no matter how small", and for the last time my source is the TV GUIDE, get a copy for yourself and drop it.

Sorry, as a Wikipedian, it's my job to debate things to make sure we have the most factually-accurate, and also the best, article. It has to do with the pride I have for this place. It's nothing you need to take personally. And when I said source your claims in this specific instance, I meant regarding the things you were saying about me. Sorry if I wasn't clear. It's not splitting hairs to expect my views on something to be factually represented instead of twisted. (Though it's true that you need to source everything else you write on Wikipedia too, as does everybody.)

I'm going to give you some space for a while, because you seem kind of stressed out, and honestly I am too. I don't want to go on the offense with you or create an environment where it's hard for you to work on things here. So happy editing. Jacqui ^★ 04:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Jacqui, you lost me on sourcing things I say about you, I am the source??? Which words did I twist, all conversations have been recorded here? Stressed? Me? I personally enjoy a sprited debate, fact checkers are what the world needs most. If any thing I have posted can be disproved, I will delete my log and stay out of Wikiland. All the same, please don't stress over me, all of my facts are true, no matter how misplaced and poorly writen. Lest we forget DeepThroat, Scooter, and Bagdad Bob, sometimes the source gets thrown under the bus. If we only had Wikipedia for those without free speech or Internet.

Unfortunately, Darkstar1st has inserted (and/or reverted to) this material in several other articles, including Paul A. Bonacci, Lawrence King, and in the Conspiracy of Silence itself. (A related article, John DeCamp, was deleted as a copyvio from a web site and newspaper article, but featured similar allegations.) The problem, as I mentioned in the section "Paul A. Bonacci" above, is that the entire "censorship" issue is unsourced, unverified, and, frankly, something that exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists about so-called mind control and satanic ritual abuse, and is inherently POV. There's just no good way to treat it in Wikipedia except to summarize it and say, "some people have alleged that...". I have asked that any assertions that the documentary in question was censored (e.g., "threats from Congress of more restrictive television legislation resulted in the documentary never being aired.") be sourced and verified, but there has been no response, except to try to spam the material onto other pages, as we see here. (There are many, many documentaries and news reports that are produced but never aired; the most likely reason here is that the film did not pass a libel/slander review by the legal department of Discovery Network and/or Yorkshire TV, in terms of proof of allegations.) MCB 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

MCB Will you show where you requested a source? 5/3/94 TV guide will be my source as to the censorship of this documentary, as clearly stated many times before. "There are many, many documentaries and news reports that are produced but never aired" As to why it was pulled, maybe you have a point, the "Channel", a television station and its programs, may have pulled the show for potential ratings shortfall or libel/slander, although this has never happened before on the Discovery Channel after print listings were published.

I'm not sure what the reference to TV Guide is about, and the significance of the printed listing. What I'm concerned about -- and this is the third or fourth article where this type of issue has come up -- is that you insist on seizing upon the fact that the film was not aired, and trying to use Wikipedia to build a case, without sources or evidence, that there is some sort of grand cover-up conspiracy at work here. That is just not appropriate for Wikipedia. The film itself probably deserves a short, descriptive article, as do Paul Bonacci and Lawrence King. It's not at all clear that it belongs in the Discovery Channel article, since it appears that it was a very minor incident in the history of the channel. MCB 01:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

MCB How I could be more clear eludes me. The significance being, that once a show passes legal, the listing is published, ask a TV exec...You seem bent on editing out this fact, be my guest, facts don't die, even if buried alive. Why you insist on brevity in the vastness of cyberspace is even more perplexing. My guess is that you have a political motive behind your edits. When you read something you don't like, you simply edit out the offending text. Case and point, you insisted on editing the name of an attorney, Senator John DeCamp, that won a lawsuit that was the basis of a wikipedia page(Paul Bonacci) , only to have you edit overturned. Misguided and petty at best. Despite your edits, facts I have inserted to wikipedia remain. Wiki on mad deleter, you obviously have more time for exploring the "theory" of wikipedia than me. And if I am part of some "Satanic Mind Conspiracy" please don't tell anyone, it's a secret.

Political motive? Believe me, I'm the last person in the world who would be defending the Republican establishment. But on Wikipedia I am strenuously neutral, and although a scandal like this might be "juicy", it needs the same sourcing and general factual acceptance as anything else. It is not so much a matter of "brevity", but putting the right facts in the right places, keeping a neutral point of view, and sticking to the verifiable truth. Your material about Conspiracy of Silence is neither neutral nor verifiable. I did not suppress the article about John DeCamp; you are free to write one, so long as it is NPOV, verifiable, and not just copied from a website/newspaper. (The latter is why the previous article was deleted.) And the Paul A. Bonacci page remains; I did not propose that it be deleted, merely that it stick to the facts and not go off into wild speculation and allegations of vast, underground satanic and mind-control conspiracies.

As for the existence of the TV Guide listing, I just don't know why you insist on clinging to that as evidence of anything. TV Guide is put together and printed well in advance of broadcast, and things are pulled, rescheduled, etc., at the last minute with regularity. The fact that the film was featured in the printed TV Guide and then not aired is not evidence either supporting or refuting the allegation that it was pulled for political reasons.

MCB The simple fact remains, the majority of the Conspiracy of Silence, as well as many other posts, is still my edit, and it shall remain, no matter how many times you and other deletionist log into wikipedia. Me-thinks you should do some research of your own before you delete an entire edit. Instead why not pull the facts in which you agree? "I did not suppress the article about John DeCamp" That is subjective, however you did delete his name from the Paul Bonacci page more than once. In addition the page I posted about John DeCamp was deleted after you complained the text was copyrighted, I might add the owner of the copyright welcomes it's use in wikipedia. "Not just copied" If you so have the inclination, please reassemble the words the way you like, in the meantime I am perfectly happy to allow yet another whistle blower to be buried in so much verbal minutiae.

The owner of the copyright is the Des Moines Register, and I seriously doubt that they would permit their article to be republished by Wikipedia under the GFDL or other free licenses. (If you believe otherwise, the time and place to comment was on the article's Talk page, as directed by the Copyright Problems page).

The name of John DeCamp was deleted as part of an entire block of material that was completely POV and a soapbox for the conspiracy theorists. I was not willing to rewrite that, and summarized the actual facts into a paragraph, which was, and is, a good one. You mentioned DeCamp's omission and reinserted his name, which is just fine and it stands today. (Surely if I had some "political motive" to suppress mention of him, I would have reverted that, no?) And as I said, if you believe John DeCamp is worthy of an article, feel free to write one. Heck, maybe I will. Between being AG of Nebraska and his involvement in the King/Bonacci/Conspiracy of Silence affair, I'd agree he probably meets the requirement of encyclopedic notability and verifiability.

Look, I have no agenda of trying to exclude this series of events from Wikipedia. But the articles have to be factual, sourced, verifiably true, and NPOV. And well-written, hopefully, as well. What I saw in those articles -- and I don't know if this was your writing or not, there were many authors -- was a mixture of copyvios and long, rambling, defamatory, and barely comprehensible diatribes describing vast conspiracies, mind control, satanic rituals, and so forth. I'm sure you'd agree that that material does not belong in Wikipedia. MCB 03:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope you do have the energy to write the DeCamp page, as I have lost all zeal for this subject.

Greetings

Regarding your recent edits to the Falungong article, I removed them for two reasons. Most importantly, the first reason was that there was no citation for the material. It could be true, it sounds reasonable enough considering the subject of the article, but we would need independently verifiable links to double check the story. Secondly, and less importantly, it was placed in its own section rather than in the Persecution section of the article where it would be more appropriate to list it if verified. Regards, --Fire Star 19:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

II

I have discussed my reasons for my edits here. Feel free to respond.--Rockero 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Source material

Original source material should not be placed in Wikipedia. We have a sister project, Wikisource for that purpose. Fel free to edit the summary I wrote, but please don't re-insert the source material. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop adding the same excerpt from the Mexican Constitution to articles. It does not belong. -Will Beback 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Will Beback 00:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

well, as you can, see my revert has stayed in the edit Will. the warning does not apply here. maybe it is you that should refrain from deleting things for no reason.

vandalism

Please do not vandalize my user page. The same should apply for you, if you feel the need to make changes bring them up in the talk page. Listing sources wouldn't hurt either. M P M 02:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

ooops, i thought it was your talk page, all the same it was blank, and asking you to list a source does not qualify as vandelism...relax we are all on the same team. try decaf.

in flagrante delicto

FYI, I've added your fact to Citizen's arrest#Other countries. It's really not so unusual, but worthy of note nonetheless. We should eventually record every the legal stance of every significant country or culture. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Password

I'm afraid I can't offer any help. Maybe the email address registered to the account is incorrect? If you really can't figure it out I suppose the only thing to do would be to create a new username. If you like you can refer back to your old name so folks will see you've been around for a while. -Will Beback 23:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ya, prolly an old address i can't remember. More concerned I had violate some policy and thought of you 1st. Now I'll make a simular name. We have disagreed, yet you still responded, thank you.

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Left-libertarianism. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I did give the reason, Redistribution of income is anti libertarian.

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Left-libertarianism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the source listed? John Locke was not egalitarian.

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Libertarianism. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Zhang He (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I stated the reason, perhaps you did not see it?

Troublemaking

Why don't you go find another hobby? I am not going to allow you to change these articles to fit your personal definition, so you might as well give up. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

wiki is very clear about page numbers and reliable sources. a book review and self published notes from a professor do not meet the standards.

Horse shit. You know about as much about Wikipedia's rules as you clearly know about properly writing and formatting a talk page message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

the link clearly shows it was submitted by the author. have you read the source? they are NOTES, on a PRESENTATION, by a professor. ^ http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/sundstrom/Sundstrommanifesto.pdf "submitted/sundstrom"

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Libertarianism. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Zhang He (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Zheng He, "this edit", is sourced by 70, an editorial on progress.org, , 71 is a blog post at the Von Mises institute that sites wikipedia as the source: "Henry George's free trade principles also spawned the geolibertarianism movement, a "political philosophy that holds along with other forms of libertarian individualism that each individual has an exclusive right to the fruits of his or her labor, as opposed to this product being owned collectively by society or the community" (Wikipedia)." source 72 is not attributed to the author claimed, nor is it a published work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_E._Foldvary

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself , the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. I am having trouble correcting the libertarianism page, Zhang He has threatened to ban me from editing for noting the following errors: source 76 links to a self published blog post: http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/tals.html source 70 is an editorial on progress.org source 71 is a blog post on an institutional website. source 7 list a book review. source 3 links to an edu search engine

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Libertarianism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. TFD (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the same applies to Left-libertarianism as well. TFD (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Deuces, my "war" has resulted in one of the disputed sources being deleted, the other improperly sourced material will be deleted soon as others trace the sources to blogs and book reviews. I have stopped making edits as a response to your and Zhang's threats.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. TFD (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This claim is made in bad faith, and will be dismissed after being reviewed.Darkstar1st (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd certainly know about bad faith, since your every action is evidence of yours. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you please at least follow the source in question? http://www.zcommunications.org/prospects-for-libertarian-socialism-by-david-baake. Thx!Darkstar1st (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

update, 2 of the 5 sources I flagged have now been removed, the last by RepublicanJacobite

 Unrelated. No comment on the IP. --Deskana (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC) {{SPIclose|archive}}

I am no man's puppet, and the charges are proven false. Zhang He, and The Four Deuces, did you see the sources I flagged have been removed? Have you noticed Libertarianism is unbalanced by the editors/sources geographic location? The Stanford Encyclopedia, and the multiple SCU professors quoted, are both in Santa Clara county, Ca. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Darkstar1st. You have new messages at Talk:Libertarianism#Problems with recent lead changes.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC) i always forget, but is really no need if u do it for me, thx bot! Darkstar1st (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on the article talk page.[1] Please keep discussions there so that other readers may follow them. TFD (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Information that is dubious, is copyrighted but not properly sourced or is taken from unreliable sources should be removed straight away. If you do not want your edits to be reversed please read and follow WP:RS. TFD (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, you have not reached or exceeded 3 reverts for today on Libertarianism and you will be reported for any further revisions. TFD (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

be specific in your concerns using the WP:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#General_sources. The sources are correctly listed. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"you have not reached or exceeded 3 reverts for today" So even though I am under the 3 revert rule, you are going to report me anyway? i welcome your report. I am happy for someone to review your deletions, and my reverts. Darkstar1st (talk)

the encyclopedia i used as a source is WS:RS for many other articles, TFD you will be undone, on this edit, as has you been my other edits.Darkstar1st (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI noticeboard

You are being discussed at the ANI noticeboard.[2] TFD (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I have temporarily agreed to not use tags in discuss, although consensus confirms you are mistaken saying it is against WP:policy Darkstar1st (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please never make such changes to other people's comments: that you have "temporarily agreed" not to is insufficient. If you want to comment on a perceived lack of precision or evidence, do so in prose rather than using snarky templates, which only irritate the editors you are communicating with. Persisting in adding these templates to other editors' comments will likely result in a block. Fences&Windows 13:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My original statement, on the talk page: Talk:Laozi Disagree, "I do feel it is appropriate, but have agreed to stop until a more elegant method of asking for a citation in discussion can be created." Your opinion that one should never use templates lacks verification, "Darkstar1st is correct that this list of templates contains no rules at all about when their use is appropriate.", but immaterial as well, as I agreed to stop before your comments, as well as TFD comments before you. The larger issue of editors following me to undo my edits has not been addressed. The best example is TFD undoing a deletion I made 3 times, then threatening me with a ban if I broke the 3 revert rule. The passage I deleted was by a 16 year old student, in a self-published blog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#DarkStar.27s_edits http://www.zcommunications.org/prospects-for-libertarian-socialism-by-david-baake. The reasons listed each time were "vandalism", even after I published the evidence in talk. My citations were in good faith, intended only to verify the WP:policy editors were citing as fact, when actually personal opinion proved to be the case each time. I do see it is confusing, but not disruptive, and if people are offended by truth, my days on WP, may be shorter than anyone could know. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, stop Wikilawyering. I don't give a damn why you were doing it, and I don't give a damn whether those templates specify whether you can snarkily use them on other people's talk page comments or not. Doing this is disruptive and will get you blocked. This is not about "truth", this is about leaving other people's talk comments alone. Per WP:TALK "there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." The same reasoning applies to your use of these templates on talk pages. Fences&Windows 00:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I did not correct his comment, rather ask for the citation from WP:policy. As is this case, I ask you, where did you read, "same applies here", or is that your opinion. Regardless it is a moot point as before you entered the debate, I agreed to not use templates in the discussion until a better solution could be crafted, or consensus reached. PS, my niece and nephew are future WP, i would be grateful if you would not use those words here as this page is something of a classroom for them. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism edits

Make sure you clean up after yourself when you removed sections of text. You left two sentences ending in commas, and you entirely removed all the context of what is being said in the libertarian socialism section. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 15:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do. WP has so much work needed, the grammar sometimes doesn't get priority deserved, apologies.

You have now reached a 3RR limit on this article for today. TFD (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

incorrect, i have made 1 revert, an undo at 20:19. 2 edits, one sourced new material and deleted un-source hyperbole, and a revert yesterday Darkstar1st (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits have been reported to the 3RR noticeboard, and you may reply here. TFD (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

i did, thx for the link, here is what i said: the first edit of your complaint was a deletion of material not sourced? do you consider that to be a revert? the second edit you cite was me adding more material from a primary source, is that really a revert? the last time you reported me for sockpuppet, it was found in my favor. i am concerned this is a personal conflict, i say we bury the our differences and work together Darkstar1st (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Libertarianism. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. B (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darkstar1st (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here

Decline reason:

The only exception to the policy on edit warring is the reversion of blatant vandalism. Blatant means edits that are obviously designed to damage Wikipedia, not just edits that are unsourced or that you do not agree with. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

i have and do discuss all of my edits in discussion, it was the other editor who has deleted without discussion. my revert was an attempt to undo vandalism by an editor who deleted a primary source author used in page already. in addition, a fresh tag by a 3rd editor was deleted in the same edit also, and no entry in discussion. isn't deleting sourced material, discussion tags, and not making an entry in the discussion page vandalism? if so, i hope this ban will be undone as was the sockpuppet tfd accused me last time. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC) {{unblock|so deleting discuss tags and sourced material, without discussing is not blatant damage? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}}

You reverted five times. Please see WP:BRD. You boldly added your passage. When it was reverted, you should have not added it again, but instead discussed it. A good faith effort to improve an article is never vandalism and just because something is sourced does not make its removal "vandalism". There are plenty of things that can be "sourced", but which are not appropriate to add to an article. Controversial statements especially should be discussed, not simply re-added. If you want your second unblock template to work, please note that you need to remove the "tlx|" in front of the word "unblock". --B (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

thx for the unblock fix, but i will let it be, the ban is almost over. My edit remains intact and there is a discussion ongoing now concerning the passage, which is all i wanted in the first place. ironic i get banned for getting people to use the discussion page, but this is more of the wp:alienation of long time editors jimi talked about in the new focus for wp, i am used to it. i created a page in 2005 which has endured many attacks, has high traffic, and hundreds of edits. my intent is to better wp, this has not discouraged me much. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

true, however if the statement was not deleted without discussion in the 1st place, then my revert would never have happened. the hardest part to accept, is "Murray" the author of the "controversial statement", is sourced several times in the article and many other wp. The "controversial statement" has now be edited out along with the tag, by an ip address with no discussion attempted, bravo wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

the same ip address made this post: " Modern anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from Libertarian.[6][dubious – discuss]"-This is a horrible generalisation, and a value judgement-can it be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.109.10 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC" Darkstar1st (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You were not blocked for wanting to get users to the discussion page. Rather, you were blocked for repeatedly reverting to your preferred version. There is no deadline on Wikipedia and the only things that have to be urgently done are removing copyright violations and attacks on living people. Anything else, once it is reverted, you can stop and discuss - you don't have to revert it again. --B (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

apologies, i considered it vandalism as no attempt was made to address the tag, or refute the source. wp:semantics getting kinda old for wp old timers, like discussed in WP:vision forward by the the founder. now the article/tags/sources are being deleted by ip addresses witout discussion, perhaps a step backward? this disappoints me, but not my windmill to joust, cheers. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

This message has been sent to inform you about a discussion at WP:ANI. The thread is WP:ANI#Request for community ban of Darkstar1st. Thank you. TFD (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

i don't see it on ani anymore. perhaps it has been retired? either way, no hard feelings, wiki on tfd. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Some advice

I think you have the ability to add good content, but you need to make sure you're not too forceful in either editing or discussion, as it may create tension. I suggest reading the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay for some good tips on how to handle content disagreements. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 06:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

understood, thx. this latest annoyance has deflated most of my zeal for wp. reading jimmys own words prepared me, "wikipedia is seeing fewer contributions from older editors". tfd may very very be the future of wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your best approach at ANI is to answer the issues raised rather than canvassing other editors to attack the person who started the discussion thread. If you want to invite other editors to become involved, you should contact editors who can speak positively about your editing history. TFD (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

you have had many battles in your short history tfd, leaving many who will comment on your civility. i normally would not become involved in this type of discussion, but you are attempting to ban my account. i am very proud of the edits in wp and willing to defend myself this one time. should more people like you appear in wp, i will log out for good. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Studies of Wikipedia have found that it is "antisocial" behavior that tends to get users blocked/banned, regardless of the quality of their edits. E.g., you might be the most productive editor on the project, but if people perceive you as uncivil or otherwise a scofflaw, you'll likely be punished. Likewise, you might be an editor who contributes little of value to the project, but if you are perceived as abiding by the rules and norms of the community, you're unlikely to get blocked, and you can even game the system to get others blocked and climb the ladder to admin or other positions of power.

It's not unlike how society outside Wikipedia works. You might be a great scientist whose accomplishments have benefited millions, but if you are caught, e.g., smoking pot in your home, or otherwise committing illegal (albeit victimless) activities, you get no special consideration because of your contributions; you'll be punished like any other non-elite individual. On the other hand, if you are a politician, police officer, judge, etc. who infringes the rights of thousands or millions and has done little to help anyone, you will not be harassed by the legal system, as long you follow society's rules and norms; in fact, you'll be rewarded by society, and if you do happen to get busted for some infraction, you will sometimes be treated deferentially by the justice system because of your status.

If you leave the project and stop contributing, that will become part of the statistics of Wikipedia's downturn in activity, but WMF spokespeople will just write it off to factors such as Wikipedia having grown so comprehensive there is not much left for people to write about. They will never attribute it to flawed rules or bad treatment of productive editors. And the media will duly report the WMF's explanation, because they don't know about the inner workings of Wikipedia.

I haven't gotten along with you or agreed with you when we've interacted, but perhaps I do understand your frustration. Your best bet, if you are willing to edit under such terms, is probably to stick to following the letter of the rules (e.g. never violate WP:3RR, since that gives people an automatic excuse to block you), don't say anything that could be construed as uncivil, etc. I refer you to Wikitruth's comment that "The project has literally lost hundreds of good, solid, intelligent people, leaving a core of folks either completely masochistic in nature, or in possesion of little tiny reptile brains." I'm no masochist, and my brain is larger than a reptile's, so maybe I should reconsider how much time I invest in Wikipedia editing too, hmm. After all, the only way to win against a gamed system is not to play. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 23:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tisane, thx for your words. It speaks well of you to want to help even tho i have offended you in the past. after learning what wp has become, a ban might not be a bad thing, ie giving up on gamed. i will continue to state my case in talk, and assume at some point the repeated accusations of soapbox will result in a ban. until then, i will use the very sources those opposed to my edits cite. would you say the majority of active editors on this page vote libertarian? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hard to say whether they vote libertarian or not. There are lot of libertarians, e.g. me, who are disenfranchised or otherwise don't vote. There are, for instance, a lot of free-market economists who are political junkies but don't bother to go to the polls, perhaps because they recognize that, from the standpoint of the individual voter, the benefits of voting are not worth the costs.

If you get banned, it still might not be the end of your Wikipedia career; you'll just have to go undercover if you want to come back. You might even find it exciting; you'll be like a spy behind enemy lines carrying out secret missions. Or, if you go the sockmaster route, you'll be like a spymaster, with each account being like a secret agent. You'll have to take measures to ensure that if one gets caught, it won't compromise your whole network of moles. In that sense, Wikipedia is very much like an MMORPG; when you die, you may lose the character you have built up, but you can still respawn and come back. There will be counterintelligence agents and self-appointed informants on the lookout for you, so you'll have to take special care in your dealings with them. Outwit your opponents, and don't let the griefers spoil your fun! Good luck, Tisane ^talk/_stalk 21:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

if/when i get banned, i will not want to come back. wp appears to NOW be controlled by very recently minted editors. many have cross-pollinated themselves and friends into reviewer rolls. the term griefer 1st crossed my path in secondlife, sad to see they found wp as well. Several past girlfriends, relatives, and friends always questioned my libertarian vote with, "why vote for someone you know will never win." both D and R review past elections. they see the small percentage how bothered to go to the polls, knowing their candidate had no chance. that person is almost certainly a lifetime voter, something both parties would love to win over. for the republicans, it would be as easy as supporting a withdraw from the 2 wars we are fighting to win my vote, for democrats, a reduction n spending. i am seeing that very thing materialize before my eyes. so i suggest a vote for libertarian, is far more valuable than a single vote lost in the sea of d or r. My point being this article, as well as the one in stanford encyclopedia, both appear to be written by socialist. i doubt any of them have ever been a libertarian. imho it is an attempt to degrade the term/party. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "libertarian" is very loosely-defined and there are a lot of people who consider themselves libertarian if they are slightly less statist than the mainstream. I guess in their view, if government wants to impose a 100% tax and impose 7-days-a-week forced labor on everyone, and you support a 99% tax instead and only 6-days-a-week forced labor, then that makes you a libertarian. I would be tempted to vote for a major-party candidate such as Governor Gary Johnson who supports cannabis legalization, but I think the ethics of voting for a non-anarcho-capitalist are questionable, because it's a slippery slope once you consent to any invasions of others' rights. I get the impression you're not an anarchist; if that's the case, I recommend reading a few books on the topic if you haven't already, especially these ones. It's worth giving it a fair hearing, and free too, since most of those books can be downloaded. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 01:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

would an anarchist care whether or not the publishers are compensated for the download? if a small anarcho-capitalist lived near a larger AC, would the larger take his stuff? what if the smaller ac was "stealing" the larger AC clients? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, in this case, the copyright "owners" have agreed to let their stuff be downloaded, but in general, anarcho-capitalists don't recognize intellectual property. I'm not sure what you mean by "small" and "large" anarcho-capitalists; if you mean it in the sense of bigger = richer/more powerful, that is a question that there is much theory about, but not a whole lot of empirical evidence. It is theoretically possible the bigger one would beat up on the smaller one and take their stuff. Then again, it is theoretically possible that the smaller one could hire a big private defense agency for protection. We see large countries prop up smaller ones all the time; for instance, the U.S. has supported Israel, Taiwan and Kuwait against much larger enemies. It is also possible for a less wealthy country to use guerrilla warfare and other kinds of asymmetric warfare to prevail against a richer country. In short, small sovereign entities in an anarcho-capitalist system might find protectors and use unorthodox tactics to fend off their enemies. I hope I've understood your first two questions correctly. I'm not sure what you mean by the third one. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 06:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

3rd, being a capitalist, when i lose clients i try to find out who they patronize now. being a libertarian, i try to win them back by offering a discount. would an anarchist(specifically, an AC) use the same tactic, or would he use a more direct route, hire a larger defense agency, and defend his business from the smaller ac attack by annexing the smaller ac? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Suppose your company produces iPads. Can you really afford to try to attack every company, all over the world, that tries to compete with you? Aggression doesn't make much financial sense, unless you can force people into slavery, and that's hard to do without a centralized state. (Just looting them doesn't suffice, or in any event, it's not optimal; notice that the government prefers to enslave me, rather than just looting me. Although I guess slavery could be regarded as merely continuous looting.) Then of course there's the fact that the defender has limited amounts of money to spend on retaliation, and he will probably direct it at those who present the greatest threat, negating some or all of the financial benefit of attacking him.

