User talk:OpenFuture/Archive2

2012 euro

thank you for fixing the template for the qualifying groups. I presented in the discussion page that, just because UEFA has is it wrong, does not mean we need to follow. I believe I counted six instances where UEFA had the tie-breaking situations incorrect, and I compliment you on presenting what their own rules state it should be. Do you find it curious that there is so much objection to group B, but not group H (which has a similar issue)?18abruce (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be just confusion. It confused me, that's for sure. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

this came up in the last FIBA world championship, and I believe an e-mail to FIBA got them to fix their issues. I think someone has gone and changed all the tie-breakers to UEFA's version now. Looks like it is going to be fun.18abruce (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing the image. It's annoying I can't find a reliable source pointing out how different these structures are - round isn't enough. Dougweller (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the nature of pseudoscience / conspiracies. The facts against them are so obvious and self-evident, no authority ever bothers to mention them. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Spirit Level

Please stop edit warring. There is no consensus supporting your actions(see user:Itsmejudith's previous comment) and your lack of comprehension has been problematic for months now. There are many skilled editors on Wikipedia and I encourage you to ask for their assistance. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I take this as a comment that you refuse in engaging constructively in consensus-building. (Additional info if somebody else sees this. I tried to reason with Somedifferentstuff which he ignored, and finally left a message on his talk page: [1]. His comment above is just parroting this, trying to accuse me of behaving like he does, instead of actually trying to be constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Apology

In case you missed it, I made a response to your proposal today. At the same time, I struck my comment suggesting the absence of good faith in said proposal. I thought a directly apology to your talk page wouldn't go amiss. Cheers, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Act of vandalism

Today you did a blanket revert, as seen here, [2], to The Spirit Level article. This is an act of vandalism. The Author's note section was not re-added to the article as you mistakenly stated in your edit summary. The sourced text from the said section was placed into the reception section. These are not the same thing. Please don't vandalize the article again. I know that English isn't your native language and assume that this might have something to do with your misunderstanding. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That it lacked a section header makes no difference, as you well know. You are disrupting, vandalizing and refusing to engage in consensus building. My patience has run out. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You stated, "That it lacked a section header makes no difference". This clearly illustrates one of the ongoing problems taking place on The Spirit Level article. You say something that is invalid while backing it up independently (i.e. "makes no difference"). This is unacceptable and continues to cause confusion. I've asked you before to seek assistance from seasoned editors on Wikipedia but that assistance clearly hasn't worked. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I *am* a seasoned editor. *You* are not. I have for months tried to assist *you*. It's pretty obviously not working. What I say above is in no way invalid. Please stay off my talk page. You are intentionally disruptive. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming quite old. If you remember, you started this discussion by leaving a comment on my talk page. Don't do that again and I will not comment here. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please keep off my talkpage. This is WP:HARASSMENT and WP:DISRUPTION. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just reverting vandalism from a non-constructive editor, while continuing normal dispute resolution process. I'm careful to not violate 3RR and continue constructive discussion, which is something the other editor doesn't do. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; please review WP:NOTVAND as the edits you tagged as vandalism, do not appear to be vandalism. Again, you are not entitled to three reverts. I know you are seeking some dispute resolution on this and I am optimistic that this can be resolved. VQuakr (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, me too, but I'm getting less optimistic. Someotherstuff has for example said that he sees this as a power-struggle, not a question of correct or incorrect, so he'll likely continue for ever. This of course explains why he doesn't listen to arguments. But you are right, he is disruptive, tendentious and lacks understanding of Wikipedia (or rather does not care), but not strictly vandalism according to those definitions. But saying "Vandal" is shorter, as he does all of this intentionally to prove a point. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Go to the discussion page and give your count. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No I'm am not edit warring. Also: WP:POLL. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Per your previous involvement, see this ANI on Somedifferentstuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

True facts

I'm not stating anything false. The three of you claimed a consensus when you were in the minority. As the consensus policy states, if unanimity is impossible to achieve, other standards can apply. Not only did you never take steps to apply those other standards, the three of you in the minority claimed a consensus. I think even a third grader knows that you can't claim a consensus when opinion is roughly equally divided. So you made a mistake and are reluctant to admit it. I don't expect that, because it takes a big man to admit he made a mistake. You can at least confirm your commitment to the policy on consensus. That's what I'm asking you to do. You don't have to do it, but I think it's an important policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We were never in the minority. We have always been committed to policy, including consensus. Your claims have no connection to reality. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As you stated yourself, there were four editors who supported the status quo and only three who wanted the change. That is reality. You claim it's okay to ignore other editors opinions but there's no policy reason for that. Every reasonable position should be included. That is reality. So when you say you weren't in the minority, you're ignoring that you were in the minority 3-4. Neither of us got unanimity and you didn't follow the procedure that allows changes without unanimity under the consensus policy. I checked and we never did a straw poll. That is reality. So you didn't have a consensus because you didn't follow the procedures of the policy. That is reality. You've made mistakes about the facts in this discussion more than once, so I'm aware that you are not always clear on what the facts are. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not what I stated, which I have now pointed out multiple times. I do not really think it is meaningful to discuss your imaginations here, so please do not post more on my talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to List of places associated with the Knights Templar, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Naomi Klein's No Logo

Hi, you reverted my altered summary of No Logo, saying that it became 'very POV'. I wonder if you could just give a little more detail so I can see where you think I was going wrong. Warraqeen (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically, it assumed that all her claims are correct, which they aren't. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you just give me an example of where I do that, because I'm working hard to be acceptably neutral. For instance, if you look at my phrasing, I say her 'intention(s) is to make a case for' or 'she accuses'. And if I use a pejorative term I make it clear it's 'what she refers to as'. I couldn't see anywhere where I state any views but Klein's or imply she's right. I just wanted to give a fuller account of the book's themes than the previous text because I thought the previous version missed the point. Alternatively, if we can't clean up my account, might you want to contribute a slightly fuller summary? Warraqeen (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• "One of her primary intentions is to make a case for how little these companies put back into society, even compared with the exploitative mill-owners and plutocrats of Victorian times." - Assumes it is true, and that she just intends to make a case for it. Calls mill-owners and exploitative which is POV in itself.
• "And at the retail end of the supply chain, she draws attention to the widespread use of part-time, minimum wage workers performing what she refers to as McJobs" - This sounds, especially in context, like something very bad, and there is no "she believes" or anything abut it. The fact that there is no description of why it would be bad just makes it worse. It's a weasly sentence, that by itself and out of context sounds neutral, but in fact is very POV, as it implies that the situation is like that because somebody is intentionally evil and that could do something about it. In fact, unskilled jobs *should* be minimum-wage. There is, after all, no skill involved. And a lack of unskilled jobs in fact only means that unskilled labor will go unemployed, and that is *not* an improvement.
• "She goes on to elucidate a number of evils which she believes originate from profit-led consumerism." - Well, if she only believes they are there, how can she elucidate them? WP:WEASEL.

