User talk:BigK HeX

Please Note: I generally reply
to posts on the talk page of
the user who begins discussion.

More about me...

Hi!

• If you'd like to begin a conversation, simply click on this link please.
• Please do sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Please note: At best, comments containing personal attacks will be deleted and then ignored.

Talk page discourse

[1] Threatening other editors with user conduct RfCs in an article talk page discussion is not very helpful. If you have a personal problem with another editor, take it up on their user talk page. Article talk pages should focus on the topic, not the editors. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I find no problem with my comments. Thanks, all the same, though. BigK HeX (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cla68. None of these comments are particularly helpful.[2][3][4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As not-so-subtle hints for a tendentious editor to check his behavior, I find them helpful enough. BigK HeX (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For this reason, please check civility page out. Thank you.--CnkALTDS^message 22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my post, and would make another such post again now, if warranted. BigK HeX (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So it means you will be warned again. Thank you.--CnkALTDS^message 11:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if this is how you construe the Civility policies, I ask that you not post on my talk page again regarding anything related to civility issues ever. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that threatening with RfC's aren't helpful, but I also fail to see any civility issues here, nor from what I can remember anywhere else in anything BigK Hex has written. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

CRU hack RFC

I've removed this from an ongoing RFC because it seems to be mainly an interpersonal dispute. Mark Nutley has been notified. --TS 00:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• MN, your behavior here resembles rather blatant WP:IDHT, and is certainly not productive. BigK HeX (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You also said above that climategate was not the most commonly used term, and when asked what was did not in fact give a reply, would you care to tell me what your research came up with on this? 18:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I, in fact, did give a reply. That you don't understand my reply is not my fault. User:Hipocrite already put it into bite-sized terms for you above, and you still don't seem to grasp the concept. Even if there were more I could say to enlighten you, given your comments here, I have no desire to do much to dignify your tendentious approach to this issue. BigK HeX (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No you did not, you blustered. You said your research proved climategate was not the name used by the majority of sources, so please tell me the name they are using mark nutley (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

KiK SPI

From everything I've seen, KiK is in Australia, and when he's using IP's, they all geolocate there. That second IP on the report is definitely him though - although we must be seriously frustrating him, given the language and tone. Always nice to close another door on him! Ravensfire (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. He does seem terribly frustrated! I think it's finally starting to dawn on him that none of his "important" information will be allowed to stand. It only took him this long to realize what any sane person would have noticed 2 years ago. lol BigK HeX (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis of behavior is as bad as your economic predictions (or your sexual predilections). Ha ha ha! I can rhyme and shoot out caustic insults at the very same time. I play with my prey. - NoHopeInFiatMoneyWorld (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Titles

What's up with the revert at WP:Titles? I didn't change policy... I reverted a change to policy. I presume you did not fully realize what is happening here, and was happening, long before I showed up.

The wording I replaced has been established for some time. Here, for example, is a link to the July 23 version which has the "When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles" wording. Ah, it looks like it was introduced back on June 23rd.

Anyway, today, without establishing consensus, PMA suddenly changed it. That's a fine bold move, but then it was immediately reverted by PBS, which is normal WP:BRD stuff, and should have gone to the talk page, except then PMA reverted again, so that's when I reverted him. At that time we were back to status quo, but that's when you reverted me, ironically with the comment requesting, "please do not try to change policy without consensus"! What's up with that? Now PMA reverted again, pushing 3RR. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the edit comments. I'll look into it more deeply. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that changes my understanding. I still see that Philip Shearer is trying to change policy without consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? That wording was there from June 23 to August 10 before it was changed yesterday, without consensus, by PMAnderson. Anyway, discussion in now ongoing on the talk page of WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism poll

I'm really trying to find some common ground. Already interesting is that Xero did not list 3 (there are reliable sources for the general/broad meaning of libertarianism) as a point that he agrees with, but he listed all of the others. If he holds onto this position, that's looking more and more like obstinacy, because, as you know, there are such sources. But at least he cooperated and showed his cards. Please show good faith and participate too. Thanks --Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Teeninvestor

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

libertarian principles

I do not see any contradiction. Right-libertarians do not justify private property on Filmer's claim that the Lord gave the world to Adam and he has divided it among his descendants. Left-libertarians do not argue against private property on the basis of equality. Both believe that originally all land was held in common and that a man who tills common land is entitled to the fruits of his labor. Where they disagree is whether labor can alienate land from common ownership. I added in an example to clarify my comments. TFD (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Too busy on the 'socialist libertarian agenda' to correct your own illiterate edits

Austrian School, footnote 23. Fix it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.151.2 (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC) And footnote 55. I suppose as long as gold-related stuff is deleted you're happy, and you move on to censor stuff on Libertarianism.