In a mostly service-based economy, it's not all that useful to merely gain control over physical resources; you have to gain control over the people. Granted, if you were to take out the upper tiers of management of a large corporation (e.g. CFO, COO, etc.) and/or the middle managers under them (e.g. controller, division manager, etc.) it would probably cause significant disruption, perhaps enough to destroy their competitive advantage for awhile. I don't have a crystal ball, though, so I can't really say for sure how anarcho-capitalism would play out. One thing we do know is that our current system produces a lot of violence, so the important question is whether anarcho-capitalism would produce better results than the alternatives. Economic theory predicts that it would, assuming that abolition of government maximizes the amount of competition in an economy. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 18:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

all good points, but if a person is an anarchist, why not call him such instead of calling him a libertarian whose views are anarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not, indeed. You can call them whatever you want, but it might not affect what they call themselves. George W. Bush liked calling himself a compassionate conservative, but his policies often weren't compassionate or conservative. It's all just public relations. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 19:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding removal of POV templates. The thread is Removal of POV templates.The discussion is about the topic Mass killings under Communist regimes. Thank you. --TFD (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

tfd has made several reports against me and others recently, most have been dismissed with a warning to tfd to stop. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

striking your comments

Like this :) mark nutley (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

thx mark. i always like reading your edits/talk edits. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings

You are likely aware, but you are at the 1RR limit. BigK HeX (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

thx. i'll wait to see if anyone restores your changes before proceeding. "This article is limited to deaths under regimes labeled as Communist, though this is not to suggest communist ideology as a principal cause in these events (nor does this article discuss academic acceptance of theories about such causation)." Your use of the word "this" is confusing. Also, wp does not suggest, rather presents a collection of accepted facts, sourced and reviewed, for the reader to digest. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

One the talk page (where I have been participating extensively and you have not), it has been discussed that the article leaves the impression about causation being significant. There are statements from those supporting the sources which insist that the causative theories are not written as being significant. My edit only takes that insistence and makes it explicit. BigK HeX (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

perhaps we should move this discussion back to the talk page, see you there. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you restore the comments you deleted. BigK HeX (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

any comment made in that section related to that section have not been deleted. arguments for whether the article should be merged already have a section. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well then.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Minor_disruption_--_Darkstar1st_deleting_talk_page_comments. Thank you. BigK HeX (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar please do not delete others comments unless they are blp violations or personal attacks per WP:TPG it just causes trouble mark nutley (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

I suggest you actually make a coherent point on the talk page, if you're going to continue trying to push what is almost certainly a blatant and inaccurate POV. BigK HeX (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

you consider http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/ inaccurate? i did discuss, consensus agrees iep is wp:rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are misusing the source. Yes, you did quote from the source, but you did not discuss the meat of the edit that you made. Please check on the talk page before a narrow view of libertarianism is written as fact. BigK HeX (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Wikiquette mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT: Just saying "agree" or "disagree" doesn't help. It would be good if you could support your views, preferably by quoting RS to justify your "agreeing" and "disagreeing". For example, the latest "agree", "agree the reason given was the talk page was full of soapboxing and personal attacks. my fear is some material was achieved by mistake" adds nothing to the discussion. You could have said (say) "agree, thread-1 and thread-2 would be useful here as those issues were not settled." Or "disagree, those issues were solved". A post adding nothing is bad, as it wastes time.

Imagine the contribution you will be able to make if you just better follow WP guidelines, which are (in my opinion) good general rules.

Also, if you were asking about the summary in earnest, I recommend William Strunk's The Elements of Style (1919). Basically, when writing you should care for two things: be as informative as you can, and be as concise as you can. Both of these stem from just one rule--care for other people's time. Everytime you make a post which does not add to the discussion, or which is unjustifiably loquacious, you decrease your credibility. Thus, at times, others will (rightly) ignore your useful suggestion.

And, please be more careful in editing the article. N6n (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

disagree perhaps i understated my point. what i meant to say was please undo the archiving on the talk page. material has been moved in error. failure to restore will result in a report. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And what I meant was to give advice. Feel free to ignore it. N6n (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Thats right. N6n (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)" is what you said here somehow different than me agreeing with someone? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There is another interpretation which I'd like to take. 'Seven days seven night' said that my effort was useless, and I agreed. My 'agreeing' here adds to the discussion because this way we both agree to uphold what s.d.s.n said, that we use external reliable sources, and not WP itself to settle something.

Thanks for telling this. Although I don't consider this a mistake, I may (read 'will') make some in the future, and I'd like if someone told me! N6n (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"My 'agreeing' here adds to the discussion" but when darkstar1st agrees with someone it is "bad and waste time". disagree Darkstar1st (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Political meaning is not distinguished from Liberalism generally."(in the source) to "All Libertarians are Liberals, politically."(your edit): "Australians are not distinguished from the British generally", does not mean "Australians are identical to the British". N6n (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[Your previous comment here:] I agreed that _I_ was wrong. This by default adds to the discussion.

WP would be poorer if editors leave, so I hope you wont do that. You have said that you have added the Etymology section in Libertarianism, which is a major contribution. But, by bad editing and soapboxing you have harmed your credibility. Please consider. N6n (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI. He didn't add it, he just relabeled an existing section, perhaps with some wording changes. The section actually had been in and out a year or so before. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

carol, actually, i did, and a rather substantial edit in fact, one that i was shocked had been wrong by so many, and missed by even more. before i arrived, dejaques was credited with coining the term, when actually Belsham did. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's because I wasn't paying attention when some (leftist) changed it from Belsham where it had been before. See this Dec 2009 version. Vandalism goes both ways, sadly. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

the lede is a mess at this point. your insistence of having the anarchist debate in the lede is confusing. the vast majority of those voting libertarian today are not anarchist. y eventually enough libertarians will join this debate to drown out fringe theory on this page, i am working to achieve such at this very moment. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about Libertarian Party (United States). I think you are confused. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

no, it is about libertarianism as understood by the most people, a concept lost on some. few practicing libertarians have ever heard of wikipedia, much less realize socialism and anarchism are considers forms. stay tuned carol, this article is about to be corrected. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Left-libertarian discussion

Since this is nothing but a bunch of banter based on wild speculation, it doesn't really belong on the article talk page. If you just wanted to know of left-lib parties, you could have just tried my talk page (though I may not feel much inclination to help you).

Bigk what evidence do you have libertarianism is even practiced outside of the usa today? those small pockets of followers outside the usa are aligned with what you call "right". is legalizing drugs and lowering taxes left or right? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your ability to ask only the wrong questions is pretty impressive. But, no, those "pockets" that I am referring to are most certainly classified as left-libertarians. BigK HeX (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

which pockets specifically? please cite a politician or a group outside the usa you consider left-libertarian Darkstar1st (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty, but .... why are you asking? This seems like yet another "wrong" question that you are asking. (Your question seems pointless, but see: Centre Party (Sweden)) BigK HeX (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

libertarian in a "a green social liberal party" way? "During the 1930s, the party pursued the strongest and most notable pro-Nazi agenda, with its 1933 programme calling for "preservation of the Swedish people from any interference of foreign inferior racial elements [and] opposition of immigration to Sweden by unwanted strangers". Can you find any libertarians who consider themselves left outside the usa? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Already did and listed a group for you. I guess you think you made a point with the text you've quoted, but the argument you appear to be making is nonsensical, as usual. BigK HeX (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

the centre party of sweden is not libertarian. the one source linking to libertarian has been deleted on WP. the party's own website makes no mention of libertarian. any others you know of? if not take a minute to research, ill wait here. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

lol. It's nice for you to bold your WP:OR, but how many fallacious arguments are you going to propose? Even if I did believe that you could read Swedish, it'd be ignorant to suggest that the lack of the word "libertarian" supposedly means the group isn't considered left-libertarian, just as it'd be ignorant to claim that a group that was self-described as "minarchists" and had webpages preaching Nozick wasn't libertarian based on an argument that their webpage didn't mention the word.

And, yes, I know of many others left-lib groups; unless you skip this tedious banter and be clear about what point you are trying to make, I'm fine with you doing your own research for other groups. BigK HeX (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

my point was clear, no left-libertarian movement outside the usa. centre party members are self described social liberals. "lack of the word "libertarian" supposedly means the group isn't considered left-libertarian" considered left-libertarian by who, the blogger, yourself? "I know of many others left-lib groups", only need 1. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "no left-libertarian movement outside the usa"

I'm all ears as to how you propose this as fact. BigK HeX (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

not a fact, speculation. you are who could prove me wrong, yet unwilling, or unable. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct -- I am unwilling. Your uninformed speculation has zero bearing on this article, and shouldn't be cluttering up this talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I still have no clue what you think this will accomplish, but if you want a more solid left-lib group, see: Socialist_People's_Party_(Denmark). BigK HeX (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

no mention of libertarian anything here. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

...will get you nowhere on the Libertarianism article (or elsewhere). BigK HeX (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Libertarianism (disambiguation)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Note:You made 3 reverts, some of a questionable nature with 3 editors have problems with. You have not discussed them on the talk page despite comments by two editors. Please review policies and stop edit warring. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Correct date accidentally copied from elsewhere. Per this talk page's history, it was 14:02, August 18, 2010

Carol, that is precisely the sort of bias and heavy-handed censorship that gives Wikipaedia a bad name. BlueRobe (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

People with a history of disruptive edit warring behavior (including soapboxing ad nauseum) have to be reminded their behavior is being scrutinized. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

ah it's ok BlueRobe, she is confused yet again. the last time she claimed i made 7 edits, then five, then listed times from a completely different page, user, or just made them up, as not of the edits corresponded to actually edits on the page. this time, she is warning me about the 3 rr rule on a page i haven't edited in days. of the edits i did make, none were reverts, and all in good faith and justified. furthermore, they have been discussed, with evidence given why 2 of the fringe terms should be combined. i listed three core principles of each term appear almost verbatim on both pages, though there be even more similarity. this evidence pulled from the 2 pages in wp, was dismissed as wp:or, and met with threats of an rfc/user. no one has offered why/how the terms are different, just that i am wrong. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Three Reverts - in between others' edits - since not clear to you:

*11:16, August 18, 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (1,268 bytes) (combined 3 articles self-described as the same.) revert of something contested, changed recently

• 14:00, August 18, 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (1,692 bytes) (combining terms self-described "aka") revert of something contested, changed recently
• 14:00, August 18, 2010 Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) (1,692 bytes) (combining terms self-described "aka") revert of something contested, changed recently

Corrected later with diffs:

• Diff 1 (combined 3 articles self-described as the same.) revert of something contested, changed recently
• Diff 2 (combining terms self-described "aka") revert of something contested, changed recently
• Diff3 (all land is a common asset to which all individuals have an equal right to access. Agorists are propertarian market anarchists who consider property rights to be natural rights) revert of something contested, changed recently

Also: Please don't refer to alleged incidents without links since if others don't know what you are talking about, and you haven't shown them a link so they can be reminded or correct allegation, you are just making wild accusations. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

carol with all you have done for this article, everyone here owes you a great deal, but this is the second time you have produced a series of edits from the wrong page/user/planet. if you continue to accuse me of warring, at least get the accusation worked out in your head before posting to my talk page. there are no edits from anyone on the times listed also, the edits i have made are of articles with tags several years old that do not meet wp standards. my best guess is run a virus scan, because what you are reading, and what is in talk are completely different Darkstar1st (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

maybe it is you who has the war carol? this is the 2nd edit today you have butchered. it is time you consider a voluntary break from libertarianism. you appear to be fixated on undoing any edit i make, the last, using my very reasoning to make the edit, then self reverting. if there be any other explanation, if so please present here.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism_(disambiguation) (Undid revision 380297057 by Darkstar1st (talk)since not alpha order, one starting with libertarian should go first)

← Previous edit Current revision as of 14:53, 22 August 2010 (edit) (undo) Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 380328209 by Carolmooredc (talk)self-revert) but they were not in alphabetically order, and my edit actually corrected what you undid. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting messages

...from your talk page doesn't actually hide them. Just FYI.

Also, you may want to question the "wisdom" of following the route of someone who has been banned from the site and is so mentally unstable that he thinks Wikipedia editors "want him dead." BigK HeX (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

thx, i have never actually deleted any comments from my page before today. but after i saw my leaving comments was considered an endorsement of the comment, i decided to hide the words about carol at the top. i wish her no ill will, and actually respect her work in wp. the other i deleted because he ask me to do so. after being accused of pushing my pov so many times, it is humorous to review the edits and articles created by my detractors. a more partisan group surely does not exist. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know - have you seen the stuff on the climate change pages? Yikes! Haven't looked at anything on the Libertarianism pages, just there because of KiK. But in general, stay cool, source stuff and use diffs if there's a dispute, and you'll be fine. May not always get things the way you want, but you'll be fine. But you've been here a seriously long time - not sure why I'm saying what you already know and do! Shout if you think a neutral, uninformed party could help with anything. Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose everyone has their biases. Though, when it's "you against the world" with people as diverse as CarolMooreDC, Jrtayloriv, Torchiest and myself (among others) in clear consensus that reliable sources run counter to the way you wish a viewpoint to be presented, one place that you may want to double-check for excessive partisanship is in the mirror. Food for thought, perhaps.... BigK HeX (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyways ... since I'm here, I guess I'll tell you that I have very little vested interest in any particular POV for the libertarianism article. Though, admittedly, it was your huge gutting of some part of the article that initially caught my attention on my watchlist, I really don't care what the end result of the article is, so long as I believe that it fairly represents the prominent viewpoints of reliable sources. And though I am holding a collection of evidence for proceedings for a possible RFC/USER, I harbor no ill-will towards you or any other editor in good standing that wishes to collaborate with reliable sources to back them. I continually hesitate to initiate such drastic proceedings as you seem to have halted making unilateral edits without a WP:RS basis, and instead are making a very active effort to strike up discussion and gain consensus. Quite contrary to the "advice" you've received from banished editors, your recent efforts at collaboration will prove far more effective than his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality ever was. My personal words of advice to your would be to A) start bringing WP:RS with your more of your arguments, B) less of the unsourced waxing philosophic on article talk pages (user talk pages are fine), C) make sure your sources state exactly the same idea that you support, and D) be careful not to twist people's words (as most-recently seen here). BigK HeX (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

@Raven , thx for the acknowledgment i have been here longer than most. something has definitely changed in wp, i will try to adapt. thx for the kind words bigk. i didnt mean to twist your words. i meant to say the text is verbatim from the wp page in question. no one is able to articulate the differences, and i have shown the duplication. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The text you quoted may be verbatim, but -- again -- the problem is your use of the text. You, personally, may have found similarities between passages of 1 RS describing Geolib and passages of a completely different RS describing left-lib, which is fine for purposes outside of Wikipedia; however, you did NOT find reliable sources that actually say the two are the same. Your use of two sources to draw that conclusion is your own WP:SYN. I never said either source was flawed. Your use of those sources for the conclusion you're trying to support, however, is terribly flawed. If you're trying to prove "'water' and 'liquids' are the same thing", you don't need Source #1 that says "water is wet" and Source #2 that says "liquids are wet" --- you would need a source that comes straight out and says "'water' and 'liquids' are the same thing." In the spirit of helping you review any possible need for improvement, I'd say that, in my opinion, the deficiencies in your arguments, such as the one here, seem to plague the edits that I've seen from you. BigK HeX (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Also .... just in case you happen to believe anything said by that nutjob stalker (who goes around "making a record of my edits every day .. sometimes multiple times a day" lol!), it looks like he's referring to a dispute on the Malinvestment wiki where he tried to dredge up quotes from an article in a questionable source where he refused to prove any sort of prominence (since he was using it to oppose scientific studies of a Nobel-prize winner), and apparently thinks I'm "shifting positions" because I've used sources like the Encyclopedia of Ethics for which I would happily provide a list where it has been referenced in over 100 citations, or Peter Vallentyne who has dozens of citations on his viewpoint of libertarianism. If any editors in good standing think that amounts to "shifting positions", I heartily welcome the discussion. Anyways, I just wanted to set the record straight, lest he lead you astray. His behavior has claimed its share of victims already ... no need to rack up yet another. BigK HeX (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

i haven't read the encyclopedia of ethics, but on the second page of peters book, he listed john locke as egalitarian. do you agree? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's another of your arguments that is problematic when made on the article talk page [irrelevant, IMO]. BigK HeX (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, but what is your answer? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he had a complete egalitarian nature, but some of his beliefs can certainly be viewed as promoting egalitarianism. Happened to musing on that just a few hours ago while driving ... ironically enough. In any case, even if you think Vallentyne is "wrong" about John Locke, I see pretty much no relevance to the editing of the wiki article. If you still think it is relevant, you'd have to explain why, otherwise I don't think it is productive use of my time to indulge the discussion extensively. BigK HeX (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

happy to have planted that seed in your head, perhaps my "ignorant rant", did serve some purpose after all. Micheal Otsuka Libertarianism without Inequality "even many of Locke's more moderate or left-leaning interpreters have not yet provided a sufficiently egalitarian reconstruction of his political philosophy." So if peter got this most basic truth wrong, maybe he is not the best source we could reference 4 times in the 1st 10 sources.

That's a pretty terrible argument to use in support of the assertion that "peter got it wrong". Where'd you get the idea for that argument from? BigK HeX (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

ok, which of his beliefs promoted egalitarianism? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why ask me when you know that Vallentyne's position on "Locke's egalitarian stances" is certain to be explained in his book? BigK HeX (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

good point, i assumed like everything i keep misunderstanding a simple answer would arrive. do you think peter given undue weight as a source? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. Didn't think any of his independent work was referenced. BigK HeX (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

i meant to say collaborator of sources used. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Libertarianism" should be construed narrowly Discussion

I made quite an extensive post to the discussion. Let me know if you think I missed or misrepresented anything important.

I'll probably add some more to it tomorrow, especially with regard to including proper reliable sources (as distinct from that blatantly subjective revisionist fluff the left-wingers have claimed as reliable sources).

Many Libertarians (especially the Objectivists) dislike Immanuel Kant, (largely because of his epistemology and other aspects of his ethics), but I think his Categorical Imperative (not treating a person as a mere means to another person's ends, but treating them as ends per se) is entirely consistent with Libertarian philosophy. BlueRobe (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was an excellent post! i thought me adding the quote from their most popular author, peter vallentyne, should have ended the debate. he said, "the best known form of libertarianism - right-libertarianism." Darkstar1st (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will continue to add to my post as new thoughts come to mind (I wrote my contribution after midnight, so I was a bit punchy at the time, lol). Hopefully, Xerographica will enter the discussion and list some of his excellent reliable sources (they take a long time to compile). BlueRobe (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been having a closer look at the so-called reliable sources for left-Libertarianism in the Libertarianism article. Holy crap, they're nonsense! They're little more than rhetoric written by third-rate academics who don't know whether to call themselves Anarchists or Socialists or left-Libertarians. And many of the references to "left-Libertarianism" are little more than casual notations or wishful inference. Is that was passes for reliable sources with the lefties? Meanwhile, Xerographica's internationally respected (and instantly recognisable) reliable sources are ignored. This is laughable. I might rip into the left-Libertarianism sources tomorrow. BlueRobe (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

agree, the LL sources are pretty thin. the whole debate has been an exercise in patience. in the beginning my edits were far more confrontational, until a like minded editor alerted me to the fact wp has become weighted toward the left. now our challenge is to navigate these waters without being banned. there is support, heck the founder himself is a libertarian, and from Alabama, but we have to make sure nothing we say can be used against us. by sticking to the content, and avoiding discussing other editors, the overwhelming mountain of evidence will win the day. this rfc has been great, notice how the 1st noob to critique the other side got hit head bitten off. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've further added to my post. I have included some real reliable sources, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, and some interesting statistics. BlueRobe (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

you should have seen the attack i endured adding webster's definition to the lede. kudos on britannica, a MAJOR step toward the truth. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone (Carol) has noted that you haven't made a bold-font "narrow" vote. Maybe you should add one, just to help with the numbers as it appears they've conscripted some random supporters for their cause from people who have never even looked at the Libertarianism page before. BlueRobe (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep the ultimate goal in mind

Doing well, but please keep the ultimate goal in mind - correcting the mainspace of the article without being banned. This may require additional editors' support - a quick one-line comment on like-minded editors' talk pages seems not to violate anti-canvassing rules - BKH does it all the time. I make this comment because - I hate to say this - some of your opponents have already dismissed you as weak, and easily able to be manipulated out of actually editing the mainpage. See for example here. Again the easiest way of monitoring what is going on is to check your opponents' contibutions pages regularly. I don't hold out much hope of getting the Libertarian mainpage to say anything clear - I tried over 18 months and got shot - but good luck in any case. The clear objective of the socialist zealots is to ensure Libertarianism stays dry, academic, and so confusing that no one feels like they have to take any positive political action even if they are Libertarians. You can see from my intro that I wanted a much punchier intro to ensure people understood that action is required to overturn current unjust political institutions if they were libertarians, very much in accordance with the traditions of Murray Rothbard. That's what seemed to anger them the most. Clarity is our goal and their fear. We haven't succeeded until that is achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.11.33 (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

weak is probably accurate, or apathetic. what is clear is outside help is needed to correct the article. what i notice more everyday is the outrage expressed by libertarian 1st timers here. most echo the "i never even heard of left, socialist, or anarchist libertarians". the rfc was a huge step in the right direction, the mediation/arbitration should set things right. i have enjoyed a few small victories, adding belsham as the person who coined the term, before dejaques was born, and exposing the pov of an editor who claimed i was pov pushing. this guy is hilarious, i doubt anyone considers him neutral after reading the pages he created. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lib RfC

I created a section for your "neither" comment in the RfC. Feel free to move it back, of course. BigK HeX (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

how did you know i wanted it moved? neither is not in response to broad or narrow, but in response to his original question. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You have just broken the 3 revert rule, by refactoring others comments on the talk page of libertarianism. I highly suggest that you revert your last edit to avoid sanctions. LK (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring report

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Darkstar1st_reported_by_User:Lawrencekhoo_.28Result:_declined.29, as comments within it relate to you. --slakr^\ talk / 12:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

thx, apologies for letting it go this far, i will work with lk to smooth things over. Darkstar1st (talk) 13

05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A report will be filed if you really want to escalate an edit war. By now, you well know that constant reverts aren't the proper way to edit collaboratively. BigK HeX (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are at your 3rd revert

I'd suggest a different approach to the Libertarianism article. BigK HeX (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea of 'libertarianism' encompasses views which differ broadly, and may even be considered contradictory to each other (as some, including probably you, have claimed on Talk:Libertarianism). This has to be stated prominently. A better lead would be which identifies common themes in all ideologies which call them 'libertarian'. I have said this before on Talk:Libertarianism, but haven't taken up the work myself as I don't have the expertise to do so. N6n (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX and N6n, I am heartily sick of you targeting Darkstar1st for your hypocritical threats for making legitimate editorial changes to fix your own blatant sabotage of the Libertarianism page. This is your final warning: STOP THE THREATS AND HARASSMENT OR YOU WILL BE REPORTED. BlueRobe (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My "threat" was far from "hypothetical" ... whatever that even means. Please begin a report, if you see cause. I stand by my actions. BigK HeX (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I used the words "hypocritical threats. Not, "hypothetical threats". /facepalm lol BlueRobe (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@BlueRobe: 'STOP THE THREATS AND HARASSMENT OR YOU WILL BE REPORTED': This is a 'threat' too. Also, as you said once on Talk:Libertarianism, and I agree, all-caps is shouting.

I think I can assure you that no registered user on the L. page identifies with 'left-libertarianism'. But all those you disagree with (nine editors, including me) want to do the "right thing". Reliable Sources talk about it, and that is enough.

Another off-topic point: You are probably excited because you think it hurts Libertarian Party's chance. I don't think it does. (That aside from the fact that WP is not for propaganda. If it were, you wouldn't be here! We respect WP, and spend our time on it, because we hope to get a more-or-less unbiased and complete version of the issue. In this case, it is not up to us to decide whether some forms are 'moronic' or not.)

Also, you are regularly using hyperbole which decreases your credibility. What have I done which counts as "blatant sabotage"? In any case, feel free to report. N6n (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! I misread your misread your comment, which is very likely to occur since I'm loathe to actually expend much energy on your silly histrionics. My point stands ... I stand by my actions. BigK HeX (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

N6n, out of interest, what do you think the curious reader will learn about Libertarianism from reading the lede on the Libertarianism page?

Face it, the Libertarianism lede is worthless mush that could readily be improved by a studious junior high school student. It serves as an embarrassment to Wikipaedia. And anyone who tries to fix it has their efforts immediately reverted and they're threatened.

And the rest of the article is not much better. It gives way too much weight to Noam Chomsky (an Anarcho-syndicalist!), it doesn't even mention Ayn Rand, and it refers to "left-Libertarianism" equally as often as "right-Libertarianism". If I am guilty of "histrionics" (as BigK HeX calls them), it is because I cannot help but believe the Wikipaedia Libertarianism page, and its talk page, are all part of one big hidden camera show and we're all just waiting for the punchline to reveal this deliberate shambles for the utter absurdity that it so clearly is. Or, the current state of the Libertarianism page is the result of wanton sabotage.