In general your additions, even if they could be made NPOV, lack substance. It's just more ways to saying "She complains about corporations" without adding any substance to the argument or clarifying how or why she is criticizing it. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I'm worried we won't be able to find a version of the section that we'll both agree on given that we have such different views of the meaning of basic phrases. For instance, in a courtroom, both sides 'make a case' so it's difficult to see how the phrase could imply that you think someone is right (otherwise I'm implying both sides in court are right). Likewise you think saying that someone 'elucidates' what she 'believes' implies it's true. I thought that the word 'believes' makes it clear it's her opinion? And as for objecting to the statement that 'part time, minimum wage jobs' are 'widespread' because of all the things you think it implies and then adding 'The fact that there is no description of why it would be bad just makes it worse', well, I have no idea how you arrive at all that. I thought part-time, minimum wage jobs really were widespread. You think that's a good thing, Klein thinks it's a bad thing and - so far as I can tell - I didn't state an opinion in what I wrote. Given that you consider me biased, prone to using Weasel Words and you feel my summary lacks substance I'm not sure whether I should try again. Would it not be better if you yourself just fleshed out the summary a little? It's very thin for a book which had such an impact. Warraqeen (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not the meaning of basic phrases that is at issue here. I also don't see the point in you trying again until you are prepared to take my explanations seriously instead of misreading them in an effort to avoid them. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to tell you, I don't think your explanations are as clear as you believe them to be. I've tried hard to understand the points you're trying to make and yet they're largely eluding me. I understand the gist of your remarks - that I'm doing it wrong - but your explanations leave me none the wiser I'm afraid, though they are stated with such blunt conviction that I have done my best not to dismiss them. Unfortunately, try as I might, where you see bias I'm still seeing something approaching neutrality, although I acknowledge at least one sentence where I could do better. I just can't manage to read my words the way you're reading them. You appear to suggest that my words hint at things I was unaware of when I wrote them - and then you suggest that I'm 'misreading' your explanations. That's certainly not my intention. Could I ask that you assume I'm genuinely confused by your objections rather than trying to ignore them. You've made it clear that you hold strong negative views about the book, and the ideas it discusses. And you've also made it clear that you're mainly concerned with eliminating any positive bias (because, as you explain, the book's ideas are wrong). This is clearly an area where you have very strong personal convictions. Do you think this might be coloring your reading of my words at all? Alternatively, if you find you can't, or aren't inclined, to shed any more light on my faults, maybe you could offer an example of unbiased speech for me to follow. Add a line to the summary which is substantial, NPOV and weasel-free and then I'll see if I can follow your lead. What could be fairer than that? Warraqeen (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, try harder. For example:

1. You said "she draws attention to the widespread use of part-time, minimum wage workers"

2. I pointed out that this in context makes it sounds like it is a bad thing, but in a weasly way as it doesn't explain why it would be bad.

3. You answer is " I thought part-time, minimum wage jobs really were widespread".

I don't know if I'm clear or not, but I know I'm not *that* unclear. There is no way to interpret what I wrote as me claiming that part-time, minimum wage jobs are not widespread. (And in addition "widespread" is a subjective weasel words with no real meaning).

I'll be happy to explain anything that is unclear in my response, but you have to at least *try* to read it properly and understand it. Otherwise it is just a waste of time. But here goes. Let's look at each sentence, one by one in detail.

"One of her primary intentions is to make a case for how little these companies put back into society"

1. You don't know what her intention is.

2. "Make a case" implies that she somehow succeeds in making the case, at least partly. Critics of the book means it is basically just a bag full of lies, misunderstandings and willful ignorance (although they usually put that in nicer words). It doesn't really make any case at all according to critics.

3. "How little" - weasel words. No matter how much they put back in society, you can always claim that it is "too little".

4. Put *what* back into society? Money? Greed? Poisons? "Putting back into society" doesn't mean anything. It sounds like a good thing, but it's just a bag of hot air.

Let's try to change that sentence into something NPOV. "In this book Naomi Klein claims corporations does not create as much beneficial generic social stuff as she would like them to do". That doesn't fly, does it? Does it even mean ANYTHING? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's much better, thank you. I don't necessarily understand why you're objecting, but I'm at least clearer on what you're objecting to.

So, on your first point, I thought you were criticising my statement that part-time, minimum wage jobs are widespread. I thought that because you originally pointed out I hadn't put in a 'she believes'. Well, I could hardly have said 'what she believes she refers to as McJobs' so I thought you must be referring to the other declarative statement, that the jobs were widespread. Now that you've been kind enough to explain a little, it's clearer. But I still don't understand why you believe that drawing attention to something implies it's bad. How would you feel about this sentence: "Klein draws attention to what a great guy OpenFuture is." Does that imply you're not a great guy? I don't see how drawing attention suggests good or bad. I have a friend who draws attention to rainbows. Because she likes them.

You say there is no way to know what Klein's intentions are but I beg to differ. We have in front of us Klein's words and she explains her intentions in the book. I suppose she could be lying, but we can fix that by saying "one of her stated intentions". And to support that, I could cite a passage like this one: "the book is an attempt... to lay out the particular set of cultural and economic conditions that made the emergence of [corporate opposition] inevitable." Klein goes on to say what those conditions are. I didn't list them, but I could if you think it would turn my broad statement of 'hot air' into something specific.

A final point: obviously I don't know what you're thinking, but, at least to my way of thinking, you seem angry and highly suspicious of me. And you've already suggested many times that I'm not trying hard enough to understand and take to heart your instructions. You tell me to 'try harder'. I find that rather a presumptuous viewpoint and it's stated without much in the way of courtesy. I can see that all your statements to me so far are categorical and emphatic, except where they are rhetorical questions. You don't seem interested in my viewpoint and you very clearly don't consider that my opinions about this article might have anything approaching equal weight to your own. And you don't make use of the usual pleasantries - 'please', 'thank you', etc. I wonder if I can ask: is all of that intentional? Are you making it clear that you don't really wish to collaborate or debate and you would like me to just go away? And am I simply being slow on the uptake when I do my best not to take offence? Warraqeen (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Before we can collaborate on fleshing out the description you need to understand what is wrong with your current attempt. It is my distinct impression from your answers that you do not want to understand this, and that you are trying very hard to avoid accepting the criticism. You can call that suspicion, yes. I do not see what "pleasantries" would be socially needed here. I do not have you to thank for anything. I'm spending a lot of time trying to explain to you what was wrong in your edits. I see that you thank me for that, and that is nice, but it is not "usual", and it is on the verge of coming off as sarcasm (but in the end it does not come off as sarcasm, so that's OK).

The Internet is not a place for flourishing ones different way of saying thank you, but I hereby thank you for trying harder to carefully read what I write.

OK, next sentence:

1. "And" - Klein has according to the summary said a lot of negative things about capitalism and corporations and how bad and evil they are "And" she is also doing something more, obviously in the same vein. Whatever she does after the "And" it's going to be something similar. She is not going to start praising companies. Then it would have said "However" or "On the other hand" or something similar to that. This is of course not in itself POV, if this is what she is doing. But this is to explain to you that you can't pick a sentence out of it's context and pretend the context doesn't exist. The context is relevant.

2. "at the retail end of the supply chain, she draws attention" - Aha, she is now doing the same attacks as on manufacturing, but she does it on retail. OK. Then we know. Again, this is not POV in itself, but it means that her "drawing attention" in this context means "criticising".

3. "to the widespread use" - widespread is a weasel word. No matter how few those jobs are you can still call them widespread. This is POV.