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarianism

Perhaps you could give me a short summary of the debate, so I know why I'm getting such a not nice response? I feel like I've just leapt headfirst into a warzone. Zazaban (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hah ... your instincts are finely tuned. I haven't exactly figured out all of the POV myself, but for the most part there is a cadre of editors who like to soapbox about The True Meaning of libertarianism, reliable sources be damned. One of them doesn't even care to edit the article or directly suggest any alterations --- just comes onto the talk page to endlessly wax philosophic about ... I guess Orwell is the newest subject, for whatever unfathomable reason. Basically, he and a few other editors think Libertarianism means absolutely nothing other than their own ill-defined conception of the term, and think that any of the other prominent understandings found in RS's should be stripped from the article. Apparently, among all of the articles of political ideology, such as liberalism/socialism/etc, which have to cover a fair range of topics due to the varying understandings of the relevant term, the Soapboxers would like to see the Libertarianism wiki "cleansed". Ultimately, I think those editors know that they aren't going to win any battles against the RS's they're up against, so -- for the most part -- they've consigned themselves to just spreading WP:TRUTH on the talk page. One of the editors that you've witnessed has probably violated WP:NOTAFORUM so repeatedly and blatantly, that I've almost concluded that it merits either an ANI or RFC/USER. That editor also seems to have a deep disdain for "socialism" (and possibly even all things "leftist"), and I'm almost convinced the editor has not a clue what they really entail. BigK HeX (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oy vey. That's probably a good idea. I recently added the page to my watchlist, so I suppose I'll be sticking around. Good to meet you. Zazaban (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice to have another editor around! I wouldn't worry too much about the particular editor you've crossed paths with. That particular one is Mostly Harmless. Feeding that troll gives it power, so it may work to just try to avoid actually engaging with any of the content he posts if you can help it. Admittedly, sometimes the rants are so ridiculous as to be unavoidable troll-bait though. BigK HeX (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I know the type. I was a member of an anarchist forum for a couple of years that contained both class-war communists and anarcho-capitalists- death threats all over the place. Now I tend to react to that kind opinionated ranting with wry amusement, I certainly can't take it too seriously. Then I stop suffering it and notify somebody who can deal with it properly. Zazaban (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think most of them are minarchist, I-don't-really-understand-it, Tea Party types. One of them might lean more an-cap. And ... yeah. If it goes on for much longer, I'll have to seek a bit of intervention. BigK HeX (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea sooner rather than later, alarms should go off as soon as Orwell references start getting brought in, and that was over a week ago. Zazaban (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We now have D's admittance of past and future Meat Puppetry in a talk page where he jollies with an infamous sock puppet. As I note at Sock Puppetry page, the alleged processes for dealing with Meats is not made explicit. Do you know? Whatever it is, it's time to proceed, starting with D. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I was actually wondering that myself, amidst that jolly discussion that went on. I'll do a bit of research myself, and see what I turn up. BigK HeX (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

hi all, in case d means me, cite your admission of meatpuppetry, otherwise i will go so far as to call you a liar this time carol, not just misplacing facts, times dates, as in the past, but now you are simply lying. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure if there is the slightest misunderstanding of what I read, I will catch it when/if action is initiated and make any relevant adjustments. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

misunderstanding, your making it up. in the past i let it go, you misread a time, or go pages confused, but now either cite your example, or own up to being a liar. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

can you show me where in talk it was decided to remove the tags? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The RfC has decided that the article's inclusion of topics is appropriate. We can conclude that it is NOT "incoherent." BigK HeX (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this debate specific to the article, why not move to that talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff predictions

I've done a lot of work on his predictions and want to add more. I think summarizing his info is valuable. Why is my material unsuited for the page? Also, would it be OK under Wikipedia policies to make a "Peter Schiff's predictions" page for all my stuff outside of his main entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egermino (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is WP:NOT a "complete exposition of all possible details" or an "indiscriminate collection of information" articles need to stick to including only noteworthy info. A list of every prediction Schiff has ever made is unlikely to be acceptable to the Wikipedia community. That section started off a just a few predictions that had been discussed in news media and thus have some notability. I never intended that section to include every prediction he ever makes, no matter how obscure. You're more than welcome to add something to your user page at maybe User:Egermino/SchiffPredictions. If you're considering the creation of an actual Wiki article, then I doubt it would survive the deletion process. BigK HeX (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Header on libertarian talk page

You may wish to remove the header 'Comments on the wording of the RfC' that you added to the talk page, as Darkstar has moved his comments above the header to directly beneath the question. Regards, LK (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"generally"

Hello, a suggestion. From The Elements of Style, Strunk: "...the proper correction is likely to be not the replacement of one word or set of words by another, but the replacement of vague generality by definite statement". And also, "The writer who has a definite meaning to express will not take refuge in such vagueness." N6n (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Or my favorite which I've always made a prime principle: “Eschew excess verbiage.” :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Years of debate have gotten me into a terrible habit of qualifying all of the assertions I write ... or may write... at least generally, anyways! lol  :-O BigK HeX (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I still think of words as whips that you lash quickly and expertly. Geez, I should have a national opinion column, but I've always been a research ninny who overdoes it on research and takes forever to get anything out. But it tends to be crisp when it finally comes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh ... we've seen uninformed opinion. I think I'd much rather have the informed one that may take a little longer! BigK HeX (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@Carol, I have an extreme view on this issue:

There was an artist in the city of Kouroo who was disposed to strive after perfection. One day it came into his mind to make a staff. Having considered that in an imperfect work time is an ingredient, but into a perfect work time does not enter, he said to himself, It shall be perfect in all respects, though I should do nothing else in my life. He proceeded instantly to the forest for wood, being resolved that it should not be made of unsuitable material; and as he searched for and rejected stick after stick, his friends gradually deserted him, for they grew old in their works and died, but he grew not older by a moment. His singleness of purpose and resolution, and his elevated piety, endowed him, without his knowledge, with perennial youth. As he made no compromise with Time, Time kept out of his way, and only sighed at a distance because he could not overcome him. Before he had found a stock in all respects suitable the city of Kouroo was a hoary ruin, and he sat on one of its mounds to peel the stick. Before he had given it the proper shape the dynasty of the Candahars was at an end, and with the point of the stick he wrote the name of the last of that race in the sand, and then resumed his work. By the time he had smoothed and polished the staff Kalpa was no longer the pole-star; and ere he had put on the ferule and the head adorned with precious stones, Brahma had awoke and slumbered many times. But why do I stay to mention these things? When the finishing stroke was put to his work, it suddenly expanded before the eyes of the astonished artist into the fairest of all the creations of Brahma.