Btw, I'm a new Zealander. I couldn't care less how the Libertarian Party does in America. And surely it would be hyperbolic to suggest that a Wikipaedia article on Libertarianism would make the difference between success and failure in an election, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@Darkstar1st: While reverting in summary I said that "it was the whole issue". On further thought, it is a wrong summary. The "whole issue" would be if you deleted such references from the whole article. My reason mentioned earlier stands, but my summary was an exaggeration. I apologize. N6n (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@n6n, you have not offended me, and i am not sure which summary you speak, but i welcome the refreshing air of civility from the libertarian page, noted and appreciated. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a ground war

My congratulations for getting this far. It's now a chaotic ground war, with the socialist zealots doing everything to insert obfuscation and confusions and battling over every inch of territory. The goal is to expunge confusing rubbish and quote directly from clear writers such as Rothbard and from the excellent and erudite Libertarianism Today - which doesn't appear to be ref'd in the article, certainly not in the lede.

The major contamination point that would turn off newbies is this shocking distortion: 'While libertarians generally disdain many government functions, some distinguish between minarchist and varying anarchist views (such as the libertarian socialist and anarcho-capitalist views) of libertarianism.[2][3][4] Additionally, distinctions such as left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism have been identified.'

Not only are the references rubbish, not only does it contaminate the page with irrelevant leftish rubbish, there is a much more insiduous fallacy perpetuated by this section. No Libertarian - not even anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard - would 'disdain many government functions'. THAT IS A LIE. It's unsourced, and they've slipped it in with an unrelated - sourced - phrase in the hope you'll miss it and not battle over sourcing of the first phrase in this sentence. Evil.

Just to clarify - Libertarians distrust THE WAY IN WHICH GOVERNMENTS DELIVER 'ESSENTIAL' SERVICES, NOT THE SERVICES THEMSELVES. I suggest you cite and use Libertarianism Today to show that Libertarians merely consider that these essential services can be done more efficiently by the private sector than by a coercive authority that doesn't have to convince someone to hand over money for a project but rather steals it instead.

Rothbard and Hoppe constantly emphasize that services such as law and order and security are essential but could be provided more efficiently by the competitive private sector in a non-coercive manner. The correct wording would be:

'Libertarians generally believe private entities could provide most - or all - essential services more efficiently than the State. The range of genuinely 'public' functions to be retained by a small coercive State is a source of some debate within Libertarian circles.'

Good luck and all the very best. You and Blue make a good combination. It's like a good cop, bad cop thing going on, with X occasionally making erudite comments from on high. I use the term good cop, bad cop as an intentional Libertarian pun. I doubt either you or Blue would be cops in real life...—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

more "troops" are on the way. i have come to the realization anything i do will be reverted. notice how my edit yesterday was reverted, only to have some additions, and part of the revert restored. many editors have said it's not my content, rather it is me personally to which they object. my "style" of not compromising or using feel good terms to make all editors sound half right. that is not my way, and they dont like it. so i am trying a new tact, thx to LK's rfc, i see the power of having new voices here. now my old reverters are busy arguing with new people while i stay out of the fray and plot my next edit. currently my goal is for as many people to see this article as possible, should my pov be correct, the new voices will fix the article for me. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent strategy. Preserve your edits so you don't get hit with a 3RR, let others take up the cause so it doesn't look like it's just you POV-pushing. It's a mind-numbingly repetitive strategy of BKH to canvass like-minded socialist robots and then they combine their attack in a cluster - like the cluster of broads on the talk page, and then make it look as though it's 'you, the little POV-pusher' against the world. His constant astonishment over the 'bizarre' nature of your edits is boring. He's invariably 'shocked' that anyone would have an issue with his reasonable RS edits. Then he runs around behind the scenes to get recruits - he often emails outside WP so he avoids anti-canvassing rules. You definitely need recruits because, sadly, numbers matter to some degree here, not just the quality of argument. One guy reverts your edits, you protest, another guy gives you a warning for edit warring. The socialists believe in the reality of 'group' identities so, naturally, they work well in clusters - as a unit - to enforce 'group-think' in the gulag. I have tried, in the shadows, to correct their nefarious edits. See here, here, and here for example. It's always the same three or four, but they are all academics or govt-employee parasites so they've got loads of time on their hands and can afford to camp-edit, wikistalk and wikilawyer you out of WP. A few suggestions from years of dealing with these devious rodents:

1. DISTRACT. They are hypersensitive to edits on inflation, monetary inflation, monetary reform, John Maynard Keynes - especially anything to do with his gayness - Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tea Party Movement, anarchism, or - as you know - Libertarianism. What I used to do before they put a group contract out on my head was to 'cluster' edit. I'd edit on monetary reform, then fight them on that page, then make small minor edits on the page I was really interested in, like Austrian School. They were so distracted and so child-like in their responses that they'd end up happy to kill me off from monetary reform not realizing that I'd made edits on another page. However the ratio had to be about 20 to 1. Anything less, and they'd cotton on. They're nasty hypocrites, they're mad, they're zealots, but they're certainly not stupid and they work in clusters very well. Perhaps there is something to the socialist idea that group identities matter, because they certainly work well in groups. Then again, so do rats and mice...

2. USE THEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEM. Checking their attacks against others, I was amazed how hypocritical and inconsistent their arguments were from page to page. As I pointed out to you before, it is simply incredible that BKH is screaming to have left-libertarianism retained on the mainpage - and note we're not asking for the left-libertarian page to be wiped out, just for this stuff to be left on the LL page - BUT ON THE THE OTHER HAND, he and LK have both been screaming for months to reduce Austrian and Libertarian positions on other pages. See here, here and here. I've won every argument because I know my stuff and always point to references - I genuinely want to tell the exact truth on those pages where I know my stuff - but they really don't care. They have no shame. They always - always - delete my talk page arguments once I've won. See for example here and here. Notice on the history pages that admins have even deleted my history, so you can't ever go back and read these old arguments. Why would they do that when so few people would go back to the history pages? This is extreme censorship. They don't want successful arguments to even have a trace of history.

3. QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES. My best tactic before they banished me to the shadows like a leper was simply to copy and paste sections from significant libertarian, Rothbardian or Austrians works and add them in as quotes. I'd really try to pick the quotes that encapsulated the whole book or the whole argument. Sometimes this would take hours. But it was bullet proof. There was no argument about screwing with the text. I just pasted in exactly what was said. Mises.org is a great resource because all the sources are on-line so you can copy and paste during an argument.

If all else fails, and they kill you off from Libertarianism, don't worry. You can always enrage them by going to the inflation page and putting in quotes from Rothbard and Mises stating that inflation is by definition debasement of the means of exchange or simply increases in the volume of money circulating in the economy. That always seems to trigger their rage the most. Because that's the heart of the statist scam. My sincere thanks for all your patient work and you have been much more tolerant of these idiots than I ever was, which is, sadly, why I've ended up in the shadows. Recruit some friends and take a break when you need to. And throw in an edit on social credit occasionally if you want to stir the pot a little on other pages. Or try to add Ellen Hodgson Brown, Henry C.K. Liu or Jorg Guido Hulsmann back in WP as notable writers. These kinds of fun and games always enraged them. Because I knew the statist scams so well I knew what would get them going, so these little games were always great fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.173.184 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

lol .... you're a moron. None of those battle "tactics" has done you ANY good, which is pretty obvious given your current status. You can't even get in your idiotic edits on low-traffic Australian political pages anymore. Pathetic. BigK HeX (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you knew all the edits I've made that have 'stuck' you wouldn't be LOLing. And another suggestion DS1 - make multiple small edits over a half hour period like I've done here, but do it on the mainpage of libertarianism. BKH and other editors work tirelessly on their edits on an 'old' page and then get terribly frustrated when they lose their edits because you've already saved a new version that's incompatible with their old version. I do it all the time just to annoy them. Cheers and good luck. PS - to really annoy LK or BKH put a negative spin on gay marriage by inserting religious condemnation of anal sex or anything on Proposition 8. I'm not saying they're gay, I'm simply saying for some reason they get very worked up about it. It was a fun distraction for me as 'payback' every time I was removed by these idiots from working on Austrian School.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.173.184 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You had edits stick to your little pet pages only by the mercy I once tried to extend to your "plight" for over a year. You'll notice that a month or so ago, you managed exceeded my patience with your vitriol, and I've now taken to reverting you ruthlessly. As it stands now, if you expend weeks at creating edits, you'll be lucky to have a minor punctuation correction "stick" to any of your pet pages -- that is my solemn promise to you. Your insults and robotic, single-minded fixation alone got you into this situation, and if I must protect Wikipedia from babbling incompetents who refuse to work collaboratively, then so be it. It still remains to be seen what sanctions your Internet Provider will impose after Wikipedia reported your multiple years of trespassing here, but even aside from that, your days of disturbing your pet Wiki pages are numbered. BigK HeX (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We know each other well, but this is the first time I've seen outright hypocrisy from you on the same page, IN THE SAME SECTION. You talk of extending mercy to me like I was always on the end of a razor-sharp knife, you're ready to cut into my flesh, but within literally seconds, you're warning DS1 to write collaboratively and not treat WP as a battleground. But you also laugh at him and call him a POV-pusher. The hypocrisy is simply ASTONISHING. Do you even know that you're doing it, I wonder... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.173.184 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I extended you mercy, because you were already in the tail end of the banning process as I entered the Wikipedia project. We never got to interact while you were in good standing; we never had any editorial disputes. Initially, I was happy to assume good faith for you, even despite the community's decision about you --- it had to be proven to me. In any case, I'm actually pretty sympathetic to your POV, but your over-the-top push for your POV, in blatant violation of numerous policies, on top of your abrasive attitude did you no favors. Alienating me just added one more person stacked against your ability to function "in the shadows" here.

In any case, Darkstar1st is a different case. He is not already banned, and we have interacted. If you still find hypocrisy in that, then so be it. Matters not to me. BigK HeX (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DS1 is very close to being banned. I can see the knife hovering over his head. I make this prediction. If he doesn't get discouraged and just keeps going, he will eventually be banned or his edits will be removed from the mainpage. One or the other. And I predict it will be LK who will ban him. Now, let's see how this plays out.

Not sure why you see him being banned .... you seem to do a lot of projection, as with you calling other people "zealots" when it is you who has a single-minded fixation (i.e., making a record of my edits "several times a day"), or when you call other people "tyrants" when they are in good standing to guard this company's resources against you, who is the unwelcome trespasser on this private property.

In any case, I see one of three alternatives for Darkstar1st:

1. He might learn to accept that the community's input should be respected, and he'll find ways to be productive [like in the case of his Belsham edit]
2. He might cease or slow the editing that he personally does, or
3. there's a small chance that he gets fixated and ends up being sanctioned, though he learns quickly and I don't think he'll go crazy enough to get banned, though following your advice would do him no favors. BigK HeX (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You bore me with your inaccuracies, I would find you amusing if you didn't blunder into shockingly bad editing on pages that are not in your areas of expertise - which I assume include socialism, central banking, freemasonry, possibly gay marriage and Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

I NEVER SAID I MAKE - OR EVER MADE - A RECORD OF YOUR EDITS. I merely recommended that DS1, who is engaged in a heated debate over essential parts of Libertarianism, do this. I actually don't look at your contributions pages very often. Given that the history is collated it would be idiotic of me to this very often. I merely gave this as advice to someone else who - sadly - is having to interact with you. As you know, I try to avoid you like the plague. You have made it your mission to stalk me off WP. It's not as though I personally need to check your edits. If only you didn't check mine...

Personally, I still find it amazing that, after all of your blatant trespassing and unauthorized appropriation of this company's resources, that you consider yourself a defender of libertarianism. Rothbard is probably rolling in his grave every time you steal "in his name"..... Meh BigK HeX (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I bet you didn't want to mention that your years of trespassing and your continued unauthorized appropriation of the Wikimedia Foundation's private resources have gotten you into trouble. So, Darkstar1st, following this guy's path can be perilous. I suggest collaboration, instead of fixation and a battleground mentality. BigK HeX (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@BigK I doubt lk will make anymore false charges against me, his last attempt almost got him banned. as for you, i like you just the way you are, dont change. your ability to cite wp policy, and break it at the same time amuses me. see above attack "moron", in addition to the several times you have called me/my edits ignorant, etc. notice how i nvr report you? you are digging you own wikihole, someone with far less patience will have to end your wikicareer, i kind of enjoy it. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Characterizing your speculation as ignorant is harsh, but is not necessarily a personal attack. I do not mean to insult you, but I do feel obligated to make it plain when someone is stirring up the talk page, based on nothing more than pure speculation. I'm sorry that my comments have (seemingly) offended you, but I do stand by my comments. BigK HeX (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

<backdent> I assume 114.73.173.184 is Banned User:Karmaisking? Are they allowed to troll on user pages? What if people encourage it? A bit much. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... so, Carol wants Darkstar1st to be punished because someone (who?!) was trolled on Darkstar1st's talk page by an anonymous user who may, or may not, have been banned from Wikipaedia at some point in the past?

Hey Carol, while you're barking at the Moon like this, why don't you file a law suit against your neighbours the next time some unknown kids smash one of his windows?

FFS, Carol, why are you even looking at this page? BlueRobe (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DS1 please feel free to delete whole sections where I've contributed. Once you've read these sections there's no point keeping them, as these guys always think 'guilty by association'. If you've ever seen a picture of Carol, no one could accuse her of being long and thin, but she's got a mind like a viper and will bite at the slightest provocation. Check out her search to ban you here and here. From her usual haphazard editing style - see here - you can tell she's sweating over how she can accuse you of meatpuppetry. This is where editors try to recruit others to debate an issue. BKH does this all the time, but recruits offline via email. He'll occasionally say on LK's talk page 'check you emails' so I know what's going on. Yes, they're blatant hypocrites but that doesn't mean you should openly recruit. You haven't but just a friendly warning to avoid any overt recruitment on WP itself. There appear to be no sanctions for this activity but why bring into question the integrity of new, genuine editors like Blue with accusations of meatpptry. And Blue I like your style, you always skewer these suckers with their own idiocy, but stay patient and don't lose your cool or overstate your case. Just progress through the right channels and let's see how far we can go. They're desperately trying to claim consensus and block any second round of debates, so you need to line up your refs now before things get shut down all of a sudden. I know you've both already put forward many excellent refs, but just a few additional refs to assist you guys if you need additional ammo: see Libertarianism Today, which should be used copiously and often in the lede and elsewhere as the most up-to-date restatement of Libertarianism, and see on-line - hopefully passable RSs - here and here - note 'owing virtually NOTHING to Marxism' - and see especially the great on-line refs I had in an earlier version of the intro here, especially those from Rothbard. These refs should be ready to go when you need to source the argument that Libertarian is most commonly defined within the narrow framework we've been fighting for and these idiots should go off and work on the left libertarian page for all they like.

I acknowledge I probably made a mistake by being open in my disdain - a bit like Blue - and then saying 'screw them' and just going in and editing the mainpage. However I had a sense in my early dealings with these psychos that nothing would stop these leftist Daleks and I've at least been prescient on that. Nothing has. Eventually someone's going to have to hit the mainpage, but I suggest you think about co-ordination, where someone hits the talk page and the other hits the mainpage for two edits and then the other one takes over. I'm sure you can work it out - perhaps offline. I don't hold out much hope for the Rfc but as long as you keep your sense of humor at least you're showing the world how insanely skewed the leftist zealots of the world have become.

Warning on Meat Puppetry/Cozying up to known sock puppets

• First, by now you evidently have figured out from User:114.73.173.184's exchanges with User:BigK HeX in your It's a ground war section that that AonIP is a sock puppet, and moreover [added later: evidently] yet another sock puppet of User:Karmaisking who has been banned from Wikipedia, including for abusing the Libertarianism article multiple times. [Added later: User:114.73.173.184 admits he's a sock of some user or other. Users:114.73.173.184, 125.7.71.6 and ShadowMan4444 all banned as socks of KarmaisKing 9/4/10] User:Ddd1600 also was caught using a sock after he was sanctioned for edit warring in the Libertarianism article. [Added later: User:BarbaricSocialistZealots was found to be a sock of Karmaisking in late July.] Both All had POVs and rhetoric similar to yours. You yourself were accused here, but not enough evidence was found to support the accusation. Cozying up to obvious sock puppets not a good idea for one's credibility.
• Second, you surely noticed all the anonymous IPs with POVs and rhetoric was similar to yours who started disrupting the article and talk page after (and perhaps before) you joined the discussion. This insults led to wikiettiquettes against them until AnonIPs were banned from editing. You yourself were subject to a WP:ANI (here). Then several newly registered editors (or spontaneously revived old ones) appeared with POVs and rhetoric similar to yours, at least one of whom stopped editing after several complaints of edit warring to his talk page. Considering their similar POVs, it certainly raised questions about your involvement in Sock or Meat puppetry.
• Third and most suspiciously, at this diff in this talk section called "It's a ground war" you wrote:

more "troops" are on the way. i have come to the realization anything i do will be reverted. notice how my edit yesterday was reverted, only to have some additions, and part of the revert restored. many editors have said it's not my content, rather it is me personally to which they object. my "style" of not compromising or using feel good terms to make all editors sound half right. that is not my way, and they dont like it. so i am trying a new tact, thx to LK's rfc, i see the power of having new voices here. now my old reverters are busy arguing with new people while i stay out of the fray and plot my next edit. currently my goal is for as many people to see this article as possible, should my pov be correct, the new voices will fix the article for me.

This sounds like you are intending to widely advertise the article on and off wikipedia and ask for people to help you promote your POV. (And makes one wonder if you have done so in the past.) Frankly, given the past history of abuse of the article, I probably should go straight to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. However, if any and all sock puppets and meat puppets were to disappear it would save me the trouble of coming up with all the diffs (of which there are many) indicating what has been going on and filing a complaint. I probably should just do it, and encourage anyone else to do it. Just don't forget to get diffs regarding various incidents I've mentioned above. Otherwise alert the Libertarianism article talk page, as I will about this, and I'll add in any you have missed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

i have ask for support for a new rfc, because of that, you are accusing me of meatpupperty? carol, from now on, just do whatever action you intend, and skip the warning. me and everyone who reads those talk pages has heard your accusations enough, start filing the complaints, or stop making threats. do you have evidence the person commenting on my page is a sockpuppet? frankly after all of your "confusions" i dont believe most of what you say now. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the RfC and my comments were directly motivated by your "troops" comment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

then you have not read the current section titles in the libertarian talk page. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't said much about it, Darstar1st, but the concerns regarding meatpuppetry are very valid given your own explicit statements. BigK HeX (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

which statements? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc is basing her claim on a flippant remark about "troops" that was made on his own talk page. However, she has not been able to provide any examples of sock puppets or meat puppets that have entered the Libertarian discussions to fight at Darkstar1st's side. Indeed, the only examples of new users who look suspiciously like sock puppets or meat puppets are a few one-off contributions by random editors who entered "broad" votes alongside Carolmooredc (et al) in the recent rfc. BlueRobe (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

then i owe wp an apology, i meant to say, "new wp editors not currently viewing the page,, but monitoring the rfc page, and now interested in the libertarian page, joining the pov the article should be narrowed" my quest for brevity, has undo my point, an error i will not make again. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire, Ddd1600 created a sock after he was banned. And KarmaIsKing had an earlier one [Added later:(User:BarbaricSocialistZealots)] caught on Libertarianism before the quickly squashed User:ShadowMan4444 (aka User:114.73.173.184 and User:125.7.71.6 on this page). None of them got around to editing there, only on BlueRobe and Darkstar's talk pages where he was met with much sympathy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Before starting a "new RfC"

Before you start any new RfC for the Libertarianism page, please review Wikipedia:IDHT#Refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22 and the unfortunate remedies available, such as the WP:ANI. BigK HeX (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

consider me warned of every possible action you can think of twice already. from now on, just proceed instead of taking up space here. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You still are entitled to any relevant warnings, but I acknowledge that you desire no further warnings from me on your talk page. Cheers. BigK HeX (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In the real world, we have Restraining Orders for nutters like BigK HeX who continually come into your home to harass and threaten you. What a bloody headcase. BlueRobe (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

i am flattered by his attention, but it does seem to border on the absurd. it is like he must have the last word and a word or two after to make sure i know he had the last word. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, it appears that BigK HeX is more interested in you than in the Libertarianism page. Do you two know each other from elsewhere, or is he harassing you simply because you challenge him? BlueRobe (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

no, but what is so funny, is i actually like the guy. he is full of energy, imho not matter what direction that energy is pointed, it is far preferable to the apathy of so many of our youth. he seems to be very intelligent and committed, qualities i admire. i do think he assumes all of my edits are flaw, although many remain still, and he automatically revert them, without reading the sources. i have suggest several times to him and others, to focus on content, create articles, add sources, instead of critique editors. to file more complaints than sources in wp is a shame, this type of editing will be minimized in the wp of the future. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The way BigK HeX obsesses over you is freaky. He's like a dog with a bone - he won't let you go, lol. But, as you say, it is flattering that he considers you to be such a threat that he threatens and attacks you so often. Just make sure you lock all the doors and windows when you go to bed each night ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

i am in Budapest for work the next few months, if anyone can find me who speaks english, it would be a welcome visit. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Attempted outing

You are being discussed at ANI and may reply here. TFD (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

she has been out, and using wp to self promote. I'm not a radio person but http://youtube.com/carolmoore is chockful of my DC protest videos and starting to do music videos of my songs. Plus have another more anonymous YT site with (I take the fifth amendment) video put together cleverly to illustrate nuke war issues. Far more popular than my own site. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Darkstar1st (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's really incredibly uncivil to quote someone without providing a diff so others don't have to scroll through pages of contributions. Doubtless some chatty Personal talk page fluff, which I didn't know was ILLEGAL.... CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

it actually is illegal to use wp servers for personal gain, boasting you hung out with murray, posting music videos, books your have written published by something gun publishers, hardly wp:rs, and then trying to influence the article to match your book/personal relationship with the creator of anarcho-capitalism. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Then bring your complaints to the appropriate forum. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

as i have told you and others, i dont file complaints, wp is self-healing, editors undo themselves. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I have a different philosophy. By the way, if you really did your research you'd know that Murray denounced the hell out of me more than once in the late 1980s since I was one of the most vocal organizers vs. various of his projects at the time. Last time I saw him before he died he glared at me. I'm sure we would have made up by now, but maybe not. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing he's important enough to be in the Libertarianism article. Me and 95% of real libertarians. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

you admit you know the guy, you admit you have published your music videos here, just stop editing the article that is about your book. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not reporting me to WP:COIN is not license to harass and badger me and I do complain about such things. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

what evidence do you have i harassed you? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh crikey, the irony of Carolmooredc accusing anyone else of harassment is impossible to miss, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Bluerobe

With the best will in the world; Blue's general civility has been low even before this conflict. I'm surprised it has taken this long to come to a head; perhaps, as someone he trusts, you could try to get across to him that there is no valid excuse for uncivil behaviour here. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

i hope you will read some of his intelligent edits from a week or 2 ago, if only to see what type of editor has been driven out of wp, although i hold out little hope anyone will bother. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well his only main article space contribution was this, which was against a number of policies - and then he bit my head off for asking for a source... --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Supposed "statism"

The source you've given says nothing about "statism." Please do NOT repeatedly try to insert WP:OR into the article. BigK HeX (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved comments

Notification that I've moved our discussion off of BlueRobe's talk page, and over to my talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've given some advice to BigK and as a courtesy I'm writing it to you too. I think you two should take some time, disengage, and stay away from each other where possible. You've both made your positions known, multiple times, in multiple places, and rehashing the same antagonistic arguments isn't benefiting the project. If you feel BigK has harassed you, you need to provide diffs as evidence to support your claims, as you have been asked to do already. I think that both of you should try your best to drop it before you end up in an unneeded edit war or personal attack battle. If you disengage and BigK continues to follow you (to places you HAVE NOT made any reference to him) you can seek remedy in mediation or ANI, but I'm not convinced you guys have to take it that far. I am only voicing my thoughts and this is not a warning.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

thx Torch, i actually kind of like bigk, he has spirit and i respect that no matter which direction it be focused. disengaging bigk has been a bit of a challenge, as he also edits and reverts this page quite often, so far it does not bother me, and i actually am interested to see how far he will take it. what seems to be working in my behalf is mediation, being able to debate/challenge the edits to libertarianism in a controlled setting appears to have brought some much needed perspective to the debate. most of what bgk says and does can be backed up by wp:somethinggoeshere, but, since the rules are open to interpretation, sometimes simply citing a rule is not enough to enact it's prescription as has been pointed out in the mediation. the most frustrating example was him denying me an edit on the disambiguation page, only to use my very argument against another editor, now the page reflects my edit which was to combine identical terms. ex:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism_(disambiguation)&action=historysubmit&diff=384250364&oldid=384239445

his argument a few days earlier is in all caps, i reposted it below him taking the exact opposite position. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Nothing in any of my comments indicates any sort of "change" in my position. I re-recommend the same advice as usual to you, if you choose to have the basis to make stronger arguments...... BigK HeX (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Things were a little heated a few days ago between that group of editors which included both of you. I'm glad things are moving ahead.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

agreed, i wish blue had of not said what he did, but i understand why. wp can be frustrating, but the secret is find out what others are using to support their edits, learn, adapt, move forward. i like to take the same sources other editors use and insert portions from the same text making the opposite point. example, i found LL supports expanding the welfare state on the LL wp article, yet it took weeks to remove the line from the lede on the libertarianism page that LL are anti statist. it is the obvious doublespeak that is so frustrating to many, but easily defeated using correct wp protocol. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not doublespeak. I'm guessing you know where I'm going with this.... BigK HeX (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Duplication