4. "of part-time, minimum wage workers" - This then must logically be a bad thing, see point 1 and 2. The sentence therefore claims it's a bad thing to provide jobs for the unskilled, which is highly POV.

5. "performing what she refers to as McJobs" - And if we didn't already know she meant to say that it was a bad thing, she has a derogatory name for it. But the addition of "What she refers to" means that it is in deed NPOV, because she does refer to them as such. But it strengthens the POV of sentence as a whole by again putting an emphasis on how bad it is that unskilled people aren't unemployed.

So here we see that in context, this sentence implies that there is a widespread use of part-time, minimum wage workers and that this is bad. But it does so without saying it out loud, and it is therefore a weaselly POV sentence. You could in fact rewrite the sentence as "She then criticizes the retail sector for providing many jobs to the unskilled workforce, alleviating unemployment". That would be exactly as NPOV (ie not at all) as your attempt. It's hard to try to make this sentence NPOV at all. Possibly "She also criticizes the retail sector for what she feels is the wide-spread use of what in her view are low-status jobs". But that is just a lot of "she thinks" and it doesn't really add much IMO.

And your answer to me when I say this isn't neutral in context is "I still don't understand why you believe that drawing attention to something implies it's bad" which I never said. That is a complete straw man, and I think you know it, and my suspicion therefore is that you don't really want to have a NPOV description. And you are right, I do, so until you also want it, we can't in any way coöperate on that. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate you taking the time to explain. I think I've followed your reasoning, but my personal view is that it's a very unusual way of looking at English text. I certainly don't parse sentences that way and I'm afraid that I'm not especially interested in learning, so I won't waste any more of your time. I do appreciate the trouble you've taken, and that last post of yours seemed quite civil, for which I'd also like to say 'thanks'. I think I might look to build a consensus on this article elsewhere. Warraqeen (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No problems. And I think you will need to start parsing sentences "this way", and I'm also convinced you would if I added POV sentences to the article. Somehow I suspect you wouldn't be so happy about the following:

"One of her primary intentions is to make a case for how much these companies put back into society. And at the retail end of the supply chain, she draws attention to how much these companies help alleviate unemployment amongst the unskilled workforce. She goes on to elucidate a number of benefits which she believes originate from profit-led consumerism."

Yet the above sentences are just as true. I've just basically changed the subjective weasel words to their opposite (more or less). --OpenFuture (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Freedom in the World (by Freedom House)

User:Moonriddengirl rewrote the tagged section of Freedom in the World (by Freedom House) so that it fully complies with WP's source-usage policies. (She viewed only a few problems as minor and none as major.)

Following her clean-up, I tried to correct the unreliable/POV problems and to make the section more readable. I moved the most interesting and controversial section, alleging ideological bias, to the top. I added explanations of unfamiliar terms. I would appreciate your criticism.

There are some criticisms of the methods by the Italian fellow that are about specifics of Freedom House's report. There are other criticisms that apply to all such indices; because each of them is rather technical, I would rather drop everything that applies generally. If you agree or don't object,then I/we could discuss this more formally on the article's talk page.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure, it seems to me that general criticism could still be valid and useful. I have no big objections, but discussing it on the talk page seems good. If nobody else objects, go ahead. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed a section praising a minor author in Monthly Review. It just isn't a reliable source. I left long paragraphs (not just one) on Chomsky and Herman, which need not be reliable, either, but whose books were widely discussed and which at least can be argued to be reliable with a straight face. Take a look! (Maybe you have more patience with WP:RS discussions than I do.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Redistribution of wealth. 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. Brambleclawx 19:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for a third opinion on this, but Trift continues to revert, while refusing to engage in constructive debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking you both to stop edit warring. Wait until you get the third opinion, othwerwise, you could be blocked for violating the three-revert rule. Cheers, Brambleclawx 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Could I get you to take another look at this? Since I posted the problem, Calvin999 has edited the paragraph by moving some phrases into quotations, rewording other phrases and incorporating original research. I maintain that we still basically have an idea-for-idea rewrite of the original source, which is probably the only article that has described the performance in such detail. Without it, I don't think Calvin999 could write more than a sentence or two about the performance without relying on original research. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 20:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It was the edited version that was the subject of the dispute, as you can see from the discussion. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 22:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a long discussion. If you want a third opinion on a dispute, please try to make it clear what it is. I'm done with this, you have your third opinion, if you want it on something else, make a new one. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 23:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a closer look please!

Your third opinion here is very confusing to me. What do you mean? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the quacking loud enough?

I'm not certain myself, but take a look at [3] and [4] and let me know what you think. I'm just going to tag for now. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure some sort of puppets are involved here. There are several editors that behave the same and revert the same texts. But who are puppets and who are real is beyond me. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Squaring the circle

Hi, I'm sure I don't quite understand your oppose. You acknowledge that Manderson is a problematic editor, and that his promises are never apparently worth the paper they are written on. My proposal for a topic ban is along the lines habitually proposed at Arbcom, and does not rely on his worthless promises. I see it as a bare minimum which is capable of The 'broad construction' is usually meant to cover instances outside the immediate area of conflict, but related. If for example, he continues to indulge in battles like Roman–Persian Wars, he will see himself being hauled back to ANI and given a site ban. If you genuinely believe he needs to be stopped, I urge you to support this proposal. If it doesn't work, the next step will be much easier to implement. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

He'll just move to another topic and continue to be disruptive there. It won't actually make anything better. I'm worried that it will *hurt* because he'll encounter a new set of editors in a new topic that doesn't know his history, and that we therefore in effect end up at square one with regards to his personal attacks. And in regard as being "Along the lines" of ArbCom, that is very different from being made by ArbCom. That could be a step forward. But, as I've said over and over again: Another admin/community/self imposed topic ban isn't going to help. He already has two. He'll just move to a new topic, it's not going to top him and in worst case it will get him a respite. I do realize I am so far alone in this view, but partly I think that is because I'm one of the few that understands him, being very similar in many ways (except I don't have a little sect of female groupies) and realizing I make many of the same mistakes as he does. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your help with the third opinion request. Hope we didn't give you too much Hell.  ;-) Canstusdis (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

We might need a little more help. Would you mind commenting again on this and this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canstusdis (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

nazism

feel free to add whatever you want, there are several quotes, many are section titles complete with linked sources page # and even line #. suggesting the history of national socialism began in 1919 is absurd and it did not originate in the mind of the obscure machine-fitter Anton Drexler. move this to the nazism talk if you wish, or delete, but please address the history section since you have removed the earliest reference this article has seen so far to an idea created well before 1919. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's your addition, you have the sources, you add them. Don't be so lazy. :-) I do agree that the history section is badly organized now, I'll take that up. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

i think we both know none of my edits will stand here, hence the laze. i did get a burst of energy yesterday and typed a whole page for someone without access to a source only to find he reverted without reading for misrepresenting the source. you take up the history section, or do not, however until someone does, it was you who removed the reference. as for sources, it is suggested to add them to material that might be reverted, however it is also the responsibility of the reverting editor to make a good faith effort to locate sources himself before removing the text. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no reference, so I did not remove any references, I added a citation needed, as I assumed you had a source for your claims. Maybe if you actually add references it will stand? You can't win unless you hold the high ground. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

apologies, i meant reference to any history of national socialism before 1919, not reference to a source. you believe the term national socialism was coined and used well before 1919, yet offer no addition to the history page, until you, or someone else does, it is your hand that removed such a "reference" (not source)to an earlier history or "origin". national socialism did not originate from the first person mentioned in the history section, a glaring misrepresentation of the actual history. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You, as well as anyone here, should not make guesses about what I believe or my opinions on anything, as I guarantee you that you always are wrong. Stop ascribing opinion to me (and everyone else) that they have not explicitly expressed. The reason you have made enemies of everyone on Talk:Nazism is not because you are wrong in your position about Nazism, but because you are unable to be constructive and civil in discussing with people, even those who agree with you. That's why everyone reverts everything you add.