(Thoreau, Walden) I think you are doing a fine job. N6n (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism's definition is very misleading, as it's practice very much depends on the State. What is called "neoliberalism" in actual practice has nothing to do with the free market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.105 (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue IV)

Positively Economics The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue IV (September 2010)
Use the show/hide button to display or hide this newsletter. From the editor After a brief intermission over the Northern hemisphere summer season and the Southern hemisphere's mid-winter, Positively Economics is back. In recent weeks it has been my privilege to work on countering systemic bias with a couple of articles on the economic history of Uganda. Projects like these help, little by little, to open up new areas on knowledge to Western audiences. Indeed, with English in the ascendancy when it comes to second languages, many other audiences too. Both of the new creations made the front page via the Did you know? section for newly-created or significantly expanded articles. I would encourage other editors, particularly those who like badges, to try to get more economics articles onto the front page through this and other sections. Those with a particularly competitive bent might also wish to consider signing up for the 2011 Wikicup (great for focussing the mind). - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Example chart New bot User:LivingBot has just been approved on Wikimedia Commons to compile and upload SVG graphs based on monthly time series of, for example, UK interest rates (illustrated). It will then revisit these on a monthly basis to update them with the latest information. If you would like to bot to create and update a graph for you, get in touch with its operator. Articles of note New featured articles: None New featured lists: None New featured topics: None New good articles: Jevons paradox Redlinks to be squashed Skysmith has posted an updated list of missing economics topics. Most will need redirecting or new articles written to blueify them, so, if you can lend a hand with the effort, please do. There are some from virtually all areas of economics and hence to suit all tastes. Project news Unassessed articles: A whole swath of articles have been added to the WikiProject recently, mainly on notable economists. They are yet to be assessed on their talk pages; this also provides a good opportunity to check and improve some of our least monitored articles. Unsourced BLPs: Before the articles about economists were added, the project had very few unsourced biographies of living people; now there are a little over a hundred. If we can clear them, however, then it is unlikely that there will be many more. Again, they represent some of our least cared-for articles, and often present good targets for cleaning up. Your comments are invited in the following other ongoing project discussions and requests for help: Vanderford-Riley well-being schedule New Economic Indicator for Infoboxes Beth Hayes
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gninviv

		Civility Award
		Thank you for remaining WP:Civil during our debate about Pending Changes. In the view of a worthy opponent, may the best perspective win! Gniniv (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks :blush: BigK HeX (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts

Well, considering that this is someone with whom you've obviously squared off against in the past, it's certainly interesting as a kind of opposition research I suppose. I would not want this kind of discussion on my talk page if I were Darkstar1st and I certainly wouldn't respond (but that's just me personally).

You say you believe this person is banned? Banned, not just blocked. If that's the case, then I'd simply pursue a WP:RBI strategy. Ignore the commentary, file sockpuppet checks at WP:SPI when you suspect this person is editing again under another account, and revert his contributions. Banned users' contributions can be reverted on sight, whether they are "good" or "bad." (However, before you engage in this kind of blanket reverting, you need to be sure that it's indeed that person -- sure enough that another reasonable and uninvolved person would agree with your conclusion, which is why I suggested SPI). Good luck, they certainly seem to have spent a lot of time thinking about how to game the system. — e. ripley\^talk 14:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, not sure how much I helped but always happy to take a shot. As an aside, it certainly does not look good to me that Darkstar1st is engaging a banned user in this manner, but that's his prerogative on his talk page I suppose. — e. ripley\^talk 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI. The AnonIP admits he is a sock of someone, if not explicitly KarmaisKing. User_talk:Darkstar1st#Warning_on_Meat_Puppetry.2FCozying_up_to_known_sock_puppets See my warning here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I opened a pretty incompetent sockpuppet investigation on both User:114.73.173.184 who admitted he was a sock (probably Karmisking) to you on Darkstar's page. And also User:125.7.71.6 [here] and he (and i'm sure it is) immediately started User:ShadowMan4444. Guess I should have done one at a time. It looks pretty messy but hopefully will have some effect. If you can figure out how to improve it, feel free. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism incoherence tag

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Libertarianism, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Karmaisking

These are unquestionably the same user. All the technical data I'm seeing matches the other blocked accounts perfectly. Unless there's two different people behind the same keyboard, those three are Karmaisking. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering he has boasted about all the edits he's gotten away with, it sure would be nice if all those who had edited Libertarianism in last month could be checked, but I guess that would be casting too broad a net. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

An an analysis of other editors there do make three most recent registered users look rather suspicious, esp. one with most behavioral problems. Will keep my eyes open... CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Hi, this looks liks a tricky bit, but there are several options that may be considered. If discussion with the user(s) in question really does fail, the basic choice is whether to concentrate on user conduct or dispute resolution on the substantive content issue. If the user(s) have demonstrated clear tendentious (which is seen as Wikipedia:Disruptive) behaviour, there is a good chance of having them banned for disruption (if the behaviour is clear, then it's possible to present evidence of it by collecting diffs). I'd recommend however (I admit I haven't followed the entire history here, I've mainly provided a few comments to the RFCs) to assume good faith on the part of the other users and proceed with dispute resolution. As you've already tried RFCs then asking for a third opinion or going to a noticeboard may not help much, and your next stop could be WP:Mediation. There are two kinds of mediation, informal and formal with recommendations to go for informal first. Mediation is voluntary and you can't drag people into it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socks and other disruptive elements