Hiya. Wondered if you'd realised you'd left duplicate comments at Bluerobe's talk. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

hi yes, i do that to throw off the watchers from outer-space, thx. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Great - I'll be sure to give you another heads-up in future then. Trafford09 (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

hi! i was actually writing an apology for my sarcasm and saw this when i tried to post. i did not create the section provocation, or mean to duplicate my comments, i suspect i know how it happened. as is the case often with my comments, a specific user will move them and repost to other parts of a page, or a different page, sometimes even reverting my own talk page while i am offline. sorry i directed my frustration at you friend, i made a rash assumption you were part of the aliens who have targeted me for assimilation. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No probs! I know how these misconceptions can arise. I'm one of the good guys! Thanks for the apology. Happy editing :) Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

was rude of me, and nice of you to forgive, thx. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

You may want to look into getting your talk page protected. WP:RPP BigK HeX (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding [3], if your intention is to try to mock me, then please don't try to make a WP:POINT using my talk page. I am quite willing to validate my actions with a DUCK test by any admin. If you're going to try to mirror my actions, make sure that you are willing to do the same in that regard as well. BigK HeX (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

you mock yourself with the LL contradiction, as well as suggesting i restrict my page, but not your own. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Consider that you've been warned about WP:POINT and disruption (on my talk page). BigK HeX (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

i would like to remind you i have waived all warnings from you weeks ago, should you have a complaint, file a report, but your warnings are no longer permitted here. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, his declaration of war-by-harassment, could hardly be any more obvious than: "You may want to look into getting your talk page protected." He'll just bait you until you leave. That. Is. What. He. Does. BlueRobe (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

i've been here longer then he has, and have no plans to leave. by the rate his conflicts are increasing, perhaps it will be him that will have to leave wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Hi Darkstar1st. This is just a friendly note to tread carefully in the Libertarianism talk page today. Some editors seem quite upset, but I'm not at all sure what their complaints are. It's almost like they're upset that I asked for a logical explanation (with WP:RS) of how left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism are "intimately related" to mainstream Libertarianism... It's all a bit Twilight Zone. BlueRobe (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

i was about to tell you the same about the talk page, it is obvious some editors will not be convinced, so i suggest you continue to add sources and edit according to wp guidelines rather than joust windmills with disagreeable editors. the clear answer is the wp:npov and undo weight which requires tiny minority views be excluded, and minority views minimized, be bold in your edits, humble in your comments. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And I'm always humble. BlueRobe (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Libertarianism. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Libertarianism. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

i have not added any material to the libertarianism article in September, please strike your comments. i have been an editor in wp twice as you as you, so instead i welcome you and wish for your stay here be productive. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, apparently, we're allowed to delete the posts of other editors in our User talk pages. Regardless, I have no idea why Fifelfoo keeps accusing us of promotion and advertising in our posts. BlueRobe (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to skip to Uw-advert3 directly in future when you remove sourced material on a SOAPBOX basis? I apologise about forgetting to sign the warnings. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

i give you permission to skip to uw-advert3. from this time forward your warnings are not required. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What is Uw-advert3? BlueRobe (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A User-warning template relating to advertising or soapboxing behaviour at the 3rd level of warning. In the case of vandalism, the 4th level of user warning is generally the last given prior to a vandalism matter being taken to administrator intervention into vandalism. Happy editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Please reconsider IDHT behaviour in the face of RS. Happy editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

fifelfoo, i have not added material to the page in September, either strike your warning, or you will no longer be welcome on this page. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The warnings are in relation to these diff1 diff2 where you removed content despite it being reliably sourced, in order to push a political line. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

perhaps you are confused about which warning you issued? "do not add promotional material to articles" my edits removed material related to a minority view from the lede, after secondary sources were requested. i request you not comment here for 1 week, during which time please review the all of the requirements of the violations you wish to warn me about. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, I warned you that they were trigger-happy tonight. Fifelfoo seems to be C&Ping any old warnings and hoping they fit anything you might have done in the last few days. BlueRobe (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of the Sources

Just so you know what's going on, I was asked to provide some WP:RS regarding the predominance of mainstream Libertarianism vis-a-vis left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Anarcho-Capitalism with regard to Libertarianism, (which is something we're both asked countless times every day). I did so, making a point of following WP guidelines and limiting my WP:RSs to on-line sources. My sources have immediately been derided as not WP:RS (including the Encyclopaedia Britannica, believe it or not). Now, they're listing so-called WP:RS from off-line Anarchist texts that cannot be verified. I think Fifelfoo is well-meaning, but it's a bit hard to follow the way he writes sometimes and some of it can be quite tangential. BlueRobe (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

errant seems to be a big help keeping things on track and silencing the jeers, try to be as respectful as possible lest we run him off like the mediator. sources are where we will win our righteous victory against the hordes bent on destroying the term in an epic clash unrivaled since Krishna shot the Saubha out of the sky, annihilating the evil Salva. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree about Errant. Errant and I began on very bad terms, but I have been impressed with his reasonable approach today. BlueRobe (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

major/minor

Is "minor" supported by the sources? I know the quote talks about the "more well known" but it strikes me as a bit synthy to use that to call anarchism minor. I'd maybe suggest cutting the word altogether for clarity. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC) i am not opposed to removing the word, but if one is more well known, the other is less well known and should not have a prominent role in the article according to npov. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

[This edit] may misrepresent the source, as you modify a quote. Material added by an editor to a quote should be indicated by [ ] square brackets. This is standard convention. It is reasonable to add material, as you appear to have done, to clarify nouns or verbs obscured by quoting fragments of sentences or paragraphs. Also you missed a space before the parenthesis. If the parenthetical material was yours, to clarify the quote, please modify with square brackets to meet standard English language style wrt quotes! Normally when doing so, the generic noun ("it") is deleted. If this is so your edit should then read ""the right of the people to alter or to abolish [destructive government], and to agree to such new governance"" Good edit clarifying the non-anarchist position of the USLP btw. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

thx! apologies, i am the victim of an unconstitutional federal public school cabal, grammar ranked somewhere between bathing and mowing the yard. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of editorial differences I'm always happy to learn and share technical elements of writing / quoting with other editors. I've just been reading my WP Administrative disputes history, shaking my head at some of my past actions, but also happy that these errors on my part appear outweighed by being highly collegial with those I disagree with strongly on editorial points in the past! Many happy corrections on technique for us both in the future! Fifelfoo (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

i definitely believe you are the most civil editor i have encountered on the other side of the libertarianism debate, thx for your kind words. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe

If you can't persuade him/her to lay of the personal attacks and address content issues then its going to ANI. I don't like seeing editors who are prepared to engage getting blocked, but its got beyond a joke. I realise you have already tried and may not have the energy to do so again! --Snowded ^TALK 06:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

He is making baby steps, lets give him a few more days in the spirit of wikikumbaya. some of the other editors engaging him have similar encouragement on their talk recently. it would be fun if wp could take a joke, some of what passes for uncivil and block recently was "bee in the arse". if viewed by an outsider, wp would appear to be a group of bratty children telling on each other while failing the class, one of the admins who chastised blue has "i dont give a f*** on his page, hardly civil. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm letting a lot go by in the hope the baby steps will lengthen, hence the post here. But s/he is pushing tolerance limits at the moment. In a teenager, new to editing with strong personal convictions it would be more understandable. However the educational claims on his page take that one away as an excuse. If these is nothing excessive I'll leave it a few days willingly. --Snowded ^TALK 08:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

possible extenuating circumstances. notice blue talk history, another editor has just reposted a warning blue deleted. at some point a person can only take so much until he snaps and make a rash post. blue has never said anything i wouldn't be able to brush off with a laugh, instead the other editors seem to push blue by responding to his comments. consider giving blue 1 day of your support, perhaps make a comment to other editor to cease-fire, then if he shows no willingness to get along, i will eat my hat. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please advise nature, cleanliness and size of hat so I can determine how worth while such a policy would be ... --Snowded ^TALK 08:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

almost new soloman gray ball cap, large, i left the old one in a cab in cesky krumlov trying to catch a train. after the stuffed pepper i had here in budapest that made me sick for a week, this hat would be easy. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, two days it is; but will require a photograph in the event you loose --Snowded ^TALK 08:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

more than fair, as well as civil of u, thx! please remember, part of the deal was you have to consider giving him some support. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have already added or reverted your addition about "political parties" in [Libertarianism] four times. N6n (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

you are deleting text from the 1st source, see talk Darkstar1st (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You've been reported for breaking 3RR, here. Cheers, Yworo (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Scuse mate but vandalism. restoring half of the sourced text from the definition deleted by mark? I did`nt delete anything i added a ref mark nutley (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry mark, i was reverting the N6n, apologies, didnt mean to get yours also. you may want to view the source i restored as is will surely be deleted soon. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Mkativerata (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darkstar1st (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not 3 rr, restoring vandalism. Blanking: Removing significant parts of a page's content without any reason. I restored text from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarianism, the 1st source of the article and used as a source in the article a very long time. the correct definition, when capitalized is :a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles. 3 other examples of terms with in the same source confirm, when capitalized, means a member of a political party ex:

• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism  : capitalized, a member of the conservative party
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republicanism : capitalized, a member of the republican party
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism  : capitalized, a member of the communist party

Decline reason:

Sorry, but content disputes are not vandalism, as you've been previously informed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The block has been placed for a violation of the three revert rule (link to report above). The block is placed at 48 hours, taking into account a prior block for edit-warring and the aggravating factor of referring to others' edits as vandalism (for which you have been cautioned before). --Mkativerata (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The extreme irony of punishing Darkstar1st, one of the most reasonable and well-intentioned editors on Libertarianism, for outing recidivist editors for their blatant acts of vandalism and wanton sabotage is not lost on any of us. Shame on you. BlueRobe (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why Bother?

Why are you bothering to spend time and energy trying to reason with editors in Talk:Libertarianism who are so clearly incapable of being reasonable? Their blatant bad faith, as they sabotage the article and refuse any compromise whatsoever, could not be more obvious. BlueRobe (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-English sources

There is no rule against non-English sources, please self-revert. Yworo (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo is correct here, however you can ask for a translation to be done if you wish to verify the source. mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

hi Mark, he is correct if used according to the guidelines which require a translation, rather than requested, which the 2 i removed did not. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Linky to the guideline please, i am sure you have to request a translation mark nutley (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the United States

I'd like to draw your attention to the condition of this article. Compare with Conservatism in the United States, Liberalism in the United States and Republicanism in the United States. Could you please dedicate your talents to improving this article? Yworo (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

will take a look now, thx for the link!! Darkstar1st (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiding text on Talk:Libertarianism

I agree you were right to hide that! User:IlliterateSocialistZealot is a new account as of today, and has made two edits, to Talk:Libertarianism and to their user page. Their first edit was snarky "illiterate sentence". They might be worth watching to observe if they are a genuine newbie, or not. Which is why I welcomed them :). The user name doesn't inspire confidence though. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

maybe now the page is locked, we can get some improvements to stick, your french lesson lead me to discover henri lepage, and the term "libertariEn", something i doubt has been raised here, a distinction in translation. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Exciting! I'm sure you'll raise it on Talk:Libertarianism when the thoughts have coalesced! Fifelfoo (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just checked. Lepage looks interesting, I added him to the Libertarianism project as stub/mid importance. Damn those French and their automatic disambiguation between Libertarians and Libertarians! "L'idéologie libertaire se démarque du libertarianisme en prônant le collectivisme et souvent l'égalitarisme." => "The libertarian ideology differs from libertarianism in collectivism and often advocating egalitarianism." I suppose it makes up for their having a word for "the person who gouges the eyes". :) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

i have read enough of the french wp to conclude they would very much like to separate the 2 ideologies using the term, perhaps some of their translated sources will help make the case here to distinguish the two. dejacques used the term libertaire in the letter and for his pamphlet, i have dissected the word and it's suffixes, and am convinced the term libertaire and libertarian have to very different meanings. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This may be possible to address in the English version, where both variants use the same word, in one article, by Lib is A & B. §1A ; B. §2A ; B. Or at finer scales by merely consistently attributing which ideology or politics is at issue. I'm aware that there are the usual minor transitional forms, and some sections like History to 1950 are significantly shared by both (with the exceptions of Georgists, Social Credit, Fabians, etc who have been retroactively considered libertarian on analysis by scholars). One of the problems is the desire by editors with deep personal political beliefs to "own" the article for their own ideology. The other problem is the WEIGHT issue. I don't actually think WEIGHTing will be a problem for editors who hold high quality reliable sourcing as the chief virtue in editing. It may be for editors whose strong feelings in positive politics intrude on their editing. Oh, speaking of which, you may not have seen the very draft pages: Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism/Annotated Bibliography‎ and Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism/Sourcing Guide‎. Both of these are in heavy alpha, and I think need about 10 days or more of work from me before they reflect policy, and considered opinion, and are worth putting to Wikipedia:WikiProject Libertarianism as a resource to use and a policy to adopt respectively. The Sourcing Guide, in particular, is a long way from finished. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Trolling

Please stop reversing soapboxing spam back into political article discussion pages. These pages are to discuss improvements to the articles not for unsourced opinions about unrelated topics. If you continue to insert these discussions into unrelated article talk pages, I will comnplain at ANI. TFD (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

X has just been blocked for a week for this,[4] so please await his return before continuing. TFD (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

you could have shown him how to get comments on his diagram instead of blocking him. since you have read most of the wp:rules, why not use your knowledge to help editors? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Left/right libertarian balance

You've provided no evidence that left-libertarianism is "tiny". Neither does cataloging the sources really help with determining balance. What's needed is global demographic or survey information. Why don't you put some effort into finding some rather than starting pointless discussions? Yworo (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I collapse Darkstar1st's new discussion thread as soapboxing, but he has restored it. TFD (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And I've collapse it again. It calls something "tiny" without any supporting sources whatsover. It suggests another Google search methodology for determining due proportion, which is a completely invalid method and original research to boot. The only data that can determine due balance of the article is demographic survey type information. Yworo (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Which word makes you think i suggested google? i have not claimed left was tiny, merely a minority, as supported by sep, i said, "many of the forms were tiny". i am not interested in cataloging the source, rather finding if any source refutes the claims made by the sep. your opinion on the relevance of my section is incorrect, it actually be the most pointed discussion here as it will end the debate if we follow wp rules. Instead of explaining why you don't like my post, present evidence to refute the post, or your comments are not welcome here. TFD, you are no longer welcome to comment on my talk page as you choose not to debate the points, but rather accused. i have told you in the past your warning are not needed here and you should proceed to file a complaint, my words confirm i have recieved and noted every warning in wp, so no one can say i wasn't warned. tdf, unless you are debating a point, you are no longer welcome on my talk page. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The very premise of your heading is a logical fallacy. "Less well-known" does not imply "minor" and "minor" does not imply "tiny". You're doing nothing but soapboxing. Listing sources proves nothing with respect to due proportion. Find some demographic data and present it. Yworo (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

yworo, i said some forms are tiny (4.1 Civil libertarianism 4.2 Anarcho-capitalism 4.3 Minarchism 4.4 Libertarian conservatism 4.5 Left-libertarianism 4.6 Libertarian socialism 4.7 Green libertarianism 4.8 Geolibertarianism 4.9 Libertarian transhumanism). Minority does not mean tiny, nor did i claim such. yworo, there are 5 soapbox sections, which do you believe my section violated? i do not seek a list, rather one source claiming LL is not a minority, you have my permission to take over the task you assigned me and find demographic data to refute the sep. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I see BlueRobe is now blocked indefinitely. Yworo (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and the burden of sources falls to the person who want to make a change to the article. Find your own demographic data. Yworo (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

what is your point about blue, and how is that relevant to this section? wp does not require demographic data, rather RS, which the sep has been accepted as such. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, a minority may be as large as 49%. Without further information about proportion, sections may be more or less equal. Yworo (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

you dodged my question about blue. not according to wp, minority is to be given less, not equal. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

49% is less. Yworo (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

sep specifically says right-libertarian which does not include anarcho, therefore, your 49%, is actually 77%, a clear violation of wp policy Darkstar1st (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and provide demographic data. I'm completely willing to proportion the article based on such data. Anything less is simply guesstimating. Yworo (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

i will let you count the words in the article not right libertarian, everyone else can see the majority view does not have the most space in the article. you keep dodging my question about blue, if you have no answer, simply strike your words and be off. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Yworo was not around when I did a count of neutral, right and left content, which is at this diff. I don't think it's changed that much since then. 3 times as much right as left. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

carol, you exist on the tiny atoll where anarcho is considered "right", however, the absence of government is not considered "right" libertarian by sep. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of minor flag

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Libertarian, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Yworo (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

which edit have i marked as minor? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

14:30, 27 September 2010. I just reverted it. It removed a sentence from the lead paragraph of Libertarian. Yworo (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Historically libertarians have typically eschewed electoral politics and so formed activist organisations rather than political parties. However since the 1970s a number of pro-free market libertarian parties have been established." this article is about Libertarians, members of a political party, not libertarians, members of activist organizations, removing that text leaves a redundant passage about Libertarian parties being formed in the 70's, since you have no source, or reason for including the passage, why did you revert it? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Talk page disruption by Darkstar1st. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

pathetic, not even one comment on your report. being relative noob to wp, racking up an extensive list of reports, especially one with as many failures as you have produced, is beginning to tarnish your standing here. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The silencing of voices, a shining path forward for WP

if one has the time to read every wp:rule, almost any edit can be reversed. the following are editors who have no been silenced for trying to balance the article Libertarian. currently the article is a mix of anarchist and left who have successfully locked the page to the version where growing the welfare state, while having no state confuse the most intelligent reader. Jimmy Wales is Libertarian, and made the money he used to start wikipedia shorting derivatives, or some other capitalist scheme. hats off to those who persevered, spending hundreds, if not thousands of hours of their own time, in the true spirit of serving their fellow man, from each according to his ability, to bring you the article we have now, a philosophy that is anti-property, and pro-property, anti-statist, and pro-statist, left and right, black and white, ABBA and Grateful Dead.

i sincerely hope you will find a new article to spend the hundreds, and thousands of hours of your personal time as this is surely a victory. i also wish your daughter will grow up in a world governed by the same philosophy you now champion, a world where she is no better than any other person, where she bears the cost of supporting all people, where her life is dedicated to serving her fellow man, eating the same rations afforded him, living in the same conditions as the least of us, and receiving the same care as the poorest of us in the world, a world where all men are equals, where economics is planned by governments or collectives, where business is administered by those who are versed in human studies, philosophy, and social equality. i sincerely hope your deal comes true in your country first, as it appears to be happening before our very eyes, your retirement to managed by those who do not kneel at the alter of capitalism, for your living conditions to leveled with the least of people, and for all men to enjoy the freedoms and luxuries you now employee, for you to now serve those who has served you, and for your daughter to serve the children of those who in the past who were once servants to your family. i will blank the names in honor of the new silence descending on wp.

• xxxxxxxxx
• xxxxxxxxx
• xxxxxxxxx
• xxxxxxxxx
• soon to be xxxxxxxxxx
• and perhaps even myself, the longest editing wikipedian associated with this article Darkstar1st (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If you keep up this sort of attitude, you are likely going to have a self-fulfilling prophecy on your hands. It would be better if, instead of looking at yourself as a "martyr", you were to consider changing your behavior to resolve the issues that got you blocked and reported at AN/I. Accepting that you screwed up, and fixing it, is going to be much better for you than claiming that people are trying to "silence" you for "trying to balance the article". What I would recommend doing is to acknowledge the reasons behind your block and current AN/I report, and discuss how you are going to prevent them from recurring in the future. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

your consul is not, nor ever was requested, and unless you wish to refute my arguments, your musings are no longer welcome here. instead of martyr, i am actually the explorer and you are the very recent settler(2009). i can no more prevent the future, than you can foresee it, nor can you see the harm in silencing intelligent, well spoken editors, such as those driven from wp by this article. what you and others are unable to comprehend, is when met with insurmountable odds, the sane surrender and or retreat, which is my path. i will go back to focusing 100% my energy on my work, and set about accumulating as much wealth as possible before the reality of our choices reaches my door. once it does, i will use the strategically placed cache to bribe the very prophets exalted by the philosophy of folly espoused by those who seek to usurp the greatest ally liberty has ever known, the free market, then sit in judgement of the very people who hastened the decline. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You're the last one left. May the Force of Gold, Silver, Truth and God be with You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaysGrindOutFiatToiletPaper (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in case your martyrdom comes along in the near future, can we have the picture of you eating your hat first? --Snowded ^TALK 07:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

i lost a bet to sn*wed that i could correct bl*urob*'s behavior, so i had to eat my only hat and decided the best place to do it would be in front of House of Terror, where facist and later the "liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people.

• 

Darkstar1st (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, will not go so far as to ask for evidence of digestion, I had to think what architectural backdrop that would come with --Snowded ^TALK 18:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

i hope everyone can see the huge terror, that is the opinion of hungarians on communism. if it had every worked in the past, i could see why some many are trying to bring it back, but the net result is always mass starvation and mass executions. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Better photo here as part of House of Terror article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I retract my request TFD no longer comment on my talk page, apologies.

Please comment away, specifically about your recent post. if you would rather continue the discussion on the article talk page, i will post a comment there. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact I made no disparaging remarks about any group. My point is that selective facts may be combined in a way that suggests a conclusion not explicit in the text. The fact that Communists are unpopular does not mean that we do not need to follow neutrality when discussing them. As Pastor Niemoeller wrote:

They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

TFD (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course there have been greedy Jews. greedy Jews, drunken Irishmen, dumb Poles and ignorant Americans these comments are unacceptable in any context, especially comparing "greedy Jews" to Communist mass killing is particularly distasteful, should you have evidence to the contrary please present it here, or strike your words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#all_that_counts_is_that_the_article_contain_mass_killings_which_occurred_under_Communist_regimes Darkstar1st (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

These are traits found across all groups of people. The reason you find it offensive to see the trait connected with specific groups is that the implication is that the trait is unique to that group or more prevalent with that group, although it is not explicitly stated. Why do you keep repeating terms that you consider to be offensive? TFD (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

then why didn't you say sleepy Jews, jealous Poles, and clumsy Irishmen? the fact that you cant see your words are offensive is even more troubling, strike the comments, or i will sekk help in doing so. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You appear not to understand anything I have said to you and therefore this discussion is pointless. TFD (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

understood, maybe others can decipher what your words meant. "Jews and greed": Many people are greedy. This article is about Jews who are greedy. i will see if i can find more references to Jews in the archive. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

When you quote passages by other editors it would be helpful if you do not misquote them. If you find remarks offenwsive then you should not repeat them. TFD (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

incorrect ,those are direct quotes, if you wish to discuss context, be my guest, but you are digging the hole deeper. why you refuse to simply strike the words is perplexing. i searched "jew" in the page history, you were the author for all of the edits i checked so far. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hmm, I recommend both of you dropping this. I think what TFD was arguing was that an article linking atrocities to communist regimes is potentially like an article linking greed to Jews. He was not accusing Jews of being greedy. The comments didn't look altogether offensive, but dealing with what would be regarded as offensive ideas, highlighting the important problem with the article :) (i.e. victory goggles). I suggest you quit with this. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

errant, the fact he was trying to make a point makes his comment no less hurtful, try replacing the term with a different race, and adjective and see if you still find it ok. and why are you watching my talk page? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Every single person on the ANI discussion you filed on this pointed out to you that your argument has no basis. You might as well stop now; at best you're going to continue looking ridiculous; at worst, you're going to end up getting yourself blocked again for disruption. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

i am sad you and so many people can't understand how using this term, even trying to prove a point, is still hurtful. no one has taken me up on the real life challenge, go say the same in a room full of actual people and see if you think it was offensive then. why are you watching my talk page anyway? if looking ridicules is my punishment for stamping out hate speech, then guilty as charged, bring on the tar and feathers, in the meantime, consider how you would feel if you heard someone say greedy jew or dumb pole in any context. TFD saying the term having a wp article is a ludicrous as the documented mass killing having an article, is particularly hurtful. trying to classify mass killing as a "stereotype" is utterly bizarre and wrong. a shame this isn't understood by yourself or the others commenting on the report. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Darkstar, do you understand why the words "calling someone a greedy Jew is offensive" would not be offensive. Same applies exactly to TFD's comments, I think you simply horribly misunderstood them and now won't admit you were wrong (it happens). I would happily say such a thing in a room of Jewish people and I expect 100% of them would agree with me, and say something along the lines of "yes it is a horrible stereotype". I strongly advise you retract the comment about hate speech because I'm pretty sure that is a direct PA on TFD. In case you still don't get it TFD's point is this; any sane person would find an article about "Greedy Jews" stereotyped and wrong, his point is that an article about "Atrocious Communists" has the same potential stereotypes. And he is right; most of the western world (myself included) is ingrained with a deep seated dislike of communism (for lots of legitimate reasons) and, so, such an article might not strike us as stereotyped in the same way :) Does this make sense? Equating what TFD says with someone saying "Greedy Jew" is rude and offensive and something else I advise you retract. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: "how you would feel if you heard someone say greedy jew or dumb pole in any context"

So, Darkstar1st .... if I said, "I find it ridiculous that anyone would try to take the offensive stereotype of 'Jews being greedy' and promote it as a well-established fact," ... you think that'd be cause to take offense? I'm starting to see why so many of your edits have been stricken as misrepresentation of the sources.... BigK HeX (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

my point exactly, comparing an article about the death that occurred and was documented, to an article about "greedy jew" is offensive on many levels, to many parties. 1st consider the feelings of Jews having their name dragged into some irrelevant convo about racial slurs on wp, 2nd consider the families who lost loved ones. i am in budapest currently, and the fear, distrust, and pain suffered by these people is real, having their plight compared to a racial slur, competing for space on wp, is absurd.(see photo above, notice the word terror, built into the building roof. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm.. I don't think we understand my question in the same way. In fact, my quote above ("I find it ridiculous that anyone would try to take the offensive stereotype of 'Jews being greedy' and promote it as a well-established fact") is basically a paraphrase of the same point TFD tried to make. If you agree that it's ridiculous to promote a stereotype as established mainstream opinion, then most of us fail to see how you are not agreeing with TFD. In case there's still any doubt, I still applaud TFD's insightful commentary. BigK HeX (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

greedy jew or mass killing under communist regimes. a) which is a fact? b) which is a racial slur? c) which is a stereotype? d) which is offensive? e) which deserves an article here? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as you can find mass killings under communist regimes you can also find greedy Jews, these are facts. You can also find lots of other regimes who carried out mass killings and lots of other greedy people, more facts. The problem is directly conflating the ideology of communism with atrocities, the area is poorly documented/researched from the perspectives of causes and rates of killings, it is not well established wether communist regimes have a particular propensity to violent killings. In fact many of the countries where mass killings occur are linked by other more important factors (historical and economic) than their political ideology (apart from, generally speaking, being extremist ideologies). But the real point being made is that saying "Atrocious Communists" could be highly offensive to communists :) same as saying "Greedy Jews". Which is why we must be minutely careful with such articles and ensure deep research exists. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

most of wp, and all the rs disagree with your opinion of the articles title. in some countries people are arrested for comments ill-conceived concerning mass killing, but a much simpler test would simply be for you to say the same next time you are in a crowd, and judge the reaction to your un-offensive comments. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't even read or understood my comment. This is not about the article, it is about the quality of research. There is an important scientific maxim called Correlation does not imply causation, and my personal view (which could probably be sourced if I really cared about this article) is that it applies strongly in this case. Enough to affect the content of the article. If you are suggesting my comments would be illegal or wrong in certain countries, well, if you are right then such a country is one I hope never to have to visit :) somehow I doubt anywhere you are thinking of would find them illegal or wrong, and certainly most would be on our side on this (i.e. the side that says you are wilfully misunderstanding the comments and their meaning). But the main point I started commenting: I really think you need to retract your accusations that TFD's comments were hate speech, that is extremely rude and uncivil. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

i have read, and tried to understand why you think using racial stereotypes to compare killing people is past my comprehension. i retract none of my words, and allow you the option of living out your years thinking it is perfectly ok to use such language, as long as you are making a point', i for one find it distasteful, petty, and hurtful to all those who have suffered under such speech. be specific how greedy jews and "mass killings" are equally unfit for publication in wp. i think actually it is you who have made an error you are unwilling to correct, and error of humanity, an error of civility, a basic lack of common curiosity, such that you would believe batting about racial, ethnic slurs in public discourse acceptable. i find your defense pathetic and regrettable, for evil to prevail, require only good men remain silent. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In light of the above, and given that you've said, "how you would feel if you heard someone say greedy jew or dumb pole in any context", I think the most basic question here might be the following.

