User talk:Good Intentions

This page has been cleared recently. Talk from before my extended absence (March through July 2006) can be found here.

Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche

Hello, Marinus. I have made several alterations to the Views on women that deserve your attention. I sincerely hope for your response to these alterations for further improvement.Non-vandal 06:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FAR of anarcho-capitalism

Hi, there. You might be interested in the FAR of anarcho-capitalism. They are closing the vote, so get in your comments and vote, if you have an opinion on the subject. Best wishes, and happy editing. --AaronS 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. I'm glad you stopped in -- I'm quite confused, myself. It seemed kind of abrupt. --AaronS 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

You called me a "twit" in the Anarchism discussion page. [1] Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

No, I said you would be a twit if you forwarded a particular view. I did question your ability to evaluate sources and implicitely questioned how carefully you read things, as I continue to do. --Marinus 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I also accused you of having shown a skewed POV (as when you mocked myself and others for not falling in line with the "global trend to world capitalism"). I neglected to comment on or attack you for that statement, merely note it. --Marinus 03:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche mediation

(Thanks for taking the case.) I'll defer to more active editors on Friedrich Nietzsche as to Petrejo's recent activities.

The background: I tried for a while to get him to stop thinking about his editing as inserting his position into the article, and to take a more dispassionate stance, and seemed to have a little success - although the accuracy of his scholarship is still certainly in question, after some back-and-forth he trimmed his bombastic style (initially just a set of carefully chosen Nietzsche quotes "so that the reader can make up his own mind") down to a couple paragraphs. Anyway, the reason I had hoped all this effort would work is because "Nietzsche as pre-Nazi" is a real vein of Nietzsche scholarship, although it is somewhat out of fashion now, and one that should be explained in the article, which, I think, is a position all the other editors agree with.

Your suggestions: (1) I'm not sure what you mean by the first suggestion - are we talking Petrejo's personal views (I agree completely) or the views he has been trying to research (which should be represented)? (2) I agree completely. (3) I agree again, although the majority view will be hard to pin down.

The only thing I would add is a recommendation that Petrejo voluntarily go through some official mentoring, if that sort of thing is within the scope of a mediation case. -Smahoney 19:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the keen ideas. -Bordello 10:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Anarchism articles

I am involved in an edit war on the old problem Anarchism entry. One user in particular, DTC, so massages POV through selective use of sources that he has claimed that a fringe view has support from a sholarly consensus. He has struck a list of sources that I had imported from another article (where it has happily resided for some time) because he claims they are not good enough, directly contrary to the opinion of most other editors (the exception is Whiskey Rebellion, who has taken to it to repeatedly mistype my name as "Marianus"). I want to move to have DTC banned: he only edits pages related to anarcho-capitalism, in all of them inserting POV views, removing views disagreeing to the ones he advances, misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking sources and giving his own sources disproportionate weight. I am afraid of acting rashly, but DTC has ignored attempts at reconciliation and the opinion of everyone other than himself. I have spent the past two days trying to clear up his damage, preventing me from doing much else on WP. I, and a few other editors, suspect he is a sock-puppet for banned user RJII (who I had run-ins with before) who had the exact same POV and particular misrepresentations. What am I to do? I repeat that DTC remains unimpressed by any attempts at consensus or reconciliation. --Marinus 06:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this sounds a bit too advanced for a {{helpme}}. {{helpme}}'s are to be used when users need editing help ie markup, naming conventions, what-have-you :), Secondly, if you

“ are moving to have a user banned ”

, then, if he is blatantly vandalising: list him using {{vandal}} on WP:AIV, if it's not blatant vandal (my recommendation), list him at AN/I (the Admin Noticeboard -- Incidents Section. Let me know how it goes. --Deon555^talk_Review 06:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The other side of the story: I'm simply trying to validate the sources. He is putting in sources that he says claim anarcho-capitalism is not a form anarchism without providing page numbers and won't provide any quotes. He says he got the sources from an article. That says that he didn't see the sources himself so he is just going on faith. There is no way to verify a source without something more specific like a page number and quote. I have access to some of the books and articles he cites but I see no such claim coming from the authors. Before you think I'm being biased, let me ensure you that I am also verifying sources that say anarcho-capitalism IS a form of anarchism and are removing those sources if they failed verification: [2] As far as "RJIII," I am no such person or user. As far as I can tell,the mainstream view from scholars is that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. An extreme minority of sources say that it's not and they are only coming from anti-capitalist anarchists. If I am wrong, then please prove me wrong by providing sources with page numbers and/or quotes. That's all I'm asking. He threatened to file an arbitration case against me just for doing what an editor is supposed to be doing. Now you know the rest of the story. DTC 06:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to have a less heated view of things, DTC. Give me my space to reflect, please. --Marinus 06:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you've got to lighten up. You never know, I might actually be acting in good faith and doing something good for the encyclopedia by researching and verifying sources. DTC 06:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the Mediation Cabal, and although, I c/wouldn't be involved, there are many happy MedCab mediator's that could take your case :) Perhaps that's a good idea? --Deon555^talk_Review 06:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, Report it to the administrators at WP:AN/I if you have not already done so. --Deon555^talk_Review 06:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche copyediting