Boy, what a mess you seem to be involved in. Seems to me like the only way to stem the disruptions would be topic bans for a couple editors.... Yworo (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, yes. Some editors don't seem to care about WP:DUE. Thanks for all your work with taking down KiK's posts. It's almost like you've got a radar to find him wherever he goes. You'll have to tell me your secret (off-wiki!) one day! BigK HeX (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no secret, though if there were I'd be happy to fill you in off-wiki. It just boils down to having the right pages on my watchlist and happening to be focused on WP when the activity occurs. Yworo (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... well, you're pretty good at it. Thanks for the diligence! BigK HeX (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

requested sources for left libertarian supporting substantial redistribution of wealth.

[post moved to Libertarianism talk page]

BlueRobe

Friendly suggestion: *shhhhhh*. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a Step Back

Hey BigK, I saw your recent talk page activity here [5] and would like to ask you to take a few steps back and cool off. BlueRobe is blocked for a week, you've made your points at RfC and ANI and if you have an issue with Darkstar1st you should take it to a noticeboard, not the talk page of a blocked user. Obviously you and Darkstar don't see eye to eye and for the time being you should probably stay clear of this editor to limit disruption to the project. If Darkstar comes to your talk page or makes more personal attacks on you, elevate the situation by asking for review at ANI. I doubt mediation would work in this context, but you could also attempt it... but only if this continues after you make an honest effort to disengage.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I readily concede that it's not the most appropriate forum for my comments to Darkstar1st. Though ... that is where the discussion originated. If it can be seen as inciteful to User:BlueRobe, then that is certainly not my intention. Perhaps I may need to rethink my policy of responding to a discussion on the user talk page which originates the discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with responding where a conversation starts, but I think it's good form to make sure it's started in the right place to begin with. Darkstar made a comment to BlueRobe, not to you. Although it was in reference to you it's nothing that Darkstar hasn't already said in several talk spaces, multiple time. An appropriate place to respond would have been Darkstar's talk page only referencing BlueRobe's in a link. But even that seems overkill and I don't want to encourage interaction between you two at this time. Thank you for taking the advice at face value.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st

You've provided ZERO evidence that User:BlueRobe was "harassed" in any undue fashion. BigK HeX (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

bigk, maybe he did just lash out on his own, but couldn't you give him a little space for now? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My comments are about you. Your accusations have been made repeatedly and yet with zero evidence. If you're going to continue to suggest that editors were "harassing" User:BlueRobe, then it'd be prudent to have evidence ready. If you have no evidence then it's probably prudent to stop saying it. I'm telling you this here, as there is less scrutiny on you, but I did not appreciate your unsupported accusations in BlueRobe's RfC, either. BigK HeX (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

you have copied my comment from another's user page, please remove the above comment from your page. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammar issues at PC proposal

Also feel free to stipulate that the GA stuff at WP:MED will take place in a trial as proposed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st is a sockpuppet

Note similar obscure reference to a letter to Proudhon used on User_talk:Apollon by User:RJII and on Talk:Libertarian_socialism by User:Darkstar1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.143.122 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC) i am no mans puppet, sock or otherwise, you however an anonymous ip, so i suggest bigk restrict his page so people like you no longer edit here. since bigk deletes anon ip he assumes are sockpuppets off my page, i will assume you are as well, and delete you from here. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarianism

Regardless of the issue, please keep in mind WP:3RR. You appear to have gone well beyond it on this talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. (I was pretty sure the bright-line 3RR wasn't crossed though. I had edits that were responses to legitimate threads, but maybe you're counting all of my edits in there yesterday.....?) In any case, yes, the reversions were getting pretty excessive. BigK HeX (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

my education, your contradiction

how would an educated person decipher the difference between these statements? "actually geolibertarianism is considered left-libertarian" and "WHERE ARE THE RELIABLE SOURCES THAT SUPPORT YOUR SUGGESTION THAT "GEOLIBERTARIANISM IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING AS 'LEFT-LIBERTARIANISM" for the purposes of this lone debate, i will allow us both to break our disengagement truce, to battle out this one minor point. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well ... do you feel you are educated on Geolibertarianism and Left-Libertarianism? BigK HeX (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

more than i ever wanted to be on the many groups using the term libertarian, but would you explain the differences in the 2? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the best references you know of on Geolibertarianism and the best ones on Left-lib? BigK HeX (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, i give, you win this time. geo-lib is considered ll, but is not pretty much the same. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh.... good work. I hope this example helps you to realize that I have not been trying to insult you, and really am trying to help you make better edits. BigK HeX (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

well you could help me by explaining what you meant in the above? do you mean they are similar, but not so much that they could be combined on the dis ambig page? do you mean that one is a form of the other, but diff in some ways? i have yet to be insulted by u, and actually enjoy our debates Darkstar1st (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've run across works that consider the left-lib movement to breakdown further into libertarian groups such as: agorism, geolib, mutualism, libertarian socialism and a few other ideas. So, Geolib is considered to be a left-lib idea, but it is not the same thing as left-libertarianism .... just as IBM systems are a form of computer, but "IBM system" and "computer" are not the same thing. (Which is what you seem to already have said above, and what I tried to get you to see a few weeks ago.) BigK HeX (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, so why have the group LL, and it's sub-groups on the dis am page for libertarianism. why not just have LL, and let that dis am page break down the varieties of LL? and what do LL believe that geo do not, is there a difference between the 2, if so what? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the libertarian subgroups (left and right) were on the disambig page. I objected to you removing a single subgroup under the rationale that "the two were the same," which was inaccurate. I don't have much of an opinion on whether all the subgroups should stay or go.