Darkstar1st, does context not matter to you when potentially offensive material is involved? BigK HeX (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, however, in this context, suggesting a slur be equally unfit for wp as a historical fact is preposterous. do you understand tfd is suggesting both are stereotypes? do you really consider mass killing a stereotype? @ tmorton, i believe that you have never visited a country affected by the mass killing discussed here, i am currently living in such a country, and am confident if you were to spend a day here, you would understand how your words would be considered hurtful, possibly illegal. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, please stop misrepresenting people's statements. Lying about what other people said really isn't convincing on Wikipedia, because we can actually verify it. I'm not sure if you've got a habit of doing this in real life (it does sometimes work there), but here you are just making yourself look silly and dishonest. There is not a single person who has said that "mass killing is a stereotype" or that it didn't happen, and you should stop implying that this is the case. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

if you call me a liar again, i am not going to invite you to my birthday party. perhaps you can explain what tfd meant with his comparison to an article about greed jews? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already been explained to you several times by several different people. The fact that you are still claiming not to understand what he is saying indicates to me that you are either (a) not listening, or (b) are aware of the fact that you are misrepresenting what he said in order to make it seem like an anti-Semitic statement and are dumb enough to keep trying even though it's obvious that nobody is buying it. If (a) is true, then I suggest you re-read the numerous explanations that have already been provided for you. If (b) is true, I pity you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course there have been greedy Jews but having an article called that would imply that Jews were greedy comparing that term, Jew to Communist regimes, greedy, to killing, can you not see how wrong this is on so many levels? seriously, try my simple text, bring it up in a conversation without type, let me know if they were offended. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

BRD

We've gone through Bold, and Revert. Probably a good time to DISCUSS your latest bold edit on the article talk page. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

the article is about US Libertarianism, not worldwide. should you have any examples of US left libertarianism, consider including them in the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think that reasoning has even the smallest chance of flying and not being viewed as another attempt at censorship of all mention of left-libertarianism, then, of course, you should feel free to post it on the article talk page where other editors can agree (or disagree). BigK HeX (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

no, you can keep it there. i will continue to demonstrate how you follow me to pages you have never edited. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely, that's the only explanation for my interest in the page; nevermind that I've been extensively involved in libertarian articles. That sort of narcissistic paranoia is fascinating. BigK HeX (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

then your involvement may not be adequate, as you failed to notice the grammatical error in the first sentence. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Assistance appreciated

Unlike the toxic, leftish, zombie-zealot atmosphere infecting WP, I have been having a ball over at a 'rival' website where truth is - incredibly - tolerated over spin, and leftist delusion and Orwellian thought control hasn't yet taken over. Could I invite you to play in that sandpit and clean up errors (including adding or removing photos) when you have the time? Thanks. If you can invite others such as BlueRobe, the more the merrier. Particularly during this festive season. Merry Christmas my fellow right-lib friend. Somehow I don't think BKH is imbued with the Christian spirit, but I suspect you are. I haven't met a vampire squid over on the Mises Wiki yet, which is a good sign. Hopefully the libertarian leanings on that website will frighten the vampires away. - AssangeWinsPeople'sNobel (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at WP:AN/I

You have been mentioned at WP:AN/I here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#That_User:Darkstar1st_be_restricted_from_editing_Talk:Libertarianism_for_23_hours, thank you. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

You are being discussed at ANI.[5] TFD (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Kindly remove this personal attack or I will file a report at ANI. TFD (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

tfd, i have informed you before your warnings are not needed. you are no longer welcome on my talk page. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on the article Tea Party Movement. That article is currently under a 1RR restriction in any given 24 hours. You have removed the material on Springboro Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas and his racial slurs regarding Hispanics from the article three times in the past 30 hours here, here, and here. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you made these reverts mistakenly, please kindly self-revert your most recent removal now. Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

the talk page is clearly not in agreement with your edit, which has been reinserted 5-6 times in the last few days. i am confident my revert is in good faith, and recommend you seek remedy elsewhere. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The page is under a 1RR restriction in any given 24 hour period. Did you not notice? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has been blocked twice in the past year for edit warring, and is aware of the consequences. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for pointing that out. That page is currently on a 1RR restriction with editors prohibited from making more than one reversion of the same material in any 24 hour period. I just wanted to make sure he realized that 1RR is a bright line rule, and he has already violated the 1RR restriction on that page twice in that his 2nd revert listed above was just 16 hours after his 1st revert and his 3rd revert was again just 16 hours after the 2nd, etc. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have filed an edit-warring report which you may reply to here. TFD (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

why didn't file a report on the editor who reinserted the same info 6 times in the past 4 days? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

the same user has now reposted the same material for a 7th time and been reverted even though you have banned me. i laugh at some editors claims they are objective. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

correction, the original offending editor has now been blocked. how does the editor reverting the material get banned before the editor inserting the material? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Tea Party movement. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darkstar1st (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

reverting repeated insertion of material 7 times in 5 days by the same editor. the tweet was disputed in the talk page and consensus not reached. the 1rr warning makes an exception for blatant vandalism. am i to understand inserting the same material repeatedly is not a form of vandalism? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes, that is correct. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Copy of what I put at the noticeboard item on this

I think that the admins are being used as a part of the edit war

I think that the admins are being used as a part of the edit war. The issue is insertion / removal of a section on a twitter comment by Sonny Thomas. Xenophrenic has been the champion warrior on this, their most recent re-insertions of this contested item were:

1/4 18:43

1/5 18:05

1/7 6:17

1/8 8:00

1/8 8:21

1/9 8:46

I didn't want to go running to get someone blocked, but I see that someone has done that to Darkster1st for a lesser transgression on the same item. I would rather see Darkster1st unblocked than Xenophrenic blocked, but we need some fairness & consistency here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Because I've unblocked xenophrenic, I'm going to give you the same chance. If you express remorse for edit warring (i.e., say you're sorry), then I'll unblock you. Here's the important part: edit warring to get your side into the article is not OK; dispute resolution is critical. Also, check out the essay I wrote on what vandalism is: WP:DV. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

thank you for your offer. i am sorry for edit warring. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Will you stop doing it and use WP:DR instead? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

yes Darkstar1st (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK I've unblocked you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Astroturfing

My comment was in response to your assertion that the charge of "astroturfing" is slander.[6] That is not a neutral comment. Whatever biases we may have in the outside world should be left behind as much as possible when we sit down to work on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you please remove this comment, which may be seen as a legal threat. TFD (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat, it's just over-the-top hyperbole. And someone posted a reference, so it's irrelevant as well as being hyperbole. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI

You are being discussed at ANI and may reply here. TFD (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Headings

Why do we need to give the full subtitle of the Rasmussen book? Very long headings are harder to work around.   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

because you are using a book titled how the Tea Party Movement Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System to suggest the tp is astroturf. your claim and the title do not match. it is impossible to suggest the tp is fake, when the book is saying the opposite. your edit of the title did not help the discussion, and obscured the relevant part of the title. this isnt the 1st time my headers have been edited, poor form old chap, plz stop. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The book title is Mad as Hell. Would editors not know the topic of the discussion unless the long subtitle was included? I don't think so, which is why I trimmed it. Editors don't own threads -it wasn't "your" header.   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

how is it harder to work around? what you did actually makes it hard to find sections because the editors who got there before you now have a comment in a section that does not exist. plz stop will. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't change it again, since you seem attached to that title. But for the future, please keep headings reasonably short, and don't exhibit ownership over threads.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

will, seriously relax, if the length of headers is really a big problem for you, take it to the appropriate forum, i will consider myself warned. what i meant to say, is headers i authored, not my header as if i own the invisible bytes of data flying thru your airwares. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your conduct has been mentioned at ANI

Your conduct has been mentioned at ANI here. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

your complaint at the ani showed the recent edits, but you failed to show where the answer was provided previously. define "that", i didnt hear what, when? should it be so obvious, simply post it here, and i will strike my comments. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Fife before my post, we had 1 new section a week in talk, now we have 10. communication is good for the article, in the future, please consider a simple rebuttal instead of ani. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky's opinion of anarcho-capitalism is irrelevant, are you sure?

Your comments are still not welcome on my talk page. Please don't post on my talk page again. Yworo (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

understood. your notice about content rings hollow since you were cited for the same infraction in the section previous. perhaps it best you allow others enforce the rules while you are still learning them. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue was brought to AN/I by an IP editor, not me. I took it to WP:3RRN, the correct place. You on the other hand have been brought to AN/I how many times? You do realize you can be banned simply because you take up too much time and energy on AN/I, don't you? "The community, through consensus, may impose various types of sanctions upon editors who have exhausted the community's patience." If I were you'd, I'd learn to interact at Talk:Libertarianism in such a way as to not get taken to AN/I on the average of two or three times a month. You won't see my behaviour brought up on AN/I that frequently. And when it is the editor bringing it up usually ends up being the one sanctioned. So your comment is the one that rings the hollowest. Yworo (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

i do realize i can be banned, thanks. many of my edits and a high traffic article i authored remain, my intent is pure, and my edits are based of rs. the problem we have in this article is several of the sources are contradicting each other on the same term and many of the linked terms do not support the context in which they are used here, my discuss is an effort to reach consensus. so did you have an opinion about the correct term to use, anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The real question is, do you have a source which suggests which one is correct? I don't base my opinions on reasoning, which would be original research, but rather on what sources say. Unless you can provide sources that discuss the issue, I have no basis on which to base an opinion. Yworo (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

both passages are sourced, yet that leaves the reader with 3 halves of libertarian. the minarchist, anarchist, and anarcho-capitalist which i assume is somehow different from the basic anarchist, yet no one is able to articulate how, including yourself. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's up to sources to articulate, not me. Everyone has repeatedly told you that. If a source says one thing, that's how it has to be represented in the article. Sounds like an additional source may be needed. I'm not going to speculate without sources. Yworo (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

i think you now understand the problem here. we have several rs saying different things about libertarianism. if there are actually are two schools of libertarian thought, we can not use 3 terms. if there be 3 schools, we should make that change in the article, but you cant have it both ways. your idea is to allow the text to remain while it is sorted out in the discuss page as long as no one soapboxes whilst discussing it. my idea is to remove all conflict and add them back after consensus. the community will decide which approach is suitable. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure we can. Many, many things have multiple labels which apply to them. An jet is an airplane, an aircraft, and a jet-propelled vehicle. You are, in my opinion, being completely ridiculous about this. The real question is whether anarcho-capitalism is equivalent to or a subset of anarchism: it'd be nice, but certainly not required, to have a note about this in the article. Clearly they are not equivalent, we have separate articles on them. Since therefore anarcho-capitalism is a subset of anarchism, a statement which is true of anarchism would also be true of anarcho-capitalism (but not necessarily vice-versa). Get it? Yworo (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

and now the real irony, the most famous left libertarian, or anarcho-capitalist if one is to believe the article, noam chomsky on why anarcho-capitalism is bogus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ Darkstar1st (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

People's opinions about this are really irrelevant, except insofar as their opinions are relevant to the descriptions of their positions in the article. That is, one person saying something is bogus does not invalid the existence of the thing as described by other reliable sources. You can't seem to keep this straight. That's why the article is complex, because differing sources have differing views, and our WP:NPOV policy requires us to describe the entire topic in a neutral manner. Yworo (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky's opinion of anarcho-capitalism is irrelevant, are you sure? the origin section states 2 schools, minarchist and anarcho-capitalist. since anacho-capitalism is left libertarian, why do you think the most relevant ll is not relevant here? he is speaking directly to his position, specifically how the other rs have confused the definition to include him in a group he refutes. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant that it's only relevant as his opinion. It's not relevant with respect to what should be included or not included in the article. Let me put this in general terms.

Suppose a general topic T, and five sources, A, B, C, D, and E, all reliable.

A says T includes subtopics X, Y, and Z

B says T includes subtopics W, X and Y - but not Z

C says that X and Y are different names for the same thing, so T includes W, X and Z with Y redundant

D says that X and Y are distinguishable by property Q

E says that subtopic W is completely bogus.

How do we then decide what subtopics to include in the article? Why, we have to include them all, W, X, Y, and Z. And we describe the disagreements between the sources. We don't take C's opinion as fact and decide which term, X or Y, to use in the article. We simply state the C and D disagree on the matter, and use whichever label the source being presented uses. We also don't exclude W from the article simply because E says it's bogus. We include W in the article and also include E's opinion about it being bogus.

Please state clearly whether you agree or disagree with this abstract description, and if you disagree, please state specifically what you find wrong with it. Yworo (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty standard for some members of an ideology to accuse other members of not belonging. Thatcher was not really a conservative, Tony Blair was not a socialist, Nick Clegg is not a liberal, etc. TFD (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

tdf, so which school does chomsky belong, minarchist, anarchist or anarcho-capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

To whatever schools or schools he says he does. Also relevant may be what school or schools other sources say he belongs to, though with living people, obviously self-identification is preferred. One thing is for sure, no Wikipedia editor gets to decide based on "logic" what school he belongs to. Yworo (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

rs sources put him in the ll school, which is the anarcho-capitalist school, which he considers bunk. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Then we report both that sources A, B, C, etc. label him left-libertarian and we report that he considers the anarcho-capitalist school bunk. We don't comment about any perceived contradiction unless some citable source makes such a comment, then we can report it. In short, Wikipedia editors can not and should not be making any decisions about who is right or wrong about the matter. Yworo (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

so why keep parsing up libertarian into minarchist or anarchist, left or right, pro property anti property. does anyone still describe them self as simply libertarian? if so, why not simply report that meaning of the word and banish all hyphenated libertarians to their respective pages. lets publish what is libertarian only here. the issues all the hyphenated libertarians agree, freedom from determinism and anything else which has consensus. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the sources do so and all we are allowed to do is describe what the sources say.

It seems to me that you have the mistaken belief that Wikipedia editors somehow need to resolve apparent contradictions to simplify the subject. That's simply not true and in fact the opposite is the case, we are not permitted to do that. What we can do is limited. We can report and summarize the broad range of subtopics included by reliable sources as part of the topic. We can attempt to organize the article in a logical fashion, based on the reliable sources used. When there is disagreement, we can say A says X and B says Y and that C says they are both wrong. We can try to write in as clear language as possible. If we have done all this and the topic is still confusing, it is simply because the topic itself is confusing and not because we haven't done everything we should have done as editors. Suggestions on how specific wording could be changed to describe topics, disagreements, and conflicts more clearly, based on one or more reliable sources, are much more valuable on talk pages than general discussions based on logic, which simply cannot lead to any allowable action or change to the article. Yworo (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All of this ... and its based on the terribly flawed notion that left-libertarainism is anarcho-capitalism? Sad..... BigK HeX (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism is right libertarian? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how you hope to make edits in this material when you don't know answers to questions like this. Please DO MORE RESEARCH, and only afterwards make edits -- even then make sure your edits fully reflect the notable viewpoints in reliable sources. BigK HeX (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

perhaps i could phrase it differently, is anarcho-capitalism anarchist or minarchist? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know how to phrase it any differently.... do more research. It is terribly counterproductive for you to be editing the material you don't understand. BigK HeX (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

i think you have become entangled in your own words, terribly flawed notion that left-libertarainism is anarcho-capitalism. i have ask 2 simple questions which you are incapable of answering. now perhaps a third, are minarchist right-libertarian? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to "get tangled up" in the words: IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT THIS MATERIAL. DO MORE RESEARCH. Speculate however you like on what I may be "incapable of"; matters not to me. BigK HeX (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

lets pretend the anarc in anarco-capitalism means anarchist, therefore it must be left libertarian, wouldn't you agree? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's NOT pretend. How about doing legitimate research! This half-cocked guessing game you're doing might be strongly related to the problem that other Wikipedians have with your edits. I invite you (yet again) to check out the many WP:RS on the topic, including those referenced in the Libertarianism article itself. I have nothing else to say on this matter ... best wishes! BigK HeX (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

you are on a talk page, it would be nice to hear your opinions. i get what you are saying about my edits not being perfect, but while you are here, why not engage the subject just for kicks, i doubt many others will even read it. if you prefer, fire off an email, mine is linked. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Kitten

Carolmooredc has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

thx! i love cats. Lazar pointer twice a day and a few back rubs will make you the cats best friend. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Tea Party movement. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC) it wasnt a mistake, nor was it content. you were the one who removed a tag that required you to discuss first, i undid your deletion. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

1RR

Don't forget the 1RR limit on the TPM article.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC) thx for the reminder, but i do not object to the sentence, only the single term. your move may confuse others as to what i think is dubious. is there a wp:policy directing us to use tags at the end of a sentence, if so, apologies. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, could you please undo your second revert of the day?   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

sure, were you able to find the policy that directed you to move the tag? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Common sense, to avoid breaking up the sentence.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

is that an actually policy? plz send the link, otherwise discuss first as required by the tag. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's discuss the content issue on the article talk page. Meantime, please undo your second revert of the day.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

does that mean you will self revert as well leaving the tag intact and discuss the tag on the talk page? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss this further on WP:EWN. I won't ask again.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I expect you to undo the edit on your next edit. Otherwise I'll file a complaint. I asked you nicely three times.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, send me the link when you make your complaint on ewn. the tag was intended for the term isolationist, not the entire sentence. unless someone will discuss the tag, i will simply remove the single term and leave the rest of the sentence intact. since i can only prove paul is not an isolationist with his own words, i give up on the rest of the sentence. do you have anything to add to the discussion in favor of keeping the term? if so, we may be able to avoid a trip to the office. if not, why not delete the term yourself? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the content discussion on the talk page. You've already deleted the entire section once. Removing well-sourced material is tendentious. I'm sorry you've refused polite requests to undo your edit-warring.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

i suggest having a foreign policy section on a party that is not recognized as a party is erroneous. if there is no leader or founder, who made the policy? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Will Beback (Result: )   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

i am sorry i failed to effectively communicate why your edit was reverted, or that i mistook your compromise as a fix for this issue. to agree with you, then find you still reported me was disappointing, i expected more given our long relationship. do you remember the trouble i had getting the immigration to mexico article written? now it is a well used page, perhaps you realize you folly then, and maybe one day you will see it here. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations." isolationism, In other words, it asserts both of the following:

Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense). Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states. Paul rejects protectionism, yet paulites practice isolationism. another wp article conflicting with itself. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• continued from the tp article, no he did not give the $ to the tp, it was his party. there was no tp in 2007, get it? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As this is your fourth edit warring block, and the second one for 1RR on this article, I have set the duration at 72 hours. Kuru (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darkstar1st (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i placed a tag on a sentence by a rs which is directly contricted by the primary source and had much support in talk. 1st the tag was removed without discussion by an editor, i replaced the tag(1st revert, which i thought wasn't a revert as no discussion was offered on a tag that requires such before removal) then the tag was moved from its location by Will without discussion. Moving the tag to a different part of the article confused my objection to the single term. i was ok with leaving the rs source intact, just one specific term is in error. when i ask the reason, his reply was "common sense". is there a way to place a tag mid-sentence in wp? if not, is there a specific wp:policy forbading such? after some discussion, Will suggested a compromise of adding the primary sources own words where the tag had been placed. i agreed that would solve the confusion and thanked him for the suggestion. so why did he report me instead of making the change, the whole purpose of the tag in the 1st place? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You reverted an edit on an article, and then did substantially the same again. That is edit warring. In a nutshell, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you can justify your edit warring with a string of wikilawyering". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Darkstar1st (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

72 hours have passed

Accept reason:

Autoblock lifted. –MuZemike 05:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody asked me, but . . .

I started watching the TPM article recently, with what I think is a reasonably informed but uninvolved point of view. I saw some talk page changes that discussed removal of references to apparent race-related issues (not just your recent post to Will). I think it's essential to keep balanced material that references any non-trivial controversy that even the naive would be aware of. If you remove everything that you think is only present because of someone's race, you'll could wind up with an apparently-censored article. Thanks. Jo3sampl (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

is there a similar article with the same amount of space given to race issues? i noticed none of the other parties have this section? given the vast amount of supporters, and the small amount of incidents, wouldn't a section on diabetics who are in the tea party rank higher. certainly there be far more than those who has made offensive signs. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked to see if there is a similar article with the same amount of space devoted to race issues, but I don't recall any other movement in recent history getting as much "race issue" coverage in reliable sources as the TP movement. When there is significant coverage in reliable sources, that usually translates to significant coverage in our articles.

You mentioned "small amount of incidents" as if that defines the "racial issues" subject; it doesn't. It isn't about number of "incidents". Those are just selected examples, and many more exist, given to illustrate what is perceived (accurately or inaccurately) as an actual problem with the movement. If you have a comparable pool of reliable sources conveying information indicating that diabetes is also a problem of increased significance within the movement, and has been studied, analyzed and received wider coverage, I'll support you in adding such information to the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

good point, why has there been so much coverage? macallisters own words are telling, "There is this perception that these are all old, white racists and that's not the case." why not skip the whole race issue on this article. it has nothing to do with tax revolting. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Why has there been so much coverage? Because people have a natural desire to know and understand it. McAllister is correct that not all TPers are old, white racists -- but then no one is really saying all of them are. But the demographics are certainly outside of expected norms, as studies, polls and casual observation have shown, and that appears to be where the concern and interest is. That is why it is an image many TPers would like to change, but it may be beyond their ability to do so. Much of it probably stems from the policies supported by TPers, policies that are at odds with anti-racism and minority interests. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

which tp policy is at odds with anti-racist and minorities? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

One example involves the management of Government spending; the balancing act between generating money to spend, deciding on what to spend, and controlling how much is spent. TPers are more likely to favor, for instance, cuts in spending on food stamp programs, reductions in spending on welfare, tend to oppose increasing benefits to women on welfare if they have additional children, and favor strict time limits on public assistance -- all programs shown to be disproportianately beneficial to minorities. Non-TPers, on the otherhand, are more likely to favor increased revenue generation through reduced subsidies to corporations, and increased taxes on big business and the richest citizens -- a bracket shown to be disproportionately non-minority.

i can understand the confusion. you think tp wants to end social programs because they hate minorities. the tp i know think the government has actually hurt people with social programs. generations of people are born into, and die on social programs. never able to leave assistance despite being capable, why is that true? you would argue there is not enough opportunities for minorities. yet how could this be possible at the same time there are jobs Americans wont do. side note, did you see the lottery winning on food stamps in Michigan? no he didnt spend it all already, just has not plans of getting of welfare. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect; I'm not explaining what I think. This is what studies, polls and reliable sources have conveyed. Perhaps the TPers you know need to start stepping up and voicing their opinions more in studies, polls and to the press. What do you say the reason is for the disproportionate number of minorities receiving assistance from our government? (And no, I am unfamiliar with your lottery story.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Another example is when libertarian policies popular with TPers are applied to social values, like when Rand Paul declared that Government has no right in trying to fight racial discrimination in private business. Both of those are examples of white ethnocentricism in the movement that run counter to the interests of minorities and anti-racism, and there are others. Take the issue of immigration; many TPers say its not even on the movement's agenda, yet TPers routinely rally in support of immigration crackdown legislation and against anything that looks like amnesty. By the way, have you read this little piece that says the TP movement is not racist? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

should the government fight racial discrimination in a private home? if not, then why on other private property? if i opened an all white taco stand in Phoenix, or a Whites only lunch truck in LA, do you think I would have many customers? do you think i would be shot? do we really need the government teaching us social values? Rosa Parks paid for a ticket on a city owned bus bought with her tax $, she by existing LAW, has the right to sit wherever. students paid tuition to attend a state college in Alabama, by LAW, they have a right to go to school.

