User talk:Infinity0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Archive 01 2005-09 to 2005-11
2. Archive 02 2005-12 to 2005-02
3. Archive 03 2005-03 to 2005-04

[edit] Chess

Idea copied from User talk:Sasquatch

Contents 1 Chess 2 Whether Anarchists FAQ is a reliable source 2.1 An excercise for the group 2.2 Summary 2.2.1 Use as primary source 2.2.2 Use as a secondary source 3 Hello! 4 Politics template 5 Anti-capitalism 6 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade 7 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0 8 Thank you for your help 9 Self note 10 the FAQ 11 AFAQ and your RFAR 12 No problem 13 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade 14 Wage Labour 15 Welcome back 16 projects 17 Thanks 18 eh??? 19 Welcome back 2 20 Big surprise (not) 21 Anarcho-socialism 22 Your motive 23 User notice: temporary 3RR block 23.1 Regarding reversions[3] made on June 26, 2006 (UTC) to Anarchism 24 Email 25 Email 26 Email 27 Marxism 28 Eh? 29 capitalism 30 Apologies in advance 31 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0 32 Some pages 33 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alienus 34 Thank you! 35 TfD nomination of Template:Anarchism table 36 rewriting the marxism page 37 Re: Bit of advice 38 Hey! 39 Arbitration enforcement 40 Welcome back 41 Right back atcha! 42 An Apology 43 Revenge box 44 Contradictions on your userpage 45 Congrats! 46 RE: rand 47 Chess game 48 Just saying hi

[edit] Whether Anarchists FAQ is a reliable source

You state," it has been used as a primary source as an example of what anarchists think " but this is an overbroad use. The FAQ does not speak for all anarchists^[1] any more than the Heritage Foundation speaks for all conservatives or the Independent Women's Forum speaks for all feminists. You will probably not find any citations to the Heritage Foundation described as proving how conservatives view an issue. Rather, an article should say, "The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, stated..." or "John Smith of the Heritage Foundation wrote..."

I have no doubt that AFAQ is an extremely valuble resource for condensing and summarizing anarchist thought, and it seems to be well-regarded for performing that function.^[2] In which case it should be relatively easy to solve this disagreement. Rather that writing a blanket statement, "The anarchist movement's position on issue X is..." delve into the FAQ and find one of those notable writers whose thought is summarized there and use him by name and with the original source citation^[3], "Prominent anarchist John Smith, in a policy paper released by the X club, wrote..." At the very least, you should say, "The authors of AFAQ view this issue as..." leaving the the possibility that another editor could come along and add a conflicting view ("However, prominent anarcho-capitalist John Doe disagrees, claiming..." In short the AFAQ should