As for "what do LL believe that geo do not" ... seems like an odd question. Going back to my previous analogy, that'd be like asking me "what do computers have that IBM systems do not". BigK HeX (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

so why have a separate sub group, if all geo are actually LL, why not just call them LL? there must be some reason they have a separate name, but, you and i appear to be unaware of that reason or unable to articulate the reason given our education, should you discover how, please share here. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've already described the relationship.... BigK HeX (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

where exactly have your explained why geo use a different term? what is a geo that a LL is not? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review the thread. It isn't that long. BigK HeX (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

i have, and all you did was state your claim differently, you have yet to supply a single difference geo, from LL. "Geolib is considered to be a left-lib idea, but it is not the same thing as left-libertarianism" Darkstar1st (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see you're not discussing this in good faith, and that you don't seem to grasp some of the concepts involved, anyways. Good luck on your future serious research endeavors (should you actually ever make any). Cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

i presented my case on the ll talk as to why they are similar from sources on the geo and ll page. your comments are not permitted in the section you posted, instead it is reserved for how they are different. i suggest you fill a complaint if you feel i violated wpforum, additional disruptions will be deleted. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Libertarianism. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Toa Nidhiki05 17:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You're getting pretty close to blatantly disruptive behavior. Though ... since you bothered to waste time on this, post diffs of my alleged "soapboxing". Thanks BigK HeX (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your blatantly promotional adds of Libertarian socialism without consensus:

• [6]
• [7]

This is no less unjustified than the two warnings your buddies gave to BlueRobe and Darkstar1st. Toa Nidhiki05 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually both those edits are cited to Sapon etal 2010, which contains material directly connected to the statement. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Lib... oh, you know ;)

I make the same offer to yourself as Toa; allow me to try and reign in this entire discussion (though I will not be commenting on the content, deliberately). Avoid anything except content and sources and I will try to address any other matters. If it doesn't work out we can look to other steps - perhaps formal mediation. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that nothing short of the BanHammer will be respected. Since you're making a very gracious offer (perhaps, more headache than you realize!), I'll leave the off-topic commentary to you for at least the next few days. If the amount of OR is successfully curbed, you'll have my undying gratitude (and a sure nom for adminship when you feel you're ready!). Thanks for your efforts. Good luck! BigK HeX (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read

Please read this; I am willing to compromise with you. And please do not accuse me of soapboxing. Toa Nidhiki05 02:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Most editors here have seen me post the list that I compiled a rather large number of times. The closed-RfC references the source list that I compiled.; I am being blind. I scanned the RFC but cannot see the list of sources or a link to it.. where do I need to look? :)

Are you going to either strike or properly source your assertion about "right libertarianism being what the overwhelming majority of scholars/public mean"? I know how you feel about this... but it's not overly constructive demanding it to be struck. While Blues wording is strong he has provided sources which support parts of his view; so I think the best approach is to refute them with sources if possible.

I take it from the lack of any being available there is no source discussing the scholarly consensus? that is annoying (there, sadly, never usually is in my experience) it would be a short cut :P --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe's wording is unsupportably strong. I don't think any reasonable reading of a phrase like "better known" can be legitimately used to support "overwhelming majority." Conceding one's errors (or at least inability to source a particular belief) is an important part of growth as an editor.....

As for tertiary sources on academic consensus ... so far as I can tell, there may not be any. My own personal WP:OR on the matter seems to reveal that one of the biggest impediments may be a language bias. Contemporary left-libertarianism seems mostly centered in non-English speaking countries, and may even be the dominant form of libertarianism in many of those countries. I've found non-RS evidence of this idea, but nothing usable in WP yet. BigK HeX (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the list of sources, check Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_19#RFC:_Should_this_page_discuss_only_right-libertarianism.3F ... and look at my "Broad" !vote. It's wikilinked there (something like "unrefuted sources" or something like that). One of the vocal minority apparently had intentions of challenging the sources... but .... gave up?? BigK HeX (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's best to bring these concerns to the talk page where several of us can encourage you to go back through hundreds of pages of archives to see the same "deletionist" points refuted over and over again. (I automatically move such things there myself.)

By the way, what ref's besides Rands and a list of Libertarian parties did BlueRobe provide? Yesterday I went through whole current talk page and that's all I found. Don't answer here. Will look again and ask at the article talk page if I see more discussion of these sources I can't seem to find. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Libertarianism. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

See this edit. Suspecting it's a banned user is not enough. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What a great game.. lemme try!