Do you think that this is a useful way to spend your time, making edits that are guaranteed to be reverted, because you don't add sources, put them in the wrong part of the article, don't read the article properly before you edit it and in the meantime alienate all the other contributors? Or do you maybe think you could handle that in a better way? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

i offended you apologies. you do not believe national socialism was ever mentioned before 1919. that clears up my confusion, i will move along. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I get the feeling that you didn't read my reply. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

i did, and i saw the additions you made to the nazi talk page also. plz show me which comment i made that not been civil, or which has been less than constructive. from my perspective the addition of my 7-8 new talk sections has moved the convo and article forward. several additions have been made as a result, all in alignment with my original intent. soapbox, pov, ignorant fool, i am accustomed to all these pet names. some editors even follow me from topic to topic to add their salutations. most simply cite their interpretation of wp:policy, many times break such policy in that very post, seldom do any read the sources i post. always do i present my sources in advance for others to challenge. i am reluctant to even mention my best sources as they will be immediately discounted as fringe or misinterpretations, no matter they be "nobel or presidential." Darkstar1st (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just explained to you the things you now ask me to explain. Again I can't help but conclude that you didn't really read it, or that you maybe aren't prepared to try to understand. The names you are being called are thrown after you for a reason. What do you think that reason is? Hint: It's not your opinions. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

i see where we got crossed, you assumed i was guessing what you believed, when actually i was remembering your comments on hayek as a basis for my assertion you know darn well national socialism did not hatch on jan 1 1919 from the mind of a dullard. the next time you remove something not sourced, at least make an attempt at finding one, as you are directed to do by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material#How_to_remove_material, i guess you will comply. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never made any comments on Hayek as a source, I have not removed any sourced materials whatsoever. You are obviously mistaking me for somebody else. Do I have a similar login as somebody else here? Or is this a common problem for you? Maybe you should making notes on who is who, as I now realize I've wasted a lot of time answering your comments and trying to figure out what you are on about, when you apparently think I'm somebody else. That is a bit frustrating you know. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry, more lazy, i meant this comment: National Socialism did not start and end with Hitler or this: So, do national socialism really have socialist roots? Absolutely. It all starts with Johann Plenge and the 'Ideas of 1914'(14 coming before the 18 in our history section. i doubt anyone would oppse a little more text on the origin here, do you?). this seems to be a bit of a useless sparing over quite literally nothing. to me it is clear you grasp the problem with the current history section, my original intent. the reason i directed it toward you, was you were the editor who deleted Fichte and Lassalle from the HISTORY section of national socialism, nothing personal. i did not mean to suggest you were some simpleton whose mind i could read like a book, instead i used your past comments as a guide, and was correct, agreed? if not, i hope this wont give you any more concern, any insult was accidental and i apologize. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I just moved it to the correct place. And Fichte was already mentioned there. And it wasn't sourced. And although the words "national socialism" had been used before Plenge, it is Plenge who is generally accepted as the start of the ideology we today call national socialism. Which I have sourced in a section on the talk page. For me it is OK if we mention the pre-war "national socialists" as well, although as far as I know, these national socialists were socialists who also wanted independace from some larger country. They weren't Nazis, really. But it could be relevant anyway, maybe? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

national socialism and nazi party have separate articles for this very reason. i suggest many of the editors here are confusing the two. one does not have to have been a member of the nazi party from 33-45 to be a national socialist. the term "nazi" the very abbreviation means national socialist PARTY, not national socialism, should be minimized in this article about the political ideals of national socialism. just like republic, republican, and the republican party all have separate articles. one does not necessarily mean the other. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Match reports for UEFA competitions

There is now a discussion and vote on the matter of whether we should always use official UEFA match reports for UEFA competitions, or that any reliable third-party source is acceptable, at Talk:2011–12 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round#Match reports. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw it, thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and vote. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 31, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Something to read

If you are interested in the topic, income, wealth: read this: The Great Divergence. cheers, --77.180.191.167 (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am interested, and well read on the topic already. But thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

hard to read

your sentence was framed into 2 ideas, so was my response. You will need a source to prove that a common term is enough, which specific policy (please choose one) and provide the specific section of the policy you mean (that requires me to have a source to link a portal when the portal shares a common term) please. then this analogy which confused the specific debate, the Swedish Bikini Team should be a part of the Sweden portal, a beer company ad girl and a ideology are very different. Swedish is an adj, while socialism is not. including an ideology in the portal of a larger ideology is much different than trying to promote beer bikinis on the Sweden portal, agreed? are there any other terms in wikipedia that share this same exclusion? Socialist state, Left-wing nationalism, Labour Zionism, Buddhist socialism, Islamic socialism, jewish left, all included in the portal, national socialism should be as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:SNOWBALL, WP:STICK etc. Stop wasting my time. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

wp:relax, you got tangled up in your own words and didn't understand my response formatted in the same way you ask the question, no big deal. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I understood everything perfectly from the start. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know what policy you base your claim that the Swedish Bikini Team should be a part of Portal:Sweden., that is where you got mixed up. you are the only one making that claim, i dismissed it as irrelevant as you are trying to compare a bikini team to an ideology. my response was asking you for a source to support your claim national socialism is not socialist. you response was links to several policies, i was asking you to pick one and explain. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no mixup. I'm tired of trying to explain basic things to you. Please go away. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

wealth distribution issue

I'm tired of arguing this in article talk, but as far as I can see your assertion of bias is entirely unjustified. on what grounds are you making it? maybe we can clear up the issue here, where there is no distracting cross-talk. --Ludwigs2 17:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have explained it, and I think it's fairly obvious that if you feed people misleading and biased information that this will influence their guesses in the rest of the survey. It's no different from making leading biased questions.

It's also fairly obvious that I'm apparently completely unable to explain these things to others, so I'm giving up on that now. I'll have to think and discuss with others on what to do in these situations, when one obviously badly done survey gets to pollute Wikipedia with unverified information. Right now it seems the only option is for me to get a professorship in psychology, so I'll be seen as a reliable source about economics. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason you're having difficulty explaining this, I think, is that you haven't really thought it through. it's one thing to create misleading questions - that's a problem - but it's another thing to create a false context in order to properly assess a research subject. there would have to be some reason to think that referring to Sweden somehow stirs up a strong bias in the minds of US subjects. It's possible, but I know of no research which suggests that Americans have strong views either way about Sweden, and my own anecdotal experience is that Americans don't give a lot of thought to Sweden except maybe if they happen to like blonds. The fabrication of data by itself does not induce a bias (as I pointed out, the researchers could have used an entirely fabricated nation), so there would have to be something intrinsic to the country itself (the reason why, for instance, researchers do not use Germany as an example when polling Jews, or use Turkey as an example when polling Armenians - that kind of reference induces a bias). There isn't.

