User talk:Darkstar1st

Paul A. Bonacci

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

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

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

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

Discovery Channel

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

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

Discovery Channel

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

and this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings

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

II

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

Source material

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

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

Three revert rule warning

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

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

vandalism

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

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

in flagrante delicto

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

Password

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

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

April 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Troublemaking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppetry case

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case has been marked as closed. It will shortly be archived automatically.

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

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

Your recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your recent edits

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

ANI noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

Libertarianism edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2010

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here

Decline reason:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

Some advice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

striking your comments

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

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

Mass killings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very well then.

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

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

Libertarianism

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

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

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

Heads up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Left-libertarian discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email

I've send you an email. Please respond.Teeninvestor (talk)

Edit warring

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

Edit warring on Libertarianism (disambiguation)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Note:You made 3 reverts, some of a questionable nature with 3 editors have problems with. You have not discussed them on the talk page despite comments by two editors. Please review policies and stop edit warring. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Correct date accidentally copied from elsewhere. Per this talk page's history, it was 14:02, August 18, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corrected later with diffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleting messages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Libertarianism" should be construed narrowly Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep the ultimate goal in mind

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

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

Lib RfC

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

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

3RR

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

Edit warring report

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

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

05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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

You are at your 3rd revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not only are the references rubbish, not only does it contaminate the page with irrelevant leftish rubbish, there is a much more insiduous fallacy perpetuated by this section. No Libertarian - not even anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard - would 'disdain many government FUNCTIONS'. THAT IS A LIE. They disdain THE WAY IN WHICH GOVERNMENTS DELIVER 'ESSENTIAL' SERVICES, NOT THE SERVICES THEMSELVES. Rothbard and Hoppe constantly emphasize that services such as law and order and security are essential but could be provided more efficiently by the competitive private sector in a non-coercive manner. The correct wording would be:

'Libertarians generally believe private entities could provide most - or all - essential services more efficiently than the State, the range of functions to be retained be a coercive State is a source of dispute within Libertarian circles.'

Good luck and all the very best. You and Blue make a good combination. It's like a good cop, bad cop thing going on, with X occasionally making erudite comments from on high. I use the term good cop, bad cop as an intentional Libertarian pun. I doubt either you or Blue would be cops in real life...