Reasonably suspecting it's a banned user IS enough. BigK HeX (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to copy images of the Geolocate page of five or six of KIK's last comments like this one so that others will see how clear the pattern is. Stick it on a web page somewhere and link to it every time. Or at least links to the last few geolocate pages. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's far better to Deny Recognition to KiK. I deleted the thread, since I'm more than happy to have my actions validated at ANI, if needed. If there's an ANI or something, then I could post evidence, but placing notifications on the talk page designed especially for KiK would only encourage that banned editor's disruption. BigK HeX (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is good to warn people this might be a sock puppet with evidence. Such as a link to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmaisking and even a special talk page that has links to KIK's last few socks on Talk:libertarianism. It's a good lesson for people new to/inexpert at dealing with socks. (Remember the nitpick WP:ANI for my inexpert accusation before I discovered Geolocators. He must have loved that!) That's minimal attention for him but education for others and a defense against warnings like this one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the editors who would care about the deletion of KiK's threads are the ones who would agree with him, so it's pointless to warn them. Hell ... come to think of it, hasn't KiK been all over their talk pages, with them high-fiving each other? BigK HeX (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was him. Here's an example of recent edits from KiK's known range [8]. That's clearly him. But the most recent IP range has a completely different editing pattern [9]. Yworo (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was him. I've got diffs that would likely make the case indisputable. I'm pretty judicious in my accusation of sockpuppetry, but KiK and I have tangled for years now. I consider myself pretty familiar with the intruder. BigK HeX (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Related question couldn't get answer to after a search. Why can't we find out location of registered users with Geolocate, only with check user? A technical issue or some wikipolicy. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia carries a policy of anonymity to protect ones identity/location. So the IP addresses that usernames access from are not provided publicly. There are various privacy rules that govern this as well. So a combination of the two :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder. That's why wikiscanner's (outdated) checkuser is so naughty ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × looks like you got an answer already though) Some wikipolicy. I'd guess it's the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Seems it'd be easy to produce a tool that is more accessible without the privacy concenrs, though. BigK HeX (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

By its language the deleted comment was obviously by the banned User:Karmaisking. N6n (talk)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs The Great Moderation Peter Kenen Jesús Huerta de Soto Sirloin steak Excess supply Monetary base The Conscience of a Conservative Sir Bagby Dennis Robertson Ogalur Nick Gillespie Countercyclical Economic expansion Leonard Read Complete economic integration Brian Doherty (journalist) Mary Kenny Theory of value (economics) A Monetary History of the United States

Cleanup Free banking Tea Party protests Limited government Merge Contractionary monetary policy Nationalism Liberal nationalism Add Sources Fascism Right-wing politics Nature's services Wikify Welfare William Adama Real bills doctrine Expand Endogenous money General glut Conservatism

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

IP range

I'm a long-time Wikipedian with no history of vandalism. BigK HeX (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Further note: I believe my IP may be dynamic, but hopefully I won't be too much trouble. BigK HeX (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like, I could enquire of Brandon about giving you an IP block exemption. I can't release that IP block as a normal administrator, but an IPBE would allow you to edit through an ip block as if you were an administrator. Syrthiss (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that something that would only apply to this Registered Account? Or would it be something that vandals could abuse as well? If it's something that still keeps the vandals on the IP range at bay, then I'd be cool with that [read: very appreciative], if it's not too much trouble. BigK HeX (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It would only apply to this account. The IP itself will remain blocked. Essentially, it makes it so that nobody can accidentally block you. To block you, they have to block this account deliberately. I'll drop a note on Brandon's page and make sure he's ok with it. Syrthiss (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... sounds cool. Thanks for your efforts on this matter! Hopefully, Brandon's response will be as quick as yours  :) BigK HeX (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Since he hasn't edited since the end of August, I also dropped a copy on Jpgordon's page as well. Hopefully we'll hear from one of them soon. Syrthiss (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming

I'm not sure whether you are aware of this, but it makes interesting reading. Yworo (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the Libertarianism article just got more lively [how is that possible?!]. I guess we'll see. It's good that you're able to continue contributing. Having the opinion of uninvolved editors is an immense help BigK HeX (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am so tempted to just take it off my watchlist, but won't for now... though I see no end in sight... Yworo (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems FG is now up for a community ban discussion. Yworo (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to chill out a little bit

Your edit summaries are getting a bit heated. Time to have a nice cup of tea, a bex, and a good lie down before finalising edits. Take the chance to read over the edit summary before hitting enter, and think what your grandfather, aunt, or child would think on the receiving end of such a summary. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

For your advisement to be helpful here, you'll have to be specific as I really have no idea which edit summaries you could be referring to.... BigK HeX (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this edit summary on Libertarianism. The heat seemed to be in the double and triple emphatics (caps, **double bolding**). It certainly isn't uneditorial heat, but calm authority helps improve the article climate; and, editorial heat can lead to personal heat. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno ... emphasis seemed appropriate, since the previous edit comment requesting talk page discussion went ignored. Perhaps, you're right though. BigK HeX (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

plz take the high road for the sake of the article, your last post is a response to an editor, nothing to do with the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe's continuing disruption

I've started an AN/I posting but don't have time to finish it now. I've documented all the warnings. All it needs now is documentation of the incivility and personal attacks. The draft is here. Feel free to complete and post to AN/I. If not, I will work on it when I get back. Yworo (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I warned BlueRobe, I placed a copy of the diff as part of the warning. Additionally, your draft isn't correct right now, he did respond to a number of warnings; the responses which stick in my mind were rejection out of hand. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh.... coincidentally, I was going to draft a report in the next couple of hours. I should be able to finish it up for you, Yworo. BigK HeX (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Email

You don't seem to have an email link. Could you add one to your profile? I have something I think you should know that's not ready for public comment. Yworo (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to set one up. It'll have to be later though. On the road right now. BigK HeX (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No prob, it's not urgent. Yworo (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Say, any chance you could do this soon? The info gets more pertinent as things continue to develop. Yworo (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Gimme 1 sec. BigK HeX (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I rather expected you to register an email in your Wikipedia profile, but this will do just as well. I have some errands to run, but will email you in a bit. Yworo (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

IBCR, LVMI and adding purposeful, beneficial and insightful material to the economics and the Austrian economics articles

Why are you so concerned with IBCR and the think tank labeled in the articles of 10 years ago, but now published by the Mises Institute? Would you not be more concerned with the content of the material and acknowledge that it is a reliable source and has been published and reproduced throughout academia?