Your source even seems to agree with me - it's main point isn't that the research was bad, but that the interpretation of the research by news organizations was flawed. Doubtless if the original researchers had realized what doofuses the Huffington Post and New York Times might be they would have constructed their example more carefully, but that lack of foresight does not in any way imply that the research itself is flawed. --Ludwigs2 20:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not the referral to Sweden (the distributions wasn't labeled as I understand it) it's the numbers. They give three distributions, two of which are practically impossible, giving the impression that the only real distribution is extreme, when in fact it's somewhere in the middle. It gives them the impression that having the top quintile owning 36% and the bottom 11% is a sort of "middle of the road" distribution. When they then are asked to guess the US distribution, they have this data in mind. And they guess (quite correctly) that the US has a higher than average wealth inequality, but not amongst the extreme ones, so they put the numbers somewhere between the extreme they saw (84% / 0.1%), and the middle one they saw (36% / 11%), resulting in an average guess of 59% / 3%(? they don't spell it out).

If they had instead been presented with true values, with Sweden as one extreme (73%/0%) and whatever the most unequal country is (Whatever that is, it's very hard to find numbers on this), then peoples guesses would probably have been much more accurate. The claim that people "Vastly underestimate" is therefore based on data that is biased. And since nobody else has researched this as I can find, we simply do not know.

And stop claiming that I say the paper is wrong because the press misunderstand it. It doesn't. The paper itself says "Americans Prefer Sweden". This is a headline in the paper by the authors, despite that they obviously know that the numbers are not Swedens wealth distribution, because they also say THAT in the paper. The Huffington post are hence not one iota more doofuses than anyone else that writes or prints things based on that paper, because it's done by scientists and it is in a peer-reviewed paper, so hence it must be true.

So it is not a lack of foresight, or a misjudgment of how the paper would be received. Rather the exact opposite. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that Americans (presented with the real wealth distributions of Sweden and the US and the 'middle ground' distribution) still would not have chosen the 'middle ground' distribution anyway? Research subjects are not generally stupid and are not generally liars - if they believed that the extreme distribution was the closest to the real American distribution they would have chosen it. what this result shows is either that:

1. Americans are uncomfortable thinking that their wealth inequality is that high
2. Americans think that the actual distribution is closer to the middle distribution.

If the researchers had clustered all the wealth distributions together around the accurate levels for Sweden and the US, it would have proved very little; everyone would probably have chosen the least unequal (Swedish) distribution, because that's the closest to the lower 'middle ground' version they actually did choose. This research does not determine what Americans actually think the wealth distribution is, obviously - that would take a more-detailed follow-up - but it does show clearly that (for whatever reason) Americans do not know or believe that the more extreme wealth distribution is accurate.

That is a useful result.

You are criticizing the research for not presenting the level of detail that you would have liked to see the research present, but that is not a reason to criticize research. Yes, optimally the researchers would have done something more detailed which allowed an estimate of what Americans actually think the income distribution is (personally I would have used a gradated 7-point scale rather than a 3-point scale), but their research is more than adequate to show that American's don't know what the wealth distribution is. In fact, you are criticizing the research even though the research reaffirms what ought to be common sense notions (that people generally prefer a more egalitarian system and that people are not fully aware of the extent of inequalities)

As to your other point - seriously? You are criticizing an entire research project because of a section header, despite the fact that the first paragraph under that section header explains precisely what they are doing (including the ruse involved) in no uncertain terms? Is that what you're doing? --Ludwigs2 01:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"This research does not determine what Americans actually think the wealth distribution is" - Good. Can we then agree to stop claiming it does? That would be a giant step forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you will stop claiming that it says nothing about American's estimation of wealth distributions, sure. It does say something, obviously, it's just not very fine-grained. --Ludwigs2 06:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with any granularity. The problem is not the detail, the problem is the bias. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's simply not true, as I've explained. The only bias here is in your mind, and there's nothing to be done about that if you're going to refuse to recognize it.

please don't get me wrong - I am not arguing this for the sake of the article (since you say you've given up on it there for the time being). I'm arguing this because I want you to understand the principle in question, so that this problem doesn't crop up on other pages. Bias has a particular meaning in science: it is an effort to manipulate your measurements or your data in order to produce a particular desired outcome. These researchers simply presented people with an array of wealth distributions and asked them which they preferred and which they thought was accurate - There was no effort to influence the respondents' answers, no intrinsic bias in the design, and the respondents (so far as I can tell) did not even know that Sweden was a model for one of the charts (not that it would have made a difference if they did). I don't know why you have an issue with this piece of research - the results seems non-problematic to me - but you don't get to criticize research because you don't like the results. that is a bias, definitionally.

• The researchers were testing whether people estimated wealth inequality properly in the US; they gave people the correct distribution along with two wildly incorrect versions, and people still failed to choose the correct one. ergo, people do not estimate wealth inequality properly. where is the flaw in that methodology?
• The researchers were testing what kind of wealth distribution people preferred as an ideal; they gave them three distributions and asked them to choose. people chose. where is the flaw in that methodology?

If you don't like the outcome of this research, than the proper approach is to do a second round of research with better controls to show why the otherwise perfectly valid effect they got is an artifact of their research. you don't get to claim their research is wrong on the face of it - you cannot dismiss their evidence without producing better evidence of your own. --Ludwigs2 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

" is an effort to manipulate your measurements or your data in order to produce a particular desired outcome." - Yes.

"These researchers simply presented people with an array of wealth distributions and asked them which they preferred and which they thought was accurate" - No.

"no intrinsic bias in the design" - Yes there was.

"and the respondents (so far as I can tell) did not even know that Sweden was a model for one of the charts" - You aren't reading what I am writing.

"the results seems non-problematic to me" - Yes (with some exception), but the methodology is not.

"they gave people the correct distribution along with two wildly incorrect versions, and people still failed to choose the correct one" - No, that's not what they did at all.

"If you don't like the outcome of this research" - I have no problem with the outcome. Just with the bias introduced and with them drawing conclusion which can not be drawn. The conclusions may ver well be correct (except when it comes to the actual estimated numbers, as they are influenced by the bias).

"do a second round of research with better controls" - OK. Will you give me a research grant? I don't know, how much do I need+ 50.000 dollars? You have that in your back pocket, right? Oh, sorry, sarcasm again. I'm told I shouldn't do that on Wikipedia. Oops. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

contradiction is not argument. If the best you can do is deny every point I make without explanation, then it's clear you don't know what you're talking about and there is no further point discussing the issue with you. If I cared enough, I'd start looking through your other edits to the project to make sure you're not doing this same nonsense elsewhere, but I really don't. so whatever.