Marinus, I appreciate your comment on the copyediting. Thank you. -- Pedant17 00:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi, Good Intentions, I, too, would and do, sincerely hope that we can resolve our differences. As far as misspelling your name, this was unintentional. I'll be more careful about getting it right from now on. I would like to have a better, more considerate, and more productive relationship in future, also. Happy editing. Whiskey Rebellion 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your other comments (and attacks)

On Aug. 30 you left a (personal attack) warning on my page found here:
User_talk:Whiskey_Rebellion#Warning_concerning_personal_attacks. I believe I responded to it in a polite and reasonable way. I just found this edit made by you on Sept. 1:
User_talk:The_Ungovernable_Force But Aaron has called it quits - these twits make being here rather bloody hard. Which twits are you referring to? -- me, DTC, That'sHot or Woohookitty? In all good faith, GoodIntentions, between your actions, your constant name calling and your running to the admin noticeboard to complain about DTC's edits, I wonder..who is personally attacking -- and who is a twit? There, now you can run and complain about me or put another insincere warning on my page. Whiskey Rebellion 05:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments made in private conversation with someone else is none of your business. --GoodIntentions^talk 08:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. Whiskey Rebellion 21:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Hello

No problem and thanks :) This dispute isnt as different in Denmark, where i come from, i assure you. Its always been hard to calm people down talking about these concepts, which isnt really suprising. After all its politics even when it comes down to cooping with the concepts. I dont know if ive read anything on Jimbo Wales. Ill stick around :) --Fjulle 12:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 3 hours

For this. I was not joking when I said I was going to start handing out blocks. Stop attacking other people. Now. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Class conflict

I've nominated the article for Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive, feel like supporting it? Donnacha 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem of destruction

Actually, ive got a point to add to my answer above. Thats that ½ of the time ive ever seen a dispute coming from an AnCap its been starting with disrespect from the opposition (every other kind of anarchist id guess). The thing about wikipedia is that people dont tend to let their troubles get to ppl who has nothing to do with them. Right now the debate is pretty messy, and i just know somebody has to change, hopefully everybody will! --Fjulle 22:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo?

Is he really an objectivist? Makes sense I guess. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly

I'll see what I can do but as you can see from my talk page, my plate is beyond full at the moment. Feeling a bit overwhelmed. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just in the last 24 hours, I've had 10 new headers added to my talk page. At the sound of the beep, my head will start to spin...5...4... lol --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried an RfC on DTC himself and not just an article? There is also WP:PAIN for personal attacks. You can also try the requests for investigation page. They sometimes take cases such as this that aren't vandalism but aren't exactly within our rules either. So there's a few ideas. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

42 archives! That just floors me. But I'll try to stick with it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

merging articles

What you did here was wrong. You should get consensus before merging articles. You should place merge tags on the articles in question, and then wait a week before going ahead and merging the articles. I'm not going to undo your actions, but many editors and administrators would have. — goethean ॐ 20:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

In case you haven't seen it, the AnCaps are trying to delete the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article [3]. Donnacha 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This user is asking that their autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

Good Intentions (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

---

IP address: 210.55.194.9 (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • unblock • checkuser (log))
Blocking admin: not provided.
Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Originalsinner". The reason given for Originalsinner's block is: "Repeat copyright violations compromising the integrity of the site".

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=Good Intentions}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=not provided | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Originalsinner". The reason given for Originalsinner's block is: "Repeat copyright violations compromising the integrity of the site".</nowiki> | 3=210.55.194.9 | 4= | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=210.55.194.9 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Originalsinner". The reason given for Originalsinner's block is: "Repeat copyright violations compromising the integrity of the site".</nowiki> | 3=not provided | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=210.55.194.9 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Originalsinner". The reason given for Originalsinner's block is: "Repeat copyright violations compromising the integrity of the site".</nowiki> | 3=not provided | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}