The Prehistory of Modern Economic Thought: The Aristotle in Austrian Theory - http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Ptak1.pdf

Action, Coordination, and Exchange: Voluntary Response to External Stimuli - http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Ptak2.pdf

PraxisConsensus (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be finding in those links?

In any case, why are you so enamored of a document that seems to be so obscure? BigK HeX (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

This is to commend you for your diligence in making sure article content adheres to what is supported in reliable sources that are not obscure. Good job, and thank you! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the issues will be hashed out! It'd be good to see that we can disagree agreeably. BigK HeX (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Here's the incident report I submitted regarding you deleting my comments from the libertarianism talk page. Xerographica (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Observation

Man, some of these editors are certainly prone to self-destruction. It's like watching a slow-motion train wreck. Must pull myself away and go watch a DVD or something... Yworo (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! What was it you pointed out once... "Shoot ... self ... foot"  :) BigK HeX (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you believe this shite? Yworo (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to border on tendentious (and I mean "border" in the same way as the KAL 007 pilots). Born2Cycle is one of the most congenial of those sharing that objections of the vocal minority ... so, I won't push very hard on this one. But, this probably is the last one that I can stomach. BigK HeX (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Chuckle. Seems to me it's getting to be user conduct RfC time. I've dropped a note on Georgewilliamherbert's talk page, so let's see if he has any comment first, though. Yworo (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. He mentioned he'd help keep an eye out for possible trouble. BigK HeX (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If this ain't trouble, I don't know what is. :-) Yworo (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

libertarianism

I'm not sure I want to vote per se. I'd like my point to be addressed, and I don't really think this is an issue that ought to be up for a vote. john k (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger. I don't think there's much policy justification for it myself. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

re User:BlueRobe

If they remove comments from their talkpage it should be assumed that they have read it - there is no point in reverting such removals, and is strongly discouraged. WP:TPOC is the page, for future reference. I am also removing the personal attack by BlueRobe. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So you did. My mistake, but one that hopefully reminds you to be more careful - in case of any other inattentive readers - when posting; if it is new, don't revert and amend. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

since blue is banned, and now likely to not even be able to use his talk page, would you consider not commenting on his talk again unless you are issuing a warning? you comments only antagonize blue, and you really have nothing more to do there. several editors have supported the idea of you not having interaction with blue on his talk, it is clear you and he will not be able to have constructive discussion, and your efforts are not helping progress, rather contributing to the disruption indirectly. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trying to excuse Blue's behavior, Darkstar. Blue's being blocked was due solely to Blue's actions. The blocking of the talk page was due to a gratuitous personal attack against two editors ... posted before BigK HeX responded to it. Since that comment was quite abusive towards BigK HeX, it's unreasonable to ask BigK HeX not to respond, and as for baiting, in that case it was clearly Blue doing the baiting. I personally believe Blue should be community banned. Yworo (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a moot point now. BigK HeX (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverted

[10] can you please expalin on the article talk page why you did this revert thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Two kinds of left lib and right lib

In the outline I'm trying to distinguish the two forms of left/right-libertarianism used in sources. They're very different.

In some sources LL is used as a synonym for lib socialism, and to distinguish from the US form of lib (for lack of a better term) which is referred to as RL.

But in other sources the US form is subdivided into RL and LL to distingish the minarchist from the A-Cs, reflecting whether the ideologies are coming from the political left or right. This LL is very different from LS.

I thought geolibertarians, mutualists, green libertarians are all basically the libertarian socialist type of left-libertarian, which is why I put them in that section, rather than the Rothbardian type of A-C left-libertarian. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be an accurate understanding of left-libertarianism, so I suspect that it's either a very obscure usage of the term "left lib" (possibly only existent in blogs) or that you may have misread the source. AFAIK "left lib" is never used solely to distinguish anarchists from minarchists. BigK HeX (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that explains why you keep changing it. I'll try to find the solid sources, but any time A-C Karl Hess is referred to as a left libertarian is an example of that usage. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

here is one. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright ... that's a source that Karl Hess can be considered left-lib (though I strongly suspect that the description is outdated and only applicable to his time in the New Left movement). Still not really a source that ancap is left-lib. Here are a few sources indicating ancap as right-lib: [11], [12], [13]. It's quite conceivable that I could just have been missing something, but I've never heard ancap referred to as left-lib. BigK HeX (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This source is explicit about usage:

By left-libertarianism I mean the position that Carson has described as agreeing “with the Greens and other left-wing decentralists on the evils to which they object in current society and on their general view of a good society,” but “with free market libertarians on their analysis of the cause of such evils and how to get from here to there,” or in summary form, “green ends with libertarian means.” (Carson 2009a, pp. 1-2) Or, in historical terms, I mean the movement that, while having its roots in the individualist anarchism of the 19th century (particularly such figures as Thomas Hodgskin, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, and Voltairine de Cleyre), emerged or re-emerged in the 1960s through the rapprochement between libertarianism and the New Left (as represented by Murray Rothbard’s journal Left & Right, as well as the early years, at least, of its successor Libertarian Forum), was continued in the 1970s by Samuel Konkin’s “Movement of the Libertarian Left,” and broadened in recent years into the Alliance of the Libertarian Left. Left-libertarianism in this sense should not be confused with the more recent use of the term to describe the neo-Georgist position of such theorists as Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner, and Michael Otsuka (though overlap between these two forms of left-libertarianism is certainly possible).