I swear, I don't know why people want to be such incorrigible pains-in-the-ass over such stupid stuff. Though I suppose if any of us actually had lives we wouldn't be wasting time on wikipedia, so maybe that's to be expected. --Ludwigs2 17:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have explained. As I have a life I'm not going to waste time repeating the explanations. After all, they are still were they were the first time. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

False accusations against user R-41

"Stop soapboxing and OR:ing. National Socialism as a concept did not appear out of a vacuum in 1919. Give up." Um, excuse me, are you accusing me of soapboxing and original research? First of all, I have presented evidence from scholars for the material I have added, such as on Plenge. Second, you have no right to tell a user to "give up". I can't accept that there is a singular monolithic and significant national socialism existed before World War I that can be automatically connected to the legacy of Nazism, especially since one user has shown that Lassalle who originally coined "national socialism" as a term was denounced by Nazi Dietrich Eckart who denounced Lassalle because he was a Jew among other things (reference Eckart's remarks on Lassalle here: [5]). I have been urging people to keep a cool head and work cooperatively on this, but if you continue to resort to irrational behaviour such as sarcastic remarks and false accusations, I will not tolerate this for a moment. I will report this for personal attacks made on false accusations if you do not immediately acknowledge and revoke this false accusation and aggressive attitude.--R-41 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have a right to tell you to give up. WP:STICK. I haven't made any "accusations" against you, and definitely no false ones. I have requested multiple times that you support your position with sources, which you refuse. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I gave you sources on where scholars claim the type of "national socialism" adopted by the Nazis began - I told you that it was the information on Plenge that I earlier added to the article and told you to look there. You replied that I had to prove that previous incarnations of ideologies titled "national socialism" were not related to Nazism, to which I replied that the incoming new reference sources by Darkstar1st is material predating Nazism's existance, making it impossible for me to prove whether in the future they did influence Nazism. WP:STICK does not apply, me, TFD, and Saddhiyama have all been observing this new material, and there are discrepencies. Since you refuse to abandon your accusations of soapboxing against me, which are false, telling me in an aggressive manner to "give up", and in light of your previous aggressive tone involving sarcasm this indicates a pattern, I am now reporting you for ungrounded personal attacks. You didn't have to behave this way, I was urging people to keep a calm head and cooperate, I offered you a chance to rescind your accusations but you have not, it was your choice that has resulted in this.--R-41 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You can make your case in response to my report on personal attacks here: [6]--R-41 (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 10:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Sources for Plenge in response to accusation of original research

I told you to check the article's Ideological origins section on the referenced information on Johann Plenge that I added. You did not listen to what I said have not examined those sources that are in the article. Now I am going to give you the sources so there can be no excuse for accusing me for original research:

• Martin Kitchen. A history of modern Germany, 1800-2000. Malden, Massaschussetts, USA; Oxford, England, UK; Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing, Inc., 2006. Pp. 205. - Describes Plenge's "Ideas of 1914", contending that 1914 was the date that National Socialism was born, as well as denouncing the "Ideas of 1789" - the French Revolution, and declaring that German National Socialist ideals include duty, discipline, law and order. Plenge's National Socialism advocated the unity of "racial comrades".
• Bernd-Rüdiger Hüppauf. War, violence, and the modern condition. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1997. Pp. 92. - Describes Plenge's Spirit of 1914 ideas and his promotion of a "People's League of National Socialism" - a form of state socialism that rejected the "idea of boundless freedom".
• Thomas Rohkrämer. "A single communal faith?: the German Right from Conservatism to National Socialism", Monographs in German History. Volume 20. Berghahn Books, 2007. Pp. 130. - Shows that Plenge advocated an authoritarian rational ruling elite to develop National Socialism through a hierarchical technocratic state.

Plenge's developments were significant, they were also worked on and developed by Werner Sombart and Oswald Spengler and in turn adopted by the Nazis. If you don't believe me, please check the references in the Ideological Origins section of the Nazism article for Sombart and Spengler. Would you please remove the accusation of original research, I have disproven it.--R-41 (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

None of these sources support your position. That Plenge was important is not the issue, the issue is if NS post WWI is completely unrelated to NS before WWI. This is what you are claiming. None of the sources say this. Your sources just pretend NS before WWI did not exist. I have not made one singe accusation, and can hence not remove or retract them.

Please stop repeating the same discussion and the same arguments in three places. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not naïve that individual elements of Nazism, such as Volkish nationalism existed for some time prior. The issue is the combination of issues at hand. Here's a question that if you respond to will resolve this issue: are these examples of national socialism before the Nazis a combination of anti-Semitic, Volkish nationalist and highly authoritarian or totalitarian elements as the Nazis were?--R-41 (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

For the last time: The issue is if the concept called "national socialism" post WWI is completely unrelated to the concept called "national socialism" before WWI. That your previously expressed standpoint on that issue is untenable is not helped by your attempts to change the topic. Possibly you have now changed your mind, which is good, but then admit that, instead of continuing to argue against me if you now in fact agree.

Also: I have previously asked you to stop spreading your discussions to multiple places, and keep this on Talk:Nazism. Since you refuse I am now forced to ask you to stop writing on my talk page altogether. Stop wasting my time. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

One final post: you have got enraged with multiple users and they have complained about you, including TFD and DarkStar1st. Since you are unwilling to answer the simple question that I asked you that would resolve this, and now going from aggressive to being openly hostile, saying "stop wasting my time" that adds to your use of sarcasm towards me and your false accusation of soapboxing against me that met none of the criteria on Wikipedia for soapboxing, then I think you should review Wikipedia policy on being welcoming and assuming good faith, you are not complying with Wikipedia guidelines, in such instances with multiple users on several occasions such as ordering one user to "go away" or engaging in aggressive behaviour and personal attacks as TFD showed me here: [7]. I will not tolerate irrational bursts of temper by any user or a user barking orders to others to "go away" or "give up" it is immature, domineering, and unacceptable.--R-41 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You have not posed any "simple question that [...] would resolve this". I follow all Wikipedia policies dogmatically to the letter, including those you have mentioned. Your failure is that you refuse to work towards consensus in a constructive manner, mainly by refusing to support your position with sources or answer questions. Pointing this out to you are not accusations and not personal attacks.

You have now spent at least 20 minutes of your time writing the above completely pointless and fully baseless comment. To what end? I don't know about you, but I have a life, and I'm not going to waste it on nonsense like this. So, Please stop writing on my talk page, and go away and work on improving the article, instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Nazism

Hi OpenFuture, and thanks for your comments on Talk:Nazism, and also for your help on the dispute resolution noticeboard - it is much appreciated. This is just to say sorry for moving your comment. I don't normally move comments on talk pages, but in this thread in particular I want to keep things strictly on topic, so that I can ask an admin to close it and we can have a concrete indication of the consensus for the page scope. I hope that this is ok, and I can assure you that I bear you no ill will. If you have any questions about this, then feel free to ask - you can reply here if you want, as I'll be watching this page. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NORN thread on Nazism

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Nazism". Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Spirit Level mediation

RSN submission for Spirit Level mediation

The request to RSN has been made here. Sunray (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Civility

You said: "I am not ignoring the positions and conclusions of anyone else in this discussion." Here's the exchange I was referring to:

Somedifferentstuff: "... One of the conditions is that if anyone mentions notability being an issue, they need to directly cite policy supporting their view. And I'm not talking about saying "this policy" or "that policy", but directly citing the text from within the policy.