If you are asking if I personally feel our government should fight racial discrimination in employment, my answer is yes, because we as American people are against it. My answer remains the same regarding the protection of employees working in my private home, on my private property or on public property. Are you saying TPers wish to repeal EOE? As for your questions about operating a discriminatory food service, I think you would be shut down under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, which means your closed business would not have customers. You are misinformed about Rosa Parks; by existing LAW, she was required to give up her seat for white passengers, and required to move to the back of the bus. So yes, apparently we really do need the government (that's us, you know) to not "teach us" social values, but to enforce them.

Still no response on whether you've read that article I linked above? Here's another observation from a conservative on the hypocrisy of the TP movement when it comes to entitlement programs. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

if what you would call a "white" man, wanted to eat lunch at

Hit the Spot Hamburger‎

700 West Compton Boulevard

Compton, CA 90220

do you think he will be discriminated against? do you think the police will show up to protect him while he eats? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the place; is it a TPer hang-out? Or is it another of your hypothetical discriminatory food services? If so, and if complaints have been filed, the police would indeed likely be showing up to protect customers. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

yes i read it. i doubt an all-white taco stand would work, do we really laws preventing such a thing? take a look around the next time you visit a taco stand, see much diversity in ethnics? try a sushi counter, any surprise there? in Chicago the fire dept is now required to diversify to include candidates who failed the test, do we really need a more diverse, less competent fire brigade? i also doubt any police would show up at HTSH, but i have been wrong before. Racism is evil and a part of life. discrimination concerning public property is prohibited under EXISTING law, the constitution. the civil rights amendment was not needed to allow students into public school, as evidenced by the nat. guard showing up. the bus law was also unconstitutional and should have been overturned. enforcing choices on private property is not originally constitutional, although given the beauty of the document, it was left open to be amended. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, all-white eating establishments were commonplace prior to them being outlawed, so yes, the laws were needed. Regarding your Chicago Fire department, did you mean:

“The city gave a test back in 1995 that did not measure the ability to be a firefighter. It made it more than six times more likely that white applicants would be hired rather than African Americans with no job-related justification. Nothing about getting a high score on that test predicted anything about whether you’d be a superior firefighter.”

Your "more diverse, less competent" description appears to be not only in error, but exactly opposite of reality. You seem to be mistaken about the role of the Nat'l Guard at schools, as well. Yes, racism is evil, just like pedophilia, slavery, and anything else that takes advantage of a subset of people. Yet there are enough people that perpetuate these evils that we, as a decent society, must pass and enforce laws to protect people. We can expext these laws to be with us as long as these evils are "a part of life". Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

what kind of question could determine the subjects skin color? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You could probably find the answer to that in the case notes. I'm not familiar with the evidence examined in the court cases involved. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

after a review of the case notes, there was no single question, or any question in specific. what the court found is the applicants were 5 times as likely to pass the test if they were white. deducing a scientific result from this data is foolhardy, as this was not a true sample of different ethnic backgrounds, rather a sampling of those who wish to fight fires. the court ruled the test is was not producing a diverse set of candidates. the Michigan food stamp lotto is here, do you wonder why people want entitlement reform, or why Michigan is in such trouble?: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/national/man-wins-2m-jackpot-receives-food-stamps-05182011 Darkstar1st (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if only those various so-called court-room experts and analysts knew what we did, they wouldn't keep coming up with these screwy rulings. As for the Michigan man, I agree that loophole should be closed. It's just common sense. However, I doubt that loophole is responsible for whatever troubles Michigan faces at the moment. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Copying

Please do not copy text from other websites, unless it's in quotation marks or has been released under license. This edit[7] is a verbatim copy of text from this website.[8] I am going to delete that plagiarism. Feel free to re-add it with text in your own words.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

then you would need to delete the other polls as well, unless you could show they are not verbatim as well? you are a bit confused as to the meaning of the word "plagiarism". the footnotes provided clearly disqualify the passage as plagiarism as the work is not attributed to myself. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

feel free to apply whatever punctuation your feel needed, however removing rs instead of making a minor grammar (adding a comma or 2) correction maybe seen as disruptive by some. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because it was copied, not mis-punctuated. But while we're on the topic, the first month of the year is named "January", not "jan". Please use your best grammar and spelling when adding text to Wikipedia articles. We all make typos and errors, but please try to get them right.   Will Beback  talk  09:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

did you remove the other sopied polls as well, if not, why not? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to which "sopied polls" :) you're referring to? If there are others we should fix those too. BTW, I hope I made it clear that I don't object to adding the poll, just to copying the text verbatim. Also, you deleted another sourced sentence without comment. That's not good either. One poll doesn't supersede the other. Their popularity, or whatever, in January as in June, from a historical perspective. The section should aim to summarize polls from an encyclopedic perspective, avoiding pitfalls like recentism.   Will Beback  talk  10:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

the, they are the polls in the same section. actually my comment was in the summary. replaced old data with new from same source. i think the wp precedent for replacing old data with new from the same source on the same topic is clear. if you can find an example to the contrary, please advise. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect.   Will Beback  talk  10:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain this edit: [9]. You deleted sourced info, apparently asserting that the text is copied, like the above complaint. But it is not a copy of the text at the source. Where are you saying that the deleted text was copied from?   Will Beback  talk  10:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

no, i said there was a more recent poll from the same source. please feel free to add the source back if you think it needed. i suggest we need only 1 poll per network max, preferably a recent poll on the tp. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which sentences on polls you're saying are copied. Please be clearer.

I'll restore the other poll you deleted. It makes no sense to say that we can only cite one poll per polling company. It's common for analysts and historians to track the movement in polls from one to the next. This isn't a horse race in which the current position is all that matters. The two sentences didn't even cover the same survey questions. Please be more careful.   Will Beback  talk  10:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

2 polls about tea party views, one is recent, one is not. forget about the copying in other polls, not that important, i doubt anyone thinks they are plagerised, especially when credited to the source. perhaps you should be more accurate with your accusations, plagiarism is a very serious charge. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just don't do it again.   Will Beback  talk  12:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

ok, next time ill add " marks, was that what i missed? seems like such a small correction you could have made instead of this lengthy debate and you accusing me of plagiarism. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not right either. We aren't here just to copy and paste text from news stories by surrounding them with quotation marks. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources in our own words. If that's too much trouble then this is the wrong project.   Will Beback  talk  12:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Plagarism IS a serious charge, and you fell afoul of it badly in this case - so please do take Will's advice on board. It doesn't matter one jot if you provide a reference to the source, reusing their word is plagiarism and a copyright violation. Material should be adequately rephrased/summarised in your own words. Copy/paste with quote marks is also a bad thing to get into, make quotes relevant. Quoting text for the purposes of getting around copyright violates the non-free content criteria and can still be a copyright violation. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Errant, plagiarism is when you try to pass off words as your own, providing a reference to the source is exactly why this is not plagiarism. rewriting generic phrases like "7 of 10" and "of american adults" was a subtlety i failed to notice, apologies. putting " on a poll is rather rare in wp, as seen in other polls mentioned here. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, i will trust you to make a good faith effort in the future to correct relevant post as these, as you appeared to know the error, rather than delete them. such deletions may be part of the problem with editors leaving wp, would you agree? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

providing a reference to the source is exactly why this is not plagiarism. you fatally misunderstand the laws regarding copyright and plagiarism. It is plagiarism to do this in the manner it was done because you are required to cite it INTEXT rather than via footnote (see Wikipedia:INTEXT#In-text_attribution). Note that WP:PLAGIARISM explains that Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or with very few changes—then citing the source in an inline citation after the passage that was copied, without naming the source in the text is a form plagiarism. Even then it cautions that INTEXT attribution may not be enough to prevent it being a copyright violation. It is also worth pointing out that plagiarism is one of the major problems on Wikipedia, one that can be hard to address and one that is caused by the way we require sticking to sources, so while it is taken seriously it is not a major issue to have pointed out :) So long as you take on board that hitting Copy/Paste from a source is not a good idea that is fine. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

without naming the source in the text, you said? but my edit started out with, an abc/gallup poll said this i think you may be referring to a different editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

courts are good for law, science, not so much. a true sample should have considered a swath of the population as a whole, not just those who would walk into a burning building. perhaps you do not agree this is a special type of person willing to do such, therefore not a good canidate for a random sample of an ethnic group? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

1RR again

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Will Beback (Result: )   Will Beback  talk  09:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the complaint because you agreed to 0RR on Tea Party movement for four weeks.[10] As I understand it, that effectively means you may add material, but not restore it it if it's deleted, and you may not delete existing text. You are free to participate on the talk page. I suggest that taking a break from the topic may be beneficial, but testing the boundaries or wiki-lawyering over the restriction would not be. I'd also suggest working on some articles that have no connection to divisive issues like politics. Something related to a hobby or sport, perhaps. It's nice to have a field where one can work without fighting.   Will Beback  talk  11:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

i suggest we both take a voluntary break, would you agree? have you added anything to this article reflecting the tp in a positive light? if not, perhaps it would be a good balance to the negative edits (racial issues, etc) Darkstar1st (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of my recent edits have been minor fixes, or improvements to the article, so you needn't worry. I won't swoop in and take advantage of your absence while you're "benched". I have better things to do and the TPM is several rungs down my list of priorities. But please do try to work towards consensus if you participate on the TPM talk page.   Will Beback  talk  12:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

minor fixes that may or may not reflect a pov. none of your fixes have added material, or removed negative material, much of which is not consensus. i have virtually benched you also, meaning your avatar in an alternate universe must 1st make a positive contribution at least add uncontested neutral material before you continue editing here. one thing this article does not need is more of what you and i have spent far too much time on recently. cheers Darkstar1st (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(Result: Withdrawn ) Darkstar1st (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner

Your POV pushing in the article section heads is a violation of BLP. Admission is neutral and Weiner did not confess to any crime. The facts speak for themselves. μηδείς (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

not according to the dictionary: Admission a. The act of admitting or allowing to enter. b. The state of being allowed to enter. 2. Right to enter; access. 3. The price required or paid for entering. the term is vague, admission to what? the main point here is a congressman has lied to the people. the section title should reference the word lie, the meat of the section. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Act of admitting--exactly. I happen to agree with your evaluation of the propriety of his acts as a congressman, but wikipedia stays as neutral and factual as possible. See WP:BLP. The text deals with what happened, and I would not oppose you adding a referenced quote from him saying he lied. Fight where it counts, not where it will get you banned for BLP and 3RR violations. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

admitted what, that he uses twitter, that the photos were his, that he lied? most times the word admission is coupled with guilt, but none of this was a crime, so the correct term, would just be lied, right? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

searching for sources stating ron paul is a non-interventionalist

Thanks for your note. I don't recall where I looked, but it was probably in the Proquest newspaper archive.   Will Beback  talk  05:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

that explains it. i suggest you stop using this flawed method and rely on google. the query i just ran:Site Search Results 2 results for "ron paul", the same search on google: 65,100,000 results Darkstar1st (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

there were no results for searches on proquest ron paul isolationalist, or non-inter... Darkstar1st (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

My mistake may have been looking for him saying he was a non-interventionist, which is the assertion we were trying to source. Perhaps he hasn't said that. I tried looking for that Fox debate, but the link didn't work or something else went wrong. Is there a transcript or something? If he said it there then we could use that.   Will Beback  talk  06:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

no your mistake was using proquest, only 2 results for ron paul total. yes there are several links and transcripts in the google results, have you looked there? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this research to you. I've got some other projects to follow up on.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

now i am really confused... "Perhaps he hasn't said that." "Thanks for finding that. We could summarize that source as saying something like "Paul says that the proper foreign policy is non-interventionism". is that different from ron paul is a non-interventionalist? will please make up your mind if you are, or are not going to allow the numerous links i have supplied supporting the fact. will, actually it is your responsiblity to research a source before deleting the text, in the future, please use a more complete resource like google, cheers. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion of the article on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

actually we have settled the issue on the articles talk page, you already agreed to "Thanks for finding that. We could summarize that source as saying something like "Paul says that the proper foreign policy is non-interventionism". on the talk page. my comment on your talk page, was a question as to why your research failed. we uncovered the problem, you are using an incomplete resource to verify text. i suggested you use a better resource, you have yet to respond. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi DarkStar -- There are a few things on Google books that seem to use the term "non-interventionist", many of which are Paul himself claiming that he believes this:

• "A non-interventionist foreign policy would go a long way in preventing ..." -- [11]
• "Paul favors a non-interventionist foreign policy" -- [12]
• "America's current exceptionalist mission of intervention..." -- [13]

There seem to be quite a few more if you wanted to dig through them. But it seems like the statement that he is a non-interventionist is pretty widely accepted, including statements from Paul himself. Anyhow, hope that helps. Take care. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! We are a growing community of editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved: Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. Check the Recent changes for vandalism and violations of the neutral point of view policy. Add the project banner {{WikiProject Conservatism}} to conservatism-related articles, and assess them as well. Join fellow members in editing our project-wide article collaboration (the current one is Leo Strauss). Cleanup some of the articles listed for cleanup. Check out the to do list and complete some of the tasks. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! - – Lionel (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Howdy, I see you've made 2 full reverts in less than a 24 hour period. I'm sure it was a mistake. Could you correct that, please? I'd hate to waste the keystrokes on an admin noticeboard if it isn't necessary. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

no mistake. your addition of a "musical racist" will never be a section in wikipedia. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive

Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

thank you for your interest here. i prefer to have my entire history on display. i am proud of my time in wp and want everyone to see the high and low points of my service here. by the way, what topic interest do we share to cross paths here? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I once blocked you [14], and you're currently holding a discussion with me over the TPM + non-interventionism on my talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

it was very nice you unblocked me as well, thx! Darkstar1st (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Immigration to Mexico

Don't confuse importance with quality. "C-class" is nothing to brag about. If you're looking for ways to improve it I suggest WP:Peer review.   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

so answer the question... Darkstar1st (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the article still has the same problems as before.   Will Beback  talk  07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

this is why you should respond where i wrote the question, please go back and reread. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So far as I recall or can see in the archives, I never tried to delete the article. It's an obvious and typical topic. I tried to delete much of the source material, text from the Mexican Constitution I believe it was, which you insisted on keeping. That's not the reason the article is rated of high importance. The importance rating is based on the topic, not the content. It could be a two sentence stub and still be of high importance. Again, if you care about the article I suggest getting more outside input. I think you'll find that other editors will have some of the same concerns as I did, and might be able to work with you better than I could on improving it. Good luck with it. I hope you get it to Featured Article status.   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

since you are having trouble finding the question, ill repost here. in the future, plz stay on the page i write the question. "do you think in the past any of the policy enforcement was based on your own bias? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What bias are you accusing me of having and why?   Will Beback  talk  07:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the accusation was made without any basis. Please don't do that again.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

you are dodging the question, which requires only a yes or no. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your question accuses me of bias without explaining what bias I am supposed to have in this matter. It begs the question, like asking "have you stopped beating your wife". Insinuating that I have a bias without providing any evidence is uncivil. Please don't do it again.   Will Beback  talk  07:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ok, do you consider yourself biased on any article you have edited on wikipedia? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I avoid topics about which I have significant biases. How about you?   Will Beback  talk  08:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of bias now? i reject the frame of your question and answer it as no, i am not biased. which topics do you avoid because of bias? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is amusing, but I think this has run its course. I'll leave you the last.   Will Beback  talk  08:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

tdf, many of your comments lack focus or substance

much of what i read is your interpretation of wp:policy, placed incorrectly, often violating the very rules you mean to cite. if you have an issue with an editor, an articles talk page inst the correct forum.

ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism#the_National_Socialist_plan_is_a_plan_to_implement_socialism Darkstar1st (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

your comments are becoming increasingly more abstract. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tea_Party_movement#Calling_Notre_Dame_and_Harvard_professors_work_.22junk.22 you discuss personal theory and beliefs, mere seconds after chastising me for doing the same. "This is not the place to discuss our personal theories and beliefs." TFD (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism#the_National_Socialist_plan_is_a_plan_to_implement_socialism did you not realize you are breaking the very policy you are trying to enforce on me? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Johann Gottlieb Fichte

Stop edit warring, as you did on Johann Gottlieb Fichte. The 3RR rule does not automatically give you the right to 3 reverts. You are consistently edit warring even when you have several people who disagrees and while a discussion is ongoing. Don't do that, you may be blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

you read the part where an editor reverted me after claiming i misrepresented the source, only to admit he did not read the source? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Not interested in your excuses. You do this all the time, it's not them, it's you. Stop edit warring and try to engage in constructive debate instead. I know it's difficult and that people are dogmatic, but so are you and it isn't helping. Two wrongs does not make one right (although three lefts do). --OpenFuture (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

good point, i should have made an appeal instead. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. BRD. You make the edit, it gets reverted, you discuss. When the discussion peters out, you can if you think you won, revert it again. If it still gets reverted, get a third-opinion or some other dispute resolution. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

that is the last time i type out a source for someone who hasn't read the book. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

BigK talk

I have copied&pasted the BigK discussion to WT:ECON. If you wish, let's continue the conversation there. --S. Rich (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

goo

ha. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on National Socialism. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Informal mediation at Nazism

Hi Darkstar1st, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the dispute resolution noticeboard. If it's not too much trouble, would you be willing to comment in the informal mediation thread that I started at Talk:Nazism#Informal mediation? As one of the main contributors to the article, we really need your input to have a good chance of resolving the issues there. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi! thank you for the help on this article. i had held off commenting so far as you seem to have a firm grasp of the disagreements. i think the article has become a bit of a coatrack. i tried to disam national socialism as nazi party and nazi germany appear to cover identical ground. my greatest disappointment is having the etymology removed as OR, when i submitted no text from the source, mearly mentioned its appearance and the date. It is necessary to include all early uses as the very definition of etymology suggest, and paramount to include the first known occurrence. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

User:OpenFuture

[15] this edit has me perplexed. I do however think that it doesn't actually improve the article. It just becomes a piece of trivia when not connected to the rest of article in any way.. why do you think adding the first recorded use of the term to the etymology section would not improve the article? Websters dictionary definition: earliest recorded occurrence in the language. why wouldn't correcting the current section which does not even answer the first recorded use, or even try to address it not improve the article? facepalm. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I said. Just a separated piece of information with no connection to anything around it just becomes trivia, and doesn't really improve the article significantly. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

it is connected because it it the title of the article, and i have given the actual etymology. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not connected to what it it says before or after. It's just a standalone piece of information. If you understand this or not isn't really of any interest to me. That's my opinion. I don't think that the sentence, as you added it, added anything to the article. It gives no extra understanding to the reader. It's just an unconnected piece of trivia regarding the subject. Try to make a coherent paragraph about early usage of the word instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

trivia, no etymology, perhaps if i gave several definitions from different sources. it adds to the article by correcting the current section, which is MISSING the earliest recorded occurrence.

[16]: the history of a linguistic form (as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another.

[17] a chronological account of the birth and development of a particular word or element of a word, often delineating its spread from one language to another and its evolving changes in form and meaning.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/194715/etymology

[18] The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another Darkstar1st (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

did you change your mind about my contribution to the article?

I personally think the last weeks have made small but significant improvements

since most of the new sections are mine, did you inadvertently endorse my efforts, or have you realized my intent was and is in good faith? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

None of the above, mainly because much of the above are straw men asking if backed away from standpoints and opinions I never had. You do things in good faith, but with dogmatic blindfolds and the total refusal to work in a sensible, constructive manner, and as a result you alienate everyone, including those who are sympathetic to your standpoint and think that you are at least mostly right.

I'm not going to follow your talk page either from now on, as this is just as non-constructive as all other interactions we have had. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What did you even add that hasn't been reverted, btw? It seems to me that most of the improvements have been added by R-41. Also VoluntarySlave's new addition today was great. Look at those for inspiration about how to add content, they are much better than both you and me. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

you just made my point, that was my addition, volunteer moved it. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

my contributions to the article page always get moved or reverted, i was talking more about the sections i created in talk, which until i made them, the article made no progress. now you have noticed small steps and are unwilling or able to understand they are a result of my talk sections. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ROFL! --OpenFuture (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

i know, dont be too hard on yourself though, it happens, fluffy kittens.

here is the genesis of the edit made today which you incorrectly credited to voluntaryslave: Socialism not implemented globally, is National Socialism, the new socialism, C.B Spahr Boston 1889 Above is paraphrase, see:Socialism, The H.W. Wilson company, 1915, page 57. Suggest we include more in the history section about national socialist pre-nazi party. I would like to include some text by the reliable source C.B. Spahr unless objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

and here is the actual edit before voluntaryslave moved it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazism&action=historysubmit&diff=448533117&oldid=448485457 Darkstar1st (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind about unsubscribing from your talk page, this is the most entertaining thing the whole day. That you don't understand the difference between a talk page and an article is still hilarious. (But you are right, that edit didn't get reverted. Good for you). --OpenFuture (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

dont understand, how so? but i never said it didn't get reverted, instead i pointed out you used voluntaryslaves edit, which was actually mine, as an example of how one should edit, LOL! Darkstar1st (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit I was referring to as an example was this: [19]. Are you claiming it's still "yours"? Then you are delusional. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

when did i confuse social and socialist?

Also note that "social" and "socialist" are different words. Just because Darkstar1st makes those mistakes is no reason for you to make them. [20] Darkstar1st (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You have in your efforts to find pre-war National Socialism dragged up anything that had both "national" and "social" in the name. These groups were not national socialists. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

you lie, i have not presented any group with the word "social". Darkstar1st (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I may misremember, but I do not lie, and I'll report you the next time you claim I do. Your insistence of refusing to cooperate and work constructively and instead alienate everyone is a big hindrance to getting something done on Nazism and the major reason that the socialist roots of Nazism are still under-represented in that article. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

it wasn't a claim, rather a fact. Not only do you misremember, you have yet to correct the error. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

alienate hindrance

• I will not accept another rebuke by OpenFuture, editor@ Talk:Nazism
• You are clearly not reading very carefully, openfuture
• patently absurd, and evidence only of the ridiculous length to which some people are willing to go to avoid losing even a small part of a debate, openfuture
• OpenFuture and R-41, I was sorely tempted to troutslap ... you both need to be calm, article mediator@ Talk:Nazism Darkstar1st (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You will note, however, that I didn't actually {{trout}} the thread. Context is key, here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

good point, you said, until i read tdf comment. your point being the debate had merit and could be discussed calmly. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

national socialism is a parody of fascism. joseph goebbels interpreted stalinism as a russian form of national socialism

i found several passages in the sources agreed upon by all that make specific points how the nazis were not considered fascist by those who identified themselves as such, but rather socialist, or beyond, hitlerian national socialism more nearly paralleled russian communism than has any other non-communist system. nazism was offensive and would push europe into communism. the difference between fascism and nazism are profound and unambiguous. you claim i am WP:soapboxing (which is actually a misnomer as the term is not meant as a verb) by suggesting we realign the portals to match what the sources claim. you have submitted no evidence to base such a claim, a soapbox must contain advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment. many articles included in the socialism portal include other ideology in addition to socialism, ex: Jewish left, Islamic socialism, Titoism, Equal Opportunity, Technocracy, Socialism in One Country, but not national socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazism RFC draft

Hi Darkstar1st, about this edit - it's only a draft, so your comment was a bit premature and I reverted it. You can put your comment [21] back in when it goes up on Talk:Nazism. Any discussion about the draft should go at Talk:Nazism so that everyone can see it. Thanks. By the way, do you need any help archiving this page? It's almost 300k now, which really slows down the loading times, and for people with slow computers it can really slow down when you're scrolling. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

i understand. i found the wording a bit odd, hence my comment. syn requires a RS not explicitly state what is in the edit, which is not the case for rodbertus as the source does explicitly states he was a national socialist. the source wasnt never challenged or even read as one editor noted reverting, instead, OR, the thinking mans idontlikeit, was employed erroneously here. it may be time to do something about my page, perhaps i will collapse older discussions instead of archive. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift comment to the RfC. About archiving this page - collapsing posts won't make the page any smaller, and browsers will still load the text that is hidden. In fact, it would make the page slower if you collapsed old posts because of the size of the collapsing templates... Archiving is the only thing that will actually improve the speed. The offer of help is always open - just let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

you are most welcome, it is i and the rest of the editors who should thank you. your guidance sorting out the nazi article is well thought out, prompt, and tremendously helpful. you have succeed at fixing the scrolling issues for slower pc's by your suggestions, thx. i realize the size is still a strain to community resources. is more of a strain than the ginormous photo of me eating a hat on my user page? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the point is that the slower PCs still load all 300k of the talk page - you can even see it all for a split-second before the collapsing templates kick in - so it doesn't really do anything to help in that sense. But I can't tell you how to format your page, I can only make suggestions. Oh, and I think the hat should stay ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

i lost an argument to snowed over a similar debate, thus hat in mouth. some of the ink on my page belongs to Will Beback, a admin i respect an often debate, his page appears to be the same size? maybe i should delete the near trout slap photo, that has to be more than half of the bytes, rites? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback's talk page is only 85k at the moment. Anyway, there's not much that I can say that hasn't already be said at Wikipedia:Article size, other than one really slow computer at my old work just refused to load any pages over 200k - it just gave out an error message every time, and this was with the latest Firefox. But as I say, it's up to you what to do. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I just saw my name. Thanks for the nice words. FWIW, I archive my talk page monthly, leaving the last month's worth. I just archived August, bringing the page back down to 36k, at the moment.) Even so, folks have commented complaints when I've forgotten to archive and it's gotten too big. OTOH, I've seen pages over 200k! Many of the newer posts were complaints about the page length. ;) More and more people use phones and tablets to access Wikipedia, so they have a problem with big pages.   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

that settles it, will do now. you are welcome for the kind words, your presence in wp is one of the larger footprints i've seen. your dedication is and has been an inspiration for me personally. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hillary, Barack, and Joe are not leaders/members of the democrat party?