Source: http://praxeology.net/historical-justice.doc (Robert T. Long)

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This, by the way, is exactly the kind of confusion I was talking about yesterday, and why we have to be wary of context. Whenever Robert T Long uses "left-libertarian" he means something quite different from what it is used for in other sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of a problem to reconcile the left-lib movements that Long describes. I'll have to read more there to see what distinctions Long finds between the two; I can think of one or two, but it doesn't seem hugely problematic. (As a side note: I'm not aware of ancap being associated with either sense of left-lib.) BigK HeX (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For an association of A-C with one type of LL, see Karl Hess, and note that he is in both categories, and the sources support it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not evidence of association of ancap with LL. Please continue reading more about Hess so that you can understand why both categories have been applied to him. BigK HeX (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

[14]

I guess your not all bad. :P Toa Nidhiki05 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Must've been a full moon :oP

BigK HeX (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Methinks the sock drawer is open

User:BallaratMines - look at what gets mined in Ballarat, Victoria in Australia. The name is almost clever. Ravensfire (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, SPI filed. Ravensfire (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep... I assumed it was a sock, though I've been too lazy in the last few weeks to file the SPIs on-sight. BigK HeX (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not following you or anything. I came over to ask you something about the TPM, but the sock thing is intrigues me. How can this person possibly have that many socks and still be editing here?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to visit my talk page anytime.

He seems to have a lot of free time -- possibly unemployable, which might be related to the evidence of delusional behavior shown here. In any case, when he's online it's easy for him to change up access. But, the Internet Service Provider has been bringing a fair amount of heat already forcing some inconvenience on him, so his days are numbered. BigK HeX (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

XD, he might well be unemployed due to that behavior.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And another one found. Alas, the name is nowhere near as clever as the earlier one. And I'd thought Kik was showing some originality. He's returned to his uncivil ways of late, including his usual monologues. Why, we should create a Supervillian named Kik, who uses the Power of Austrianism to render his victim helpless!

@Malke 2010 - believe me, we'd love to know the answers to some those questions too! He comes across as fairly intelligent and extremely driven (see how long he's been doing this!), but uultimately unable to function in a group that doesn't immediately agree with his fews. There's probably only a few socks that can compete with Kik for longevity and persistence (ignoring the pure vandalism socks like Hagger) - maybe only Scibaby. Sigh, and I stumbled into it by accident, and now I'm too stubborn to leave. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair

Since I said something to the other side, I need to point out that you were getting close to going over 3rr on Tea Party movement. While it's not as bad as Libertarianism, things can get hot and there are more than a few people willing to push things beyond the line. Stay cool, use the talk page and be aggressive about pulling other onto the talk page (post on their user talk if needed). Hate to see you get blocked over something that's ultimately pretty minor. Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep ... thanks. I noticed the brewing edit war there. I was pretty much done with the issue on my last edit. I figured that -- by then -- I had made my points on the talk page, and the more-involved editors there could weigh the sourcing issues. BigK HeX (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The conflict arose after properly worded and sourced content was removed from the article. Gradually over time, different editors began re-introducing small, incomplete portions of that content back into the article based only on limited sources. For example, you returned the content that conveyed Shuler heard slurs at the protest, which is technically correct. Other editors removed that content because they recalled something about Shuler's statements later being contested and corrected, which is also technically correct. Both sides of that story were once in the article. There is an interesting back-story to the whole Shuler thing, if you are interested, but you can get the gist of it from these 3 short articles:

• Within 48 hours of the protest, Shuler comments on the racial slurs, spitting and displays of anger.
• 3 weeks later, after AP quotes his previous comments, Shuler still confirms he was screamed at by protestors, and confirms he heard a number of racial remarks, but claims the only specific slur he discussed with the reporter was one directed at Frank.
• The following day, instead of issuing a retraction or a correction, the press reiterates that Shuler did indeed tell the reporter that he was walking with Cleaver when racial epithets were shouted, and says now he is "changing his story" and "distancing himself" from the comments he had previously made.

I guess politicians will be politicians, swaying whichever way the strongest winds blow. Anyway, I returned an accurate, albeit severely neutered, bit of that content back into the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good info there. Thanks, Xeno! BigK HeX (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been paying attention to that section. I've been looking at the elections. I was thinking about maybe thinning out the racism section to make bullet points with specific incidents and do away with some of that counter arguments by the others were weren't even there. I was wondering what you thought of that. We worked before to pare down the media section, and I was thinking it might work again. Want to try it?Malke 2010 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The issues are so controversial, I think removing rebuttals and counterclaims could severely impact neutrality. especially from the point-of-view of Tea Party supporters. Not sure if there's a good solution there that would reduce the amount of text significantly. BigK HeX (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not removing rebuttals, but thin it a bit so the salient points are easily found. I'm thinking of the reader showing up to and finding blocks of text, etc. Also, there's some redundancy that has accumulated over time, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Keynesian Economics: Austrian School Criticism

I was wondering what your reasons were behind removing Where Keynes Went Wrong from the discussion about books using Austrian school criticism in the Keynesian economics article.  Lewis's book updates Hazlitt, so it is relevant in that regard.  It contains a clear exposition of what Keynes actually said and draws heavily on direct quotation (it's not only criticism of Keynes).  Also, there is huge debate about stimulus and quantitative easing going on right now and Where Keynes Went Wrong provides arguments concerning these subjects (using both Keynes's arguments as well as criticism).