OpenFuture: "So in effect, you agree with the submission, but tell us you will ignore their answer."

Somedifferentstuff simply said that he wanted RSN to quote exact wording of policy.

WP:CIV refers to assuming good faith with other editors. The essence of the policy on civility is: "Participate in a respectful and considerate way... Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." When one reads meaning into what another editor says and imputes ulterior motives, one is not assuming good faith, and, by ignoring the actual words of the other editor, not meeting the spirit of WP:CIV. It is entirely appropriate to ask for clarification, though.

Unless I've missed something, I won't debate this further with you, though I would like you to signify that you understand what I am saying. Would you be willing indicate whether you are clear on what I am saying? Sunray (talk)

I am clear on what you are saying. I do not agree, and stand by all things I have said before. I follow WP:CIV to the letter and in intent. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able to remove your recent comment: "And thank you for standing by your pledge..."? It is a personal remark and I don't find it helpful to constructive discussion.

OK. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Sunray (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Cynicism and negative attitude = not constructive for discussion

Resolving differences is not wasting time. Me and TFD are discussing and hopefully we will recognize errors on both our parts. OpenFuture, I have to say that because you are so cynical and negative towards other users that I seriously wonder why you bother editing Wikipedia. It is supposed to be a constructive and cooperative undertaking. If you don't enjoy doing that or are just plain cynical and unhappy then find something else to do. Don't vent your cynicism and negative attitude upon other people, that is wasting our time.--R-41 (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's true that resolving differences isn't a waste of time, even when the discussion itself is based on a misguided premise. You have a very good point there. Although I may be cynical when it comes to politics, I don't think this is problem. Realizing that "left" and "right" (as well as many other words used in politics) are nothing but emotional hooks to hang your opinion on is highly beneficial. People who see themselves as "left" will see all evil things as "right" and vice-versa. This is the only true meanings of these words. This may be cynical, but it is correct and very helpful to realize this, and it also explains why some editors will refuse the idea of right-wing socialism (as a socialist and a leftie, they simply can not consider the idea of right-wing socialism, as that to them is the same thing as saying "evil good") and other editors for the same, but opposite reasons, are determined to paint Nazism as a form of socialism. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Realizing that "left" and "right" (as well as many other words used in politics) are nothing but emotional hooks to hang your opinion on". Nonsense, left-wing refers to supporters of social equality and social justice while right-wing refers to supporters of social hierarchy and social order.--R-41 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Libertarians do not support social hierarchy or social order are considered right wing even in the US. Liberalism in general (also opposed to social hierarchy and social order, and suporting social equality and social justice) is in Europe seen as right wing, while in the US left wing, etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Nope. Libertarians do not support social hierarchy or social order". The problem with that statement is that that is talking about the authoritarian vs. libertarian scale, not the left vs. right scale, not all libertarians are right-wing, in fact extreme libertarianism is called anarchism and strains of anarchism have been far-left in nature such as anarcho-syndicalism. Right-wing libertarians accept natural inequality: they beleive economic laissez-faire should exist and if there is an inequality of wealth that they believe is natural and the government should not intervene to promote egalitarian distribution of wealth. There are a number of scholars, most outside of the United States (American scholars tend to focus exclusively on their liberal-capitalist derived political and economic system and ignore others), who understand this such as Italian scholar and philosopher Norberto Bobbio who in his book Left and right: the significance of a political distinction [8] emphasizes that the left vs. right spectrum is one of egalitarian (left) vs. inegalitarian (right) views of society and the socioeconomic and political spheres. He makes the distinction of not completely associating the left with egalitarianism itself, as liberalism only has supported general egalitarian themes of equality of opportunity though accepting inequality of outcome, which is fair to point ot. So It is not meaningless, it has a meaning and yes it has its limits, in spite of your cynical claims that it is useless.--R-41 (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"The problem with that statement is that that is talking about the authoritarian vs. libertarian scale," - No, it isn't talking about any scale, but about the claim you made.

"not the left vs. right scale" - Of course not, that would be begging the question.

"not all libertarians are right-wing" - With your definition *no* libertarians are right-wing, yet they are universally seen as right-wing. QED.

"in fact extreme libertarianism is called anarchism" - No, it is called anarcho-capitalism, and seen as right-wing.

"the left vs. right spectrum is one of egalitarian (left) vs. inegalitarian (right) views of society" - That's a popular leftist myth, but it doesn't pan out in reality. It is in fact a claim used by the left to brand anyone they don't like as being inegalitarian. "We are left, socialists, nice and for equality. They are right, hence they are against equality. Look Pinochet was right! They are all fascists!" This is how it is used. "Left" and "right" is nothing but synonyms for "us" and "them". --OpenFuture (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "libertarian" is not owned by the political right even though American right-wing capital "L" Libertarians have adopted the term, there are also left-wing libertarians and anarchism is the furthest libertarian on the authoritarian to libertarian political spectrum. Both left or right can be authoritarian or libertarian. "With your definition *no* libertarians are right-wing, yet they are universally seen as right-wing." - no, there is such thing as right-wing libertarians who can be right-wing because they recognize the existence of natural social hierarchy or inequality and believe that attempts by government to impose egalitarianism will invade their liberty and hopelessly attempt to alter the natural state of social hierarchy through authoritarian means. ""The left vs. right spectrum is one of egalitarian (left) vs. inegalitarian (right) views of society" - That's a popular leftist myth." What evidence do you have that it is a leftist myth? Is it from your cynical opinion? Egalitarianism has only recently been seen as politically correct in many democratic societies, it used to be taboo. Aristocratic societies saw egalitarianism as being against natural law and the will of God. I'm not saying egalitarianism is always ideal, in totalitarian Stalinist Russia, enforced economic egalitarianism was disasterous for the Kulaks who were persecuted and killed by Stalin's regime for being viewed as part of a wealthy peasant elite that needed to be brought to heel. Theoretical total egalitarianism combined with totalitarianism makes people mere units and numbers within a system while not having any merit to benefit them and it can lead to incompetent people taking up positions in the economy because of economic egalitarianism. However the Iron Law of Oligarchy correctly states that total egalitarianism is impossible because cohesive organizations require internal hierarchies and a leadership elite to maintain unity and function properly. Furthermore, egalitarian aims have been criticized with quite a strong and reasonable argument by right-wing proponents as being unnatural - claiming that inequality is a natural phenomenon and that the egalitarian ideal is impossible to fulfil. It is not an issue of "good versus bad" as political partisans will claim, it is an issue of a fundamentally different worldview. Ask any right-winger if they believe in the possibility of an ideal and completely egalitarian society being formed with no wealth differences, a moderate right-winger will likely accept some equality like equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome because they believe that not all people can possibly be raised up to be equal to others; a far right-winger would be disgusted with the notion of equality of all people and claim that there are clearly superior people and clearly inferior people in society. Ask a far left-winger about their view on social hierarchy in the economy for instance and they would be disgusted with the thought of anyone being able to rise up in an economy to be an owner with more wealth than others. In behind all the rhetoric by left and right partisans, the acceptance of inequality in society as being natural or normal is the basis of the right just as the pursuit of an egalitarian ideal and the elimination of inegalitarian institutions and systems is the basis of the left.--R-41 (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

First you defined the words so that "left-wing refers to supporters of social equality and social justice while right-wing refers to supporters of social hierarchy and social order" which is patently wrong. Then you defined it as left being eqalitarian and right inegalitarian, which also is wrong, but less so, and then you added an image defining left as progressive and right as conservative. You claim that the words have meaning. But you yourself can't make up your mind on what that meaning is. QED. For the third time.