Let's keep the discussion of the Tea Party movement about the Tea Party movement. The Democratic Party is a different entity entirely.   Will Beback  talk  06:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please not repeat ethnic slurs on talk pages. While it is acceptable to provide direct quotes of ethnic slurs, it is unacceptable to repeat them more than necessary, as you did recently at Talk:Tea Party movement and earlier when you set up a discussion thread with an ethnic slur in its title and long ago when you defended mark nutley's use of an anti-Irish epithet. TFD (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

publish offense words on the article page, but do n*t m*ntion the actual w*rds in talk? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your use of the terms appears excessive. One may point out that not TPM supporters have also used ethnic slurs without enumerating them and continually repeating them. It detracts from your argument and makes it appear that you are repeating them because you enjoy repeating them. TFD (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

if i enjoy them, why am i trying to remove them from the page? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have brought the issue to ANI and you may reply here]. TFD (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, the biggest worry here is you seem to be putting words you know will nettle other editors into edit summaries. Now that you've been told they do, stop it. You're being disruptive and pointy, which is blockable. en.WP is not censored but that doesn't mean you can stir editors up by loading edit summaries with naughty bits (and worse). If you keep doing that, you're going to get blocked, quick. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gwen, i appreciate your concern and share your distaste for the words. when i wish to refer to the "words" in the article, what would be an appropriate method for describing the offensive text i seek to remove? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't put words some editors find offensive (you know what they are) in your edit summaries anymore, you've used up more or less all the slack you're going to get on that for awhile. In the edit summaries, call them offensive words, slurs, whatever. You can quote the words in the text of your posts but by this I mean cite the whole quotes, not the words alone. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

that would fix some of the complaint, edit summaries, but fails to address the larger issue of the actual edits. when i wish to refer to the "words" in the article, what would be an appropriate method for describing the offensive text i seek to remove? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

First things first. Stop the dodgy edit summaries, editors will stop fussing about them and maybe then you'll get further with what you want to do. Trying to link the latter with the former is the canny core of WP:Point. Now you know. I've already told you how you can handle the words/quotes in the text of talk page posts. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Gwen, please re-read the complaint, edit summaries are only half(or less) the problem, we would still be having this convo if i made no summary. you are certainly sensitive to these words, as am i. i wish there was a better way to restore wikipedia. when you do formulate a plan, please stop back by and let us know. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I must say, you have not a clue as to what my "sensitivity" or "distaste" for those words may be and it doesn't matter. All I'm talking about here is the disruption you've stirred up with your edit summaries. I think you know spot on what I mean. Stop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

i apologize for not being clear and for assuming you are offended by those words, perhaps you are not bothered as the other editors, it wouldn't surprise me given the prevalence of use in today's youth culture. what i am trying to point out is your understanding of the complaint is lacking. the actual edits are what is being summarized and they contain far more slurs than the summary, hence far more offense. when you design a scheme to edit without using the words, which is near impossible as how would anyone know which word one meant, please share your plan. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I did. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

no, your plan was to fix the summary which avoids the larger issue. i suspect you have no idea, like me, how to fix the issue without offending someone, if i am wrong, plan enlighten us. how does one remove a slur without using the slur in discussion (not the summary, i get it)? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The worry here is your behaviour on the article talk page, which is disrupting meaningful discussion and is wholly aside from any editorial matters having to do with the article's content. I've cited the policies and warned you. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

how does one remove a slur without using the slur in discussion? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

First, one blocks the editor who seems to get a cheap kick out of wantonly spewing such slurs into edit summaries and talk page posts whilst claiming not to like them and ends the disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, then? (notice the "words" are still in the article...) do you even have an actual suggestion for how to remove them? are you even interested in removing the offensive language from wp? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You know you've gone way over the top with this. Having reviewed the article content, your posts to its talk page and your answers here, I think the likelihood of further disruption from you is rather high. If you post any more slurs anywhere on this website any time soon, you could be blocked for disruption without further warning. Let other editors handle it until you've both read up more on the policies and have learned how to edit controversial, high traffic topics here. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

no need, it is currently being handled, the genesis of this convo is my rfc to remove the actual slurs and the lone racial issues section in wikipedia. do you prefer to keep the racial and homophobic material, if so, i find that disturbing on several levels. lol @ you telling me i have no idea what you think in the same section where you inform me what i think, bahahaha. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As you know, you're the one who's been posting most of the slurs. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

do you prefer to keep the racial and homophobic material? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

tdf, i am having trouble keeping track of how many times you have filed a report against me resulting in no action, at some point this may be considered harassment. perhaps you should focus on the content rather than continuing to fail at being the wikipolice. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and removal of other editor's posts and signatures

Hi, DS. You have repeatedly removed posts of mine, along with my time stamped signatures, from the Tea Party movement talk page. I'm hoping it was a mistake; one which you will correct. If not, I'll be filing a grievance in about 10 minutes. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

may the wind of 1000 camels part your mother's hair on the 1st day of spring. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Thank you, however, for ceasing your unexplained removals of my edits. It was the proper choice, and much appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

TPM Berry quote

Unbelievable. Xeno added a {{Failed verification}} template following your Berry quote; I removed the template, added one clearly marked phrase mentioning a second attributed author so there could be no question of verifiability, and conspicuously identified the change as being made by me. You then removed the minor adjustment and restored the {{Failed verification}} template, with a mini-rant in the edit summary. Do you always aim at your own foot when shooting, or does the bullet just head there on its own? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

apologies, i didnt notice i actually added the tag back, and certainly did not mean remove your second source. would you replace the source, or i can try, but given my previous goof, you may be the better choice. i hope the tag stays, i added the rebuttal directly after. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

ok i just looked again, and appreciated your clarification of the other member. if xeno would stop posting inside my posts he could add whatever he wants, i do not object, rather seek to preserve the original intent and look of my post. i hope this can be bygones with us, you seem like a nice person. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since you already responded to Xeno's template, there doesn't seem to be all that much need to mention the second author unless the issue gets pressed. I do think you might want to show the italics that were contained in the original; they were there, and seem to support your point. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A correction to a couple of minor errors above: (1) I'm not "posting inside your posts"; I made an attempt to correct some of your misquotes, while conspicuously identifying the change as being by me, but you objected — so I instead created my own list of actual legitimate quotes with context outside of your posts. I find it weird that you would begin deleting those contributions of mine as well. Is it because the real quotes with context show your misquotes without context for what they are, and thereby refute whatever point it was you were trying to make? (2) The joint statement by Ramirez & Berry, with its full context intact, conveys a completely different message than the misquote (and still unsourced ... I checked your pg. 141, as well as the rest of the book ... it ain't there) you attribute to Berry that comes off sounding, how did you put it, racist. I'm sure you can understand my concern. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so we agree she said it, just you suggest it is out of context. could you provide a link to a source with the full context? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we agree that Ramirez and Berry issued a joint statement? Yes. And I don't find that statement to contain any indication of racism, which is what I believe you were trying to assert, correct? And you already have the source (pg. 68), as you were the one to bring it to our attention. As for the misquote that you initially said was a quote of Berry's, we absolutely do not agree that she made that statement, and you have yet to provide a reliable source to support it. You said it was from Robert Detlefsen, pg. 141, but it is nowhere in that book. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

so you are saying a quote i submitted, Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them, which you later submitted with fictional additional text is incorrect, yet you have no source and are asking me for one? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No. I am asking you for a source for that alleged quote you submitted. Got one? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

i gave you my source, which you claimed is incorrect. do you have a source for the exact same quote with additional text which you claim is the accurate version? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So you don't really have a source? A text search through the digitized copy of the book you cited shows that those words are nowhere to be found within. I don't have any opinions about "accurate versions", sorry, but if you are asking me to start citing stuff, I've already addressed that in our conversation on my talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

if the quote isn't in the source i gave, why did you repost it with some new words of your own? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24hrs for WP:NPA on ANI, including in the edit-summary. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[22] blocking someone for the personal attack stupid dummie, might be the best block in the entire history of wp. i have noticed you rack up several controversial blocks, can't wait to hear you defend this one. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

dear yrowo, i am sorry for calling you a stupid dummie while trying to point out the person who reported you for saying their argument was stupid was being a little girl. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

All you've done here, as you know, has been to repeat the personal attack for which you got blocked. Only making you aware, if you keep carrying on this way, the blocks will only get longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Gwen, do you prefer to keep the racial and homophobic slurs in the tea party article? see above [23] Darkstar1st (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, if you post any more slurs anywhere on this website you'll be blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

that sounds like a threat? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I know warnings can sound like threats to an editor who gets them and I understand that, but it's more like a hope. Please see Wikipedia:Block#Education_and_warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

you also avoided the question a 3rd time, do you think racial and homophobic slurs belong on the tea party article? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't answered because, given the disruption you've stirred up by posting slurs, I don't yet have trust you would begin talking about that topic in a helpful, non-disruptive way. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

When you figure out how to remove slurs from an article without using them in talk, get back to me, until then, consider any additional advice unnecessary. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave you the answer to that two days ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Let other editors handle it, fine, so how would they remove the slurs without mentioning them? why is this such a secret, if there is a policy i missed, please post the link, or come back when you find it.

Socialism in One Country

Please read WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy.

1. . If someone other than the creator of an article removes a speedy tag, nobody else may restore it for the same reason.
2. . "one of the sources is a blog" is not one of the speedy criteria
3. . Only those criteria specifically listed may be used for speedy.
4. . "one of the sources is a blog" is not a deletion criterion for any deletion method; in fact, even "unsourced" is not a sufficient deletion criterion. The relevant criterion is unsourceable. -- which was not the case; or "insufficient sources can be found to demonstrate notability," which is also not true in this case, but at least would be a argument valid on its face.
5. . Even with respect to sourcing for notability , there is no need for more than one source, if its sufficiently reliable.
6. . The appropriate method if you want it deleted is WP:AFD, but I think the result will be a speedy keep.
7. . Given all this, I think that putting a deletion tag on this is so absurd as to be almost disruptive, and replacing it is actually disruptive.

If you put the speedy tag back, I give you a formal warning that I shall block you. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

perhaps you should read the case i made in discussion and made a comment before removing the tag. I shall block you, is a threat, no offense taken by me, but you may run into trouble in the future using that line. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually look for sources before launching this AFD? Frankly it is borderline disruptive, especially in view of the discussion above. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

yes i did. did you read the talk page discussion that traces the lone source back to a guy who said this: The crucial point about Hitlerism is that its disciples not only believe in themselves, but believe in Germany. For the first time since the war a party appeared outside the narrow circles of the extreme Right which was not afraid to proclaim its pride in being German. It will perhaps one day be recognized as the greatest service of Hitlerism that, in a way quite unprecedented in German politics, it cut across all social distinctions, embracing in its ranks working men, bourgeoisie, intelligentsia and aristocrats. Germany Awake! became a living national faith? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Which has precisely no bearing on the question of whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or indeed why you claim to have looked for sources but seemingly failed to find any. Did you try Google Books, with nine hundred thousand hits. of which the top few are a multi-volume work on this precise topic, or Google Scholar with four thousand hits? Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

i did, here is the top result: [24] It is said in defence of this measure that the People's Commissariats directly concerned with national psychology and national education were set up as separate bodies. But there the question arises: can these People's Commissariats be made quite independent? and secondly: were we careful enough to take measures to provide the non-Russians with a real safeguard against the truly Russian bully? I do not think we took such measures although we could and should have done so.

I think that Stalin's haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious "nationalist-socialism" [Stalin critised the minority nations for not being "internationalist" because they did want to unite with Russia], played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles.

I also fear that Comrade Dzerzhinsky, who went to the Caucasus to investigate the "crime" of those "nationalist-socialists", distinguished himself there by his truly Russian frame of mind (it is common knowledge that people of other nationalities who have become Russified over-do this Russian frame of mind) and that the impartiality of his whole commission was typified well enough by Orgonikidze's "manhandling". I think that no provocation or even insult can justify such Russian manhandling and that Comrade Dzerzhinsky was inexcusably guilty in adopting a light-hearted attitude towards it.

The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of "nationalist-socialism" (whereas he himself is a real and true "nationalist-socialist", and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; "offended" nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest- to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades. That is why in this case it is better to over-do rather than undergo the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities. That is why, in this case, the fundamental interest of proletarian class struggle, requires that we never adopt a formal attitude to the national question, but always take into account the specific attitude of the proletarian of the oppressed (or small) nation towards the oppressor (or great) nation. V Lenin Darkstar1st (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the notability or otherwise of the topic, as you must be aware. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

so the top result on google for "socialism in one country" has nothing to do with this poorly sourced article? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. My point is that Carr's opinion of Hitler, or Lenin's opinion of Stalin, does not help us to decide whether Socialism in One Country is notable enough for Wikipedia in terms of having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Your assertion was that it is not notable, and I pointed out it was easy to find numerous such sources, and that you should have found them easily if you had looked before making that assertion. Your response, to quote one possible source, seems strangely beside the point. Are you in fact trying to discuss notability of this topic or how to improve the references for the article, or are you deliberately wasting time? Cusop Dingle (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

if teaching you lenin considered stalin a national socialist (not a socialist in one country) is a waste of time, then guilty. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ipse dixit. Cusop Dingle (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ya he did, but in russian and it was called national socialism, not socialism in one country. see lenin's own notes. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• You have now taken this to AfD, where as predicted it was SNOW kept. It is only fair that I warn you that if anyone watching this cares to make a case at AN/I for a topic ban, I will support it. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  that sounds like a threat and possibly a misuse of this discussion page. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

On the Talk:National Socialism (disambiguation) page you have twice reverted another editor's content without discussing it on the talk page. This is Wikipedia:Edit warring, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for details on the proper procedure and please join the discussion on Talk:National Socialism (disambiguation). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

weird, or the 4 editors who have made multiple reverts, including yourself, i am the only one who gets the warning? typical wp, consider this matter closed, i have no interest in putting the social back in socialism. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason you got a warning on your user talk page was because you are refusing to discuss the issue on the article talk page. The others are participating, so they got warned there. Again I encourage you to seek consensus on the article talk page --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

arguing national socialism is socialist is like arguing baseball has a ball, i give up. perhaps you will have better luck, either way your warning is appreciated, unnecessary, and futile as rational people will continue to make the same edit as I. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so I understand clearly, are you saying you now have no objection to the other editors' preferred version? The reason I want to be clear is that right now I am forcing them to wait a few days to give you time to respond on the talk page. If you aren't going to do that, I can stop asking them to wait. Wikipedia works because editors with differences of opinion talk things over and seek consensus, so refusing to discuss means that the other side gets their way by default. It's all the same to me - I don't know or care which version is best - but I just want to be sure that you are aware of the consequences of your decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

i do object but will not persist in debate. opposite opinion has skillful used wp:policy to remove any trace of the idea socialism if tried within the border of a country would not be the same as international socialism or plain socialism. redirect is an often overused tool when a hat-note would suffice. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh Puleeeze... You refusing to write a single word on the article talk page is hardly refusing to persist in debate, and them being the only ones who bother to show up in such a discussion is hardly skillfully using wp:policy. I am unsubscribing from your talk page now. If you change your mind and choose to start discussing, you know where to go. Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WQA

Could you please remove your colorful language from WQA, it may be offensive to other editors. Please remember that children use Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

this is classic, you just made me smile big very, kudos! Darkstar1st (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have brought the issue to ANI.[25] TFD (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

How about knocking the language on the head, just because it's better that way? Thanks. I'm against censorship, but I don't feel that a right to be uncensored has to imply a need to offend continually, just to demonstrate how free I am - even if I still reserve the right to offend on occasion! Swearing's kudos does rather pale after the age of 8 anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy, TFD is using the hyperbole emplyed in a complaint against him for using the edit summery, "jesus fucking christ", please read the orignal complaint and let me know your thoughts. for the record, i am not for censorship either, but words like fucking are preventing the distribution of wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

TDF, has reported me several times, and again no action taken. let's bury the hatchet and go our separate ways. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, surely you don't intend to stand by your blatantly false accusation against TFD at ANI? I note you've failed to respond to requests to provide a diff. Ditto with requests to strike. As you have failed to come up with a diff to support your defamatory charge, and nobody else has found one, the charge is very clearly false. Will you strike it please? Writegeist (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

follow the link at the beginning of the ani section, it clear has the offensive edit summary. what is more troubling is why does tfd report me so often, and so often fail. i believe this is the 4th or 5th or more time. perhaps since you are willing to help, you could ask tdf why. he has not reported other users with the frequency and failure of myself, nor has any other editor. would it be paranoid to think he has an agenda? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Your treatment of this issue grows more and more mystifying You accused TFD of writing the edit summary "Jesus fucking Christ": you wrote at ANI "my original comment was a protest to tfd using "jesus fucking christ" as an edit sum". TFD did not use that edit summary. In support of your claim that he did, you say "follow the link at the beginning of the ani section, it clear has the offensive edit summary." The words you ascribe to TFD do not appear there in any edit summary by him. Here are all the links at the beginning of the ANI section: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. None of them substantiates your accusation. Not one. Yet your own use of the offending edit summary is in evidence.

Since you appear to be arguing that black is white and white is black, I wonder if in fact you meant something else? Is there a misunderstanding? Are we talking at cross-purposes? Writegeist (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

you make several good points, yet refuse to address the elephant in the room? why is it always tfd reporting me? why does he fail so often? why dont other users report me? why doesnt he report other users with the same zeal? my accusation was directed at the comment/edit summary, notice i have not reported tdf, so "accusation" strike me a bit odd. i am concerned wp is being censored because of filth flarn filth such as this, perhaps this concerns you as little as tfd's constant reporting (which have failed repeatedly) of me, either way, i wish you well and have decided the matter is closed, pending a revelation or new thought on your part. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. New summary of your tactics (I'll try to make this simple for you):

(1) You posted the defamatory lie that TFD wrote the edit summary "Jesus fucking Christ". (2) You have repeatedly pretended that the lie is the truth, and you have pretended to furnish a supporting diff -- one that does not, in fact , support your lie in any way whatsoever. (3) Your lie is apparently intended to justify your own behaviour by dishonestly discrediting TFD. (4) You have been asked repeatedly to strike the lie, yet you have not done so. Therefore (5) you have made clear your intention to persist in this dishonesty, thus perpetuating (6) a derogatory lie which is a personal attack on TFD.

New thought: these are scumbag tactics and you can be blocked for the persistent personal attack. Is my thinking correct?

New thought on your alleged "elephant in the room": best you address questions for TFD and "other users" to TFD and other users. Writegeist (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, apparently, my pleas for a cleaner wp has fallen on deaf ears, the same deaf ears not able to understand my previous comment about the matter is closed. as for your comments, "scumbag" is certainly a personal attack, and blocked is a threat, wiki-on thou of poor hearing and taste. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Another disingenuous post from you (and I note that, as is your right, you have removed the part of my previous post that calls you on the utter dishonesty of your posts to ANI - and to which you have no answer.) You wrote that you regarded the matter of your scumbag personal attack as closed "pending...a new thought" on my part. Therefore you were clearly open to my posting new thoughts. I did so. (And now, of course, you complain I didn't understand your previous comment. I understood it perfectly well. If you meant something else you should have said something else.) Now to answer your whine about a personal attack: characterizing your lying, defamatory posts as "scumbag tactics" is not a personal attack; calling you a scumbag would be. Are you able to distinguish the difference? And to answer your whine that "blocked is a threat": informing another user that persistent personal attacks are blockable is hardly a threat. It's a simple statement of fact. (I have not threatened to take any action that might get you blocked. I think blocking is a total waste of time, and anyway puts way too much power in the hands of the more infantile administrators). I have treated you as an adult. An equal. I have not threatened you. I have called you on your dishonest personal attack. You have complained about some elephant in the room that upsets you. I note that you are persisting in your scumbag personal attack on TFD. That is all. Writegeist (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Striking erroneous comments above, arising from the way I saw the diff displayed in my browser, which excluded the previous part of my post. My sincere apologies. Perhaps now you will follow this example where your attack on TFD is concerned. Writegeist (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

apology accepted, although i was not offended in the least, rather amused by the zeal in which you and tdf seek to pursue such failed enterprise. the example of yours i intend to follow is the one where you no longer comment on this subject. again i say begone and be well, return on a new topic or not at all. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Eldridge Cleaver article

Please read the talk section titled "A serial rapist writer? An attempted murderer activist?" We recently went through a long discussion as to the appropriate location of "self-confessed racist" in the lede. You keep deleting it, even though the editor consensis was to retain it in the third position as an important early identity based on Cleaver's writing in Soul on Ice.

In fact there is considerable evidence that Cleaver continued raping women during later life. For example, Elaine Brown refers to Cleaver as a rapist. So I don't think inclusion of this phrase constitutes undue emphasis.

The article never claimed Cleaver was a "racist," though my personal opinion is that, like most of the Panthers during the early days of the Party, he indeed was. If you question this you should read the "Black Panther" article, especially the section titled "Evolving ideology, widening support" which quotes speakers at the "Free Huey" rally in early 1968. This is decidedly anti-white, Black Nationalist rhetoric. During later years, the Party came to reject Black Nationalism in its official pronouncements. It is an open question whether this was merely a political ploy or a sincere desire to reject judgements of individuals based on their race. Though I would never include my personal experience in the article, I knew these people during the 1966-71 period--they were Berkeley/Oakland neighbors--and their attitude towards white people was decidedly racist, which included unprovoked threats and assaults on white people.

Your reference to Cleaver as "a former racist" is even more problematic. This descriptor implies that he was definitely racist at one point in his life, and that he later changed he ways. I know of no source that says this; if you want to put it back in, please provide reliable sourcing.

To answer your question, I am not trying to "do" anything with the article. Just trying to maintain NPOV and keep it honest.Apostle12 (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

you have me confused with another editor, as i have never removed the "rape white women" part. i am still confused by your edit which contradicts your above statement by removing racist? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

On at least two occasions you have removed "self-confessed rapist" from the first line of the lede. Apostle12 (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

never, i have only added material to the article. look up the difs, if you don't know how, just tell me the time/day when the edits were made, ill help you find out who keeps taking it out. in the meantime, would you mind self-reverting until we can finish the talk as you appear to be arguing he was a racist? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

btw, i realize the former part was weaselly. i only added it to try to show he may have had a change of heart, feel free to leave it out if you self-revert. you wouldn't refer to someone as a former murderer. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite true! (Much laughter) I stand corrected: The first deletion of "self-confessed serial rapist" was by another editor. The second deletion of this descriptor was your revision as of 07:42, 8 May 2012.

I don't believe any source discusses whether or not Eldridge Cleaver was a racist. The issue here is whether such a statement can be verified. Another issue might be whether or not it is notable. My own opinion is that he exhibited enormous racial hatred by engaging in serial rapes that specifically targeted white women. Keep in mind that his only rapes of black women were "for practice," so his skills would be well enough honed to accomplish his ultimate goal of raping white women. Cleaver called this "an insurrectionary act;" I call it "bare racism." (Rhetorical quesiton: Would a white man who specifically targeted black women for rape be called a "racist?") If you can find a reliable source arguing that Cleaver was a racist, or that he was a racist and then changed his ways, the material might legitimately be added to the article. Apostle12 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

apologies, i stand corrected. when i reverted your revert of the term racism, i accidentally did delete the other passage. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem; glad we're good. BTW, I think the quote you added is excellent. Apostle12 (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

thx, it is rare and appreciated to see such civility on WP. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Re edits on Nazism article

Hi. Thanks for taking the trouble to send a supportive message. I appreciate your advice. I'm not very good at android mode, but I'll try taking a deep breath and counting to ten. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

you are on the right path and obviously reasonable. take a look at my contribs and you will know how much i understand the frustration blanket reverts cause. if someone adds 100 words, at least one is correct, so dont revert the entire edit because you dont like part, create, build, grow, wikipedia, not simply veto anything not written with ones own hand. you strike me as good faith editor, intelligent, and passionate about wp, thx for the nod. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Occupy Cleveland

The article Occupy Cleveland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not show notability, tagged since May 2012

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please don't edit war over clean-up for general readers

Clean up of subject heading is done when needed. The one has nothing to do with the other. I am not changing any content. I don't want to edit war and there is no need for this. Orange Mike added a title for separation to it which was wiped off by another; see here:[33]. You can re-instate that one if you like it better. Kierzek (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Anthony Hayne

Please do not make articles about a living person that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability and any negative information we use must be reliably sourced, and our articles must be balanced. Negative unreferenced biographies of living people are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

the page has been restored. please at least attempt finding a source yourself next time, thx! Darkstar1st (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, you need to learn and understand the rules. I didn't restart the article to help you, it was in spite of your negative POV and attempts to continually tie in "weapons of mass destruction" and "the occupy movement". All additions must be properly sourced. There are now multiple watchers on all related articles, please remember that Wikipedia maintains a neutral WP:POV. Ng.j (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Also note that this was a deliberate restart under WP:TNT. Your previous edits have been deleted. Ng.j (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

continued attempts? when was the first? i was in the process of sourcing the article when it was deleted TWELVE minutes into my edit. without object i will finish the article and add back the part about him pleading guilty to conspiracy to use a wmd. the fbi has the pov, they are the ones who charged and convicted him of the wmd, not me. i restored the material and added the source i originally intended to use before a bumbling deletion mistakenly killed the page. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

i have been an editor longer than you, and may know the rules as well or better. which rule specifically did i break? the stub you replaced my article with was not sourced either, and by the same logic an "attack" of blp evey bit as much as my page?[34]. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Occupy Cleveland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Occupy Cleveland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupy Cleveland until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the wait--I've had a lot on my plate lately. It's merged to Occupy movement in the United States#Cleveland it looks like some cleanup is needed there, with the referencing and spaces though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

no problem, i noticed you were reverted minutes later sans discussion, thanks for the effort all the same. i fail to comprehende how such a double standard exist on wp. if a member of the tea party says "Monkey God", it gets included, 5 members of OWS/c are arrested/guilty of conspiracy to use a wmd, not notable, seriously? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, per WP:BRD you usually don't have to discuss before the first revert, it's the second one that's important to talk about. I haven't followed the Tea Party and OWS articles very closely, but double standards do certainly exist around here on a number of topics. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate listings at AFD

There appears to be an error, in which the AfD discussion for the Conservative liberalism article has been listed twice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 17, with text that differs from one-another. These should be consolidated into one entry. Thanks for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

thx, apologies, corrected. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The same is also now occurring for the Liberal conservatism listing there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed the AfD entries for these articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative liberalism (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal conservatism (2nd nomination). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

thx yall! apologies for wrecking the code. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkstar1st. You have new messages at [[User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)|User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give State Socialism a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into State Socialism (Germany). This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

thx Russ! this really isnt my strength as you can tell from my edits. Often i mangle code in an effort to fix the actual content, which is more important of the two, thus how i am able to live with my hacks, hehe. Originally I renamed the page state socialism under bismarck, which is an equally bad title. the page should be merged as the two state socialism pages are both about the same thing. resistance from the usual crowd won out this time and my will to debate ever tiny point has left me. Perhaps you could explain the difference between the two? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You are a STAR!