"they recognize the existence of natural social hierarchy" - No they don't. Libertarians do not recognize anything like that at all. Social hierarchy and equality of opportunity are in direct opposition of each other.

"Egalitarianism has only recently been seen as politically correct in many democratic societies, it used to be taboo." - Utter nonsense, and also irrelevant.

"I'm not saying egalitarianism is always ideal, in totalitarian Stalinist Russia, enforced economic egalitarianism was disasterous for the Kulaks who were persecuted and killed by Stalin's regime for being viewed as part of a wealthy peasant elite that needed to be brought to heel." - I would say that "enforced economic egalitarianism" is in direct opposition of egalitarianism in any real sense, as you correctly point out. It requires a political class that calls the shot, a military class that enforces it and a suppressed lower class. As such, any sort of non-democratic socialism is according to your first definitions right-wing. QED. For the fourth time. But people in general, and also you, assign it to the left, because communism *claims* to be egalitarian, while not being so in practice. Well, so does liberalism (in the classical/european sense). So hence all forms of liberalism is "left", if you want to be consistent. Yet all forms of this classical/european liberalism are generally seen as right. Again. Still QED.

Your last definition, about seeing inequality as "normal" is still wrong. Most liberals do not see it as "normal" but as *unavoidable* which is an important difference. With that in mind your definition now becomes left = delusional and right = realist. That is however also wrong, as many people on the right are completely delusional about other things, such as gender, religion, etc.

There is NO definition of left and right that will give you a rational consistent definition with how the word is used in practice. It just doesn't exist. I'm sorry that you have based your self- identity in part on being "left", and identifying it with "good", ie not accepting inequalities. But that doesn't change the fact that this definitions doesn't pan out in reality. When you are painting liberalism as thinking inequality is good or natural, you are wrong. You are just trying to paint people who do not agree with you as evil, as it make you feel better about yourself. And I know this sounds cynical to you, but it really isn't. It's just how people work.

Some reading for you: The True Believer by Eric Hoffer and to a lesser extent The Fear of Freedom by Erich Fromm (and I mean the books, not the articles). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said that left is always associated with "good" you are putting words in my mouth, Stalin was left-wing and quite an evil man. I told you that egalitarian vs. hierarchical or inegalitarian is not "good" vs. "bad" - you are making that inference, it is two different world views. "When you are painting liberalism as thinking inequality is good or natural, you are wrong. You are just trying to paint people who do not agree with you as evil, as it make you feel better about yourself." Nonsense and with a very nasty and arrogant tone - I am centre-left but I have friends with right-wing beliefs and I happen to hold right-wing views on the issue of crime - I don't paint right-wingers as "evil" because I might disagree with them, also I believe some inequality is neccessary in society - there are people with merit and leadership qualities who should have higher positions and people who do not possess such merit don't deserve such positions. Also I consider liberalism - even classical liberalism as having leftist origins - it was part of the original left in the French parliament. Also I said that in the past egalitarian politics was taboo in aristocratic and also certain religious societies where people are arranged in hierarchy in accordance to their commitment to God. And yes there can be such a thing as authoritarian enforced egalitarianism in economics - it is denying others the right to have a higher economic position - that is why. Unavoidable inequality is the same as what I said when I said natural inequality - the right accepts this, the left rejects this. In Europe, classical liberalism is to the right of social democracy that is a major force in Europe, but to the left of conservatism, historically from the French Revolution classical liberalism was the left while conservatives and reactionaries who supported the existing hierarchical establishments - the monarchy, the Church, and feudalism - were the right. I cannot understand how you can believe that multiple scholars like Norbeto Bobbio and others that multiple Wikipedia users have used for the definitions of left and right are wrong but you know the truth. Finally, as I said earlier, it is not "good" egalitarian vs. "evil" inegalitarian that I am talking about - if the powerful critique that egalitarian society, in any form - including equality of opportunity is impossible due to natural inequality being unalterable, is accepted then the left-wing politics developed out of the Age of Enlightenment is one of the most flawed developments in history.--R-41 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"I told you that egalitarian vs. hierarchical or inegalitarian" - If this is a left sv right definition, again all forms of liberalism is left, while they generally are seen as right, proving you wrong. QED again. And we can go on like that forever. You are just repeating the same incorrectness that I have already pointed out before. That's not exactly meaningful.

"there are people with merit and leadership qualities who should have higher positions and people who do not possess such merit don't deserve such positions." - Wow. From my standpoint as a liberal, that sounds *extremely* right wing. I do not agree at all. You are still thinking in terms of hierarchies, and that statement sounds to me more right wing and conservative than what any libertarian I know would say.

"Unavoidable inequality is the same as what I said when I said natural inequality" - No. There is nothing "natural" about it. "Natural" inequality is what you talk about above, that some people somehow are more deserving than others. I reject that statement outright. Unavoidable inequality simply means that it is impossible to build a perfectly equal society.

You are simply wrong in everything you say, and you persist in repeating your incorrect positions even though I've showed above that they are wrong. As such further discussion is meaningless. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not merely disagreeing with me, but with established scholars like Norberto Bobbio and other scholars that Wikipedia has used in the left-wing and right-wing articles which multiple Wikipedia users have collected and put on those articles. What I said on some people being more deserving of leadership positions based on merit and ability, is meritocracy and I support equality of opportunity which is why I am centre-left rather than just left, its more right than some left-wingers but left or some right-wingers. But I'm right-wing on crime, I doubt that rehabilitation works on hardened criminals and believe that they must be punished and restrained to the fullest extent of the law.--R-41 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeating this once again is hardy useful. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, hardened cynics don't accept listen to else's views but the intuition of their own cynicism.--R-41 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So you are a hardened cynic now? :-) OK, if you say so. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

huvudvaerk

Hej OpenFuture!

I quoted you at my RfC.

Just sayin',  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, 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 the 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You are the one who, as usual, refuses to follow Wikipedia policy, in this case WP:BRD. You can't get out of this by baseless warnings. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics MfD

"Tröjan", haha, priceless! Compare Heavy Metal Umlaut. Bischånen | talk 00:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Newport Tower

Okay, since the Journal and the article's author aren't considered reasonable references, I'll not edit that into the page in the future. If I do come across something else that seems like it might be a better source, I'll try asking about it in the discussion page first. Sorry for wasting your time, and thank you for the advice. I'll try and make sure to sign in to my account first before making edits and remember to use the edit summery box. Jmcanon92 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And absolutely not a problem with time-wasting. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky/Sexuality discussion

Thanks for your comments, to which I responded on Talk:Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Also, your views on whether the material removed from the Sexuality section (NOT the material about which you already commented) should be reinstated would be most welcome. Here is the diff which contains the material edited out of Sexuality. Again, thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gotland astronomical calendars

Hello OpenFuture. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gotland astronomical calendars, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Author has not requested deletion, or other users have added substantial content. Thank you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)