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for your exemplary contributions to political articles. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 04:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

thx!! Darkstar1st (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkstar1st. You have new messages at Talk:Tea_Party_movement#.22Media_coverage.22.
Message added 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Trolls

I see you are using some new definition of many, to mean you, yourself and the troll. Lol, you really should try not to be taken in by trolls you know. It really wastes everyone's time and you're on a 3rr by the way, but not to worry.----Snowded ^TALK 05:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

look in the history to see the many who have commented in this section. the 3rr was created for the actual article pages, not the discussion pages you are editing, which were never intended to be edited by you, plz stop. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have presented facts and qoutes on FS and socialism. I admit I have little experience with wikipedia and do not understand the bullying mentality towards anyone who has a different idea or use actual history to state a case. I do believe a third party should decide the matter but I have no clue how to go about that. 23:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC) aka the troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.172.61 (talk)

keep submitting sources, no need for a 3rd party. the wikipedia article on socialism cant even decide what socialism means, so eventually with enough references to the socialist aspects of national socialism (pre, post or during hitler), we can make the case. the problem is this article is trying to group all national socialism as nazi. the root of the term means socialism in one country, which there is also an article in wikipedia. the main opposition comes from the thought that national socialism was just a term used to bait people into supporting nazi, however the term was coined well before hitler and should have its own article, combining the articles is like combining democracy and the dnc. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

see above, thank you. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Nazism. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Wifione ^Message 01:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Nazism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --RJFF (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

although i did not understand your objection to the 3 sources i gave already? "one is a book about music!" Art, Ideology, and Economics in Nazi Germany: The Reich Chambers of Music "He discusses such issues as insurance, minimum wage statutes, and certification guidelines, all of which were matters of high priority to the art professions before 1933 as well as after the Nazi seizure of power. By elucidating the economic and professional context of cultural life, Steinweis helps to explain the widespread acquiescence of German artists to artistic censorship and racial 'purification.' His work also sheds new light on the purge of Jews from German cultural life." indeed the nazis did like music, and a book about such would have musical references, but a book about music it is not. did you read the book, or even the page i provided? i added a 4th source, you will see the exact terms, context and parameters of rs were met. additionally, if you accept some parts of the edit were properly source, it is your responsibility to improve the edit instead of reverting. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I advise you to start a discussion at Talk:Nazism to discuss these matters with other users and stop edit warring in order to avoid negative consequences for you. Five reverts are two too many already. --RJFF (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

not necessary, however if you do, i will be happy to explain my edit and provide additional sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary. There are four different users objecting against your edits. Wikipedia is a community project based on consensus. You cannot just work single-handedly, ignoring all other users. --RJFF (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

untrue, as long as the rs is vetted, and the context is correct, the edit shall remain. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The burden is on the one who wants to make an addition or restores material. I would recommend to you that it be discussed on the talk page. Kierzek (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

actually the burden is on the deletionist. usually a cite tag would be appropriate for disputing a source. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See BRD. If your addition is disputed and reverted the burden is on you to obtain consensus. You do not simply keep re-adding it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

a rather curious revert as the very same information has existed for years on the larger article about Nazi economy. There may not be a connection between price controls and shortages, however, both are historical fact and one did follow the other in a short amount of time, which is what my edit expressed, not that one was caused by the other. perhaps you could reword the edit to suit address your concerns? i will provide additional sources/dates of shortages once my ban wears off. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of thing you could and should have been suggesting on the talk page, rather than pointlessly and repeatedly reverting. The problem is not that the two events didn't occur, but that your edit strongly suggests that they were related. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs also followed price and wage controls in 1936. Two unrelated events. But the reader couldn't be blamed for getting the impression that some sort of connection is being implied. Unless your sources connect the two, you cannot.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

my edit was a very short sentence listing 4 facts, price, wage control, rationing and shortages all occurred in the economy around 1936, whatever conclusion a reader wishes to draw from that i cannot control. some of the sources i listed actually do make such a connect, however i am confident neither you nor anyone else bothered to read most if any. once i am unbanned i will pull out the specific passages, a rather tedious process that could be avoided if the proper cite tags were employed instead of mass reverts. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Darkstar1st)

Hello, Darkstar1st. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, where you may want to participate. TFD (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC) TFD (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

I may alter my comments on talk pages where no one has replied and your editing of my comments is not allowed. Please follow Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. TFD (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been reported to the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents (ANI)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is a frivolous request. Darkstar, I think you should simply take a wikibreak until this thread is automatically archived. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

wise words i will follow, thanks. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Socialy

Hi - Can I suggest you just stay away from Socialism articles for a few months voluntarily - choose another of your fave topics and contribute there - I suggest you avoid the core of editors you have been in dispute with and enjoy contributing to some quieter corners of the project. Youreallycan 10:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

thank you for the wise words. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

December 2012

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Socialism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Don't remove other editors' talk page comments RolandR (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

it was actually the other editor that changed my comments, i simply reverted. see here: [35] the edit was formatted as its own section to allow others to comment on the specific source. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not the case. You removed all of the other editor's comments.[36] I restored them.[37] RolandR (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

apologies, thx for restoring his edit, which would not have been mistakenly removed if the editor followed the wp policy of not altering others talk page comments. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments (section headings). There is nothing wrong with removing redundant discussion thread headings. But it is wrong to edit other editors' comments, except in rare circumstances. TFD (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

i miss you too. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

you may not have read all of the guidelines as you have changed/removed your own comments, It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered. and you may not have understood the part you did read, To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. what the editor did was merge to sections about different sources to include it in the rfc. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

the two faces of RolandR

On the one face, it is absurd to suggest the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was socialist, while the other face makes the opposite point here:[38] Of course Marxist-Leninist socialists are Marxists - the clue is in the name.. Facepalm... Darkstar1st (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, strike through your personal attack and apologise

Please strike through this and apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

you are continuing to pursue a minority pov against consensus, such behavior may result in a block or topic ban, plz stop. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

– S. Rich (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

back at ya, muah. still looking for the smoking gun here. could you highlight the worst offense for me, perhaps i can strike thru my comments when i know what it is he did? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like I'm playing the role of Henry II. See: Murder in the Cathedral. The quotes were provided outside of the diffs so that the pattern of dis-etiquetee could be seen. Xerographica's attitude may come from his infantryman days, which is one of "fuck it!". (I don't mind that at all. I've trained with infantrymen in the field. And they kept me alive in Iraq.) But such an attitude is an exception, not the rule in WP. And while occasional rudeness is fine, his is pervasive. Moreover, it is in addition to his disruptive quotefarming, POV pushing, absolutely lousy OR, etc. Jeez, if I had added those problems to the list, I'd have people saying "Rich, there must be a pony somewhere in this pile of horse shit you've given us!" – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

understood, ill look again. which of the 100+ diffs is the very best example? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Darkstarbaby, I'm getting sick of the whole topic (not you, I'm your Richiepoo buddy). So I'll give you a Xerographic style (e.g., actual quote) answer: "Let me know when you thoroughly read them so that we can have an informed discussion on the topic." – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

thx for having a sense of humor, as my comments were designed as such. X and i haven't always seen eye to eye either and this would be a easy pile to jump on, i just sincerely didnt see the violation here. one thing i am happy about is to make a new friend, you seem like a great person, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Darkstar1st. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Characterization of anarchism

Darkstar1st, your characterization of anarchism on the Talk:Libertarianism page appears largely inaccurate, and I'd like to elucidate our position if you don't mind. If not, that's fine too. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

please do, lets start when it was first invented and who coined the term.

Actually, I wanted to explain that there are differing ideologies that go under the name of anarchism. The one you described on the Talk:Libertarianism page is called egoist anarchism, and is/was mostly a literary phenomenon (like individualist anarchism in general); this is not the anarchism most anarchists support. For most of us, anarchism means without rulers, and egoist anarchism (as well as the relatively recent anarcho-capitalism) is viewed as an ideology that permits or even encourages rule. Max Stirner, who first expounded egoist anarchism, stated that "[w]hoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." In other words, might makes right and the weak will be subdued by the will of the strong.

You mentioned that animals live in an anarchy, and you are correct in that, but this egoist anarchy doesn't comprise the totality or even the majority of this political philosophy. For most of us, Stirner's egoism is a form of rule, as is capitalism. This is why anarchism is traditionally associated with socialism and is opposed to capitalism and egoism (which more closely represents feudalism than socialism). So, just to reiterate, your characterization seemed to imply that all anarchism is egoist, which actually represents an extremely tiny fraction of the philosophy. Most anarchism, though, (mutualism, communist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.) does not conform to the image you painted. Thanks for your time! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

ok, perhaps the anarchism talk would be a better place to explain such? you think anarchism in humans predates libertarianism by countless millenium, i agree, therefore we should minimize mention of the term here. you believe some libertarians are not anarchist, i agree, and suggest those who are can not possibly be libertarian as property rights enforced solely by private means is simply anarchism. liberty is not anarchy, rights are not mights, rather the opposite, a free association of individuals upholding the rights of strangers, which requires a leader, laws, and justice. anarchy has existed in the past, liberty has as well, the muddy soup of both never. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite following what you just said. For an explanation of what I think ought to be done to the Libertarianism article, please see the talk page (the section entitled "Can we at least agree... ?"). I just wanted to explain here that your characterization of anarchism is nowhere close to how most anarchist philosophers and proponents view it. Anyway, thanks for your time. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

what i meant is anarchist aren't libertarians, they are anarchist. libertarians dont call themselves anarchist, only socialist professors in the usa who think europeans think such, which they dont, do. anarchism was around long before libertarian and there was no reason to invent the word if it meant the same. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the first person to adopt the term anarchist for his philosophy was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1849, and libertarian was coined soon after (in 1857) by Joseph Déjacque in order to distinguish Proudhon's mutualism from Déjacque's communist anarchism (Déjacque and others viewed mutualism as too pro-property). From that time until about 1950, most of the world used libertarian to mean anarchist, which also carried the connotation of socialism. It's only since that time that libertarian has acquired pro-capitalist and pro-property associations. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO message

Darkstar, besides restoring your remark, your revert also removed SPECIFICO's post. – S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think SPECIFICO has fixed it just now. I do not doubt his good faith. – S. Rich (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

no problem. several of my talk comments have recently been re-factored or otherwise molested. one editor has moved a well discussed section i created into a one post section he created perhaps so his comment wouldn't look so lonely? edit conflicts are definitely confusing, i recommend anytime an editor sees that message they simply open a new window to avoid the same error. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been added to an RFAR

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, KillerChihuahua 14:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

hi KC, glad you are back, hope you are feeling better :). would you provide a dif of why i am an involved party? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much; I'm on new meds and still doing the round of tests. I'm doing better but they're just treating symptoms while they figure out the cause and decide on a long term treatment. There is no one diff of why you were added; in going through the history, I found you have been a strong contributor, and party to some of the past disputes. Some examples: [39] [40] [41] etc. KillerChihuahua 15:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a specific policy those edits violated or came close to such? Would you expand the "etc"? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Without getting into too much detail here (I believe this case will be accepted and I see no point in writing the case twice) I think it is likely you have transgressed BATTLE and possibly others. KillerChihuahua 18:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

did the above difs transgress battle? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please get in the habit of following instructions

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

You neglected to do this.[42] I'm going to do this now. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

apologies, will do. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Oppose I found my way here from Viriditas, who made a comment on my talk page a few days back.

I'm sorry, but that comment doesn't parse. How does my comment up above about following instructions in an arbcom case have anything whatsoever to do with an RfA? Unless you are admitting that you are engaging in wikistalking my contributions and following me around to oppose candidates I support, I would very seriously suggest striking that comment immediately. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

i have some advice for you and a clarification, wikistalking has been abandoned here and you should strike thru your accusations of canvassing. you and i have not had any interaction in the past until your arbcom post, and with any luck, we wont in the future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It has not been "abandoned" in any way, and that's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The only thing that has changed is the verbiage, and I prefer the older term. In any case, since you refuse to respond, it looks like I'll have to take this to ANI. Per the instructions, I attempted to resolve the problem with you here and you refused to address it. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

if you thought that was ridiculous, wait until you read this wp:boomerang. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Does your mother know you are using her computer? Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

put down the shovel, climb out of the hole you just dug, and have a great St. Patrick's day. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

So, you admit that you came to the RfA because you wikistalked my contributions, and voted oppose because I voted support, correct? I mean, there is really no wiggle room here. That is exactly what you said, is it not? Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's a plausible inference, or even that it is plausibly consistent with the statement. I read it as that he (or she) noticed that you were attacking everyone who voted Oppose in the RfA, and since he was already attacked by you without obvious justification, he might as well give you an apparent justification. Either that, or he noticed the RfA because you were editing it, and had previous interactions with Binksternet which decided him that B would not make a good admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, i wish you the best and hope you are able to discover your answers in time. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

extension

Darkstar1st, if you feel you need more time on the arbcom evidence thing, I think you can just ask the clerk and give your reason. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Austrian School. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I was surprise to see this edit: [43]. Quite surprised. Moreover, the edit summary provided was uncivil. While this Twinkle template gives a vandalism message, I certainly do not think that was your intent. But, please.....I would be shocked to see any more such editing. – S. Rich (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I was shocked as well, however such behavior is categorically unacceptable and if any such behavior is repeated, please know that you risk being blocked. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

my apologies Darkstar1st (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah -- the spirit of Good Faith, Consensus, Cooperation, and Community is restored. Thank you both. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Austrian School.

Darkstar, please review WP:CIR. Your frustration with the editing process is evident, but some of it may be avoided by scaling back the scope of your effort. Please accept this observation andconsider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

i just found the wp:egg you removed after reverting my removal of the wp:egg and now i should review a link about my competence to edit? please clarify why you think i should review the link and why you think i am frustrated? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks for adjusting your comment, but i still dont understand the purpose of this post? i created a talk section to point out the wp:egg and removed it, you reverted,[44], removed the egg, then ask me to read a section on competence? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the verification tag because it was posted immediately after the "see also" link that Goethean had inserted. The tag should go after the particular citation, not a wikilink. If the reference is a long one, like a book, then a page needed tag is best. The verification tag is for those refs which you see, and read through (or search) and fail to find language which supports the material. – S. Rich (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

it was actually in front of the see also, please look again. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

since we are going to parse this into two different tags, i changed the first part to citation needed tag, as for the methodological individualism part, that does not appear in any of the 4 citations either, would you be opposed to adding the failed verification tag after the citations? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Focusing on that use of the verification tag, here is the template {{Failed verification}} guidance. With this edit [45] you had placed it after the text and before the wikilink. I'm sure it was a mistake, but it didn't matter because SPECIFICO had removed the citations. I restored Goethean's version because the citations properly supported the text -- in a PRIMARY/SECONDARY/TERTERIARY analysis. I did not delve into the content of the citations. That is an issue for all of you folks to work out. But WP:OVERTAGGING the paragraph would not be appropriate. If it has multiple problems, the section should get a "refimprove" template and the specific problems should be discussed. – S. Rich (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

then the failed verification tag was correct after all, as the term methodological individualism does not appear in any of the four sources cited. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Source 3 is entitled "Methodological Individualism". Your activity at Austrian School is disruptive. Please reflect on the comments of various other editors on the article talk and this talk page. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

good point, i should have said 3 of the sources do not mention the term and the other is a link to an online encyclopedia entry for the term. i found and broke an egg, you restored the egg here [46] This is incorrect. Analysis of M.I. would be examination of methodology. Austrians employ M.I. to study purposeful actions of individuals then you un-restored the egg and added the runny part back into the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

– Darkstar, I saw your comment on the AS talk page -- you're a pretty fast reader! Human Action is over 800 pages!! (Menger wrote just 320.) Evelyn Wood would be proud of you! IAE, someone will give us a more precise citation. Patience, patience. In the meantime, I'm going put this egg white to good use and bake a pie. – S. Rich (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you think this is amusing, the clarity of your communication suffers. I left the piped link in place before I saw your objection to it on talk and then immediately returned to the article to remove it as a courtesy to you. If you want to know my view, I believe that it was not an "easter egg link" because the two phrases refered to exactly the same thing in the context of that sentence and in the cited sources. Please review WP:V, WP:CIR, and WP:DE and WP:HEAR. I've cited some of these to you previously, but I urge you to revisit them now, and in addition to my comments I urge you to review and consider the talk page remarks of others who have responded to your messages and edits. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Srich, Human Action is one of my favorites along with The Law, by Frederic Bastiat, i have read them both well before this discussion started and nowhere does the phrase used in your pie appear. "Purpose" is mentioned on the cited page 11, but does little to support the claim that AS is a school of economic thought which bases its study of economic phenomena on the interpretation and analysis of the purposeful actions of individuals, nor do any of the other sources. those supporting this sentence are having a hard time pointing out where exactly this is supported in the 4 sources, perhaps it is they who have not read the sources?
• Specifico, i do not understand what you mean about amusement, or communication. my question is simple, on what page of these 4 large poorly referenced sources supports the opening sentence? the link to an encyclopedia does mention AS, Many writers claim to find the origins of methodological individualism amongst economists of the Austrian School (especially Carl Menger), and doctrines articulated during the Methodenstreit of the 1880s (Udehn 2001). Others trace it back to Thomas Hobbes, and the “resolutive-compositive” method elaborated in the opening sections of the Leviathan (Lukes 1968, 119). Yet the distinctive character of this type of atomism was summed up quite clearly by Hobbes, with his injunction to “consider men as if but even now sprung out of the earth, and suddainly (like Mushromes) come to full maturity without all kind of engagement to each other". i think we could describe AS far better as Britannica does here,in determining the value of a product, emphasized the importance of its utility to the consumer...value is found in its ability to satisfy human wants...the actual value depends on the product’s utility in its least important use (see marginal utility). If the product exists in abundance, it will be used in less-important ways. As the product becomes more scarce, however, the less-important uses are abandoned, and greater utility will be derived from the new least-important use. (This idea relates to one of the most important laws in economics, the law of demand, which says that when the price of something rises, people will demand less of it.) In practice AS is anti-central planning of economies, specifically the creation of fiat currency which has exaggerated the natural supply and demand oscillation of markets resulting in loss of efficiency/production/wealth. what is amusing is how you address editors who have created articles of high-importance and have been around much longer than you. offering me the competency link moments after you reverted and re reverted the egg i cracked, hilarious, thanks and wikion Journeyman. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Kill List

Did you not read what I said here? Please read the lead section at WP:NFILM. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

i certainly did and it does not meet the GNG criteria. the sources you mention are film review sites that review every film produced, which would mean we would have to include all films because they were reviewed on a few websites. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see why you would say that, but there really are a lot of films that do not get these kinds of reviews. Here is one recent example of a deleted topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reboot (2012 film). That one had a lot of reviews but from sources that are not reliable. In contrast, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booked Out was kept because there were just enough reviews from reliable sources. When I mention film reviews from reliable sources, I mean that such reviews were either printed, or that organization is reputable in certain media to trust its publishing process. For what it's worth, if you want additional input at Talk:Kill List about adding the disambiguation term, you can post a notice at WT:FILM. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I said this at the AfD, and I am reiterating it here: A film is considered notable if it meets the general notability guidelines, the notablity guidelines for films, or both. You just responded to Colapeninsula claiming that Kill List is not notable per WP:NFILM, but I've already explained to you that WP:GNG applies to this film easily. WP:NFILM complements WP:GNG. Like I mentioned on Talk:Kill List, it applies well to older films when we cannot do Internet research so easily. The consensus at the AfD is obvious with individual editors coming together to argue to keep. Please consider all the "keep" arguments in your mind. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

i disagree it meets notability the same way i would oppose the inclusion of a restaurant simply because 83 critics did or did not enjoy the meal, or the address was listed in several indexing services, none of which denotes notability. an example would be Sin City (film), This is one of the first films...to be shot primarily on a digital backlot. as opposed to Kill List, Chris Tookey of the Daily Mail gave the film two stars out of five, saying that the film was a "frustrating mixture of promising and atrocious." Darkstar1st (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

83 critics reviewing a film absolutely denotes notability. How does it not meet WP:GNG, specifically? That says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Periodicals are reliable sources, and film reviews in these sources can be referenced. They are independent of the film and provide an assessment of it that the filmmakers may or may not like. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

then that means every film on rotten tomatoes should be on wikipedia [47] came out 2 years after kill list, has just as many reviews, made 10x the money so far, and scored an 8. i cant possibly imagine why this film is considered notable by anyone, yet here is the article The Big Wedding Darkstar1st (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of a film with a Rotten Tomatoes page that did not get its own article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Lampoon's Totally Baked: A Potumentary. This was because there were no reviews from reliable sources for that film. You can disagree about The Big Wedding having an article on Wikipedia, but it is permissible based on its policies and guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

you may have inadvertently made my point better than i could, Potumentary is setting a dreadfully low benchmark. i am going to unwatch the AFD/film page and withdraw from this conversation. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Scjessey

Only complete morons with zero intelligence would think the Benghazi thing was a "scandal" [48]. is msnbc really far right? [49] White House releases Benghazi emails as scandal grows, Erin Delmore msnbc. please try to tone down your comments, some may consider your behavior uncivil. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You're telling us you don't think MSNBC is morons? Really?? Anyway good thing Erin didn't post that on WP talk page. Then she might be offended. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

i think it is hard to be a economist and businessman, i noticed you removed the latter from your page. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/businessmen-and-economics/ Darkstar1st (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not Paul Krugman, if that is what you are trying to suggest. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

no, i doubt Paul edits wp and i do not think you are him. i was commenting on the "businessman" infobox you once displayed. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

on msnbc, i doubt any private news business could hire morons and be able to make a profit. Rachel Maddow is one of my favorites, Keith Olbermann was during the Bush years, one of the few in media with the chutzpah to stand up to the White House back then and they both can be fairly critical of the current admin at times. The assignment was to set Derna up just outside of Benghazi as essentially a new, mini-Afghanistan, Maddow said, a new hub for al Qaeda, with multiple training camps there for al Qaeda fighters. That was last year and ultimately this murder of an American ambassador did not happen in Tripoli, didn't happen way over on the western part of the country, in the capital where the US has its embassy and which is guarded by US Marines and has full security, it didn't happen there. It happened when the ambassador was in this lightly fortified consulate building, over in the eastern part of the country, in a city that's basically right next to what al Qaeda is trying to build as a new hub for terrorist training...the night of Sept. 11 this week, we had what appears to be an organized, military-style, sustained, sophisticated, complex attack on that same US consulate, again, and this time they killed the American ambassador and three other Americans. Maddow goes on to mention the May 2012 attack on the Red Cross, the June 2012 attack on the US consulate, and the attack on the British ambassador a week later, all in Benghazi. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks for your note. i will check yet doubt i would have any objections as any material removed would help this article IMO. i think most of the material in the article now is trivia, therefore if we cut the small amount of positive material, it should be much easier to spot the much larger glut of negative trivia, an outcome i would welcome. my main objections are the hurtful words needlessly recited in the article. given that i have been targeted for using these words in talk before, i am a bit nervous to repost those offensive terms again an effort to have them removed, however i will now and hope someone will hat my comment if it be deemed unhelpful. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

thx Ubikwit, i added a "support". happy to see such a large group able to agree on some basic improvements, refreshing change to the last 2 years here. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you were in agreement with those suggestions. Making a little progress overcoming such longstanding hurdles does alleviate some tension. Cheers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

i have felt a sense of calm through out the moderated part, very happy to have help here. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: [50] Please participate and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic, as well as any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that the Tea Party Movement case be suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case resumed

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has decided to resume the Tea Party movement case, which currently is in its voting stages.

Regards, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Nazism vs Fascism issue

I finally found a tertiary undisputed source that clearly makes a difference between these different ideologies. But User N-HH now states the ENGLISH is wrong, dispite of that I used a direct citate. Source "The Concise Encyklopædia of World History", edited by John Bowles. I've undone N-HH's reverting. Have a look, if You are interested. Best reg Boeing720 (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC) PS. I do not know why the New Horizon Book is spelled with the Danish/Norwegian letter "Æ", "æ", but it is in (British) English. That surelly cannot be used as argument against the source, can it ? Boeing720 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case - final decision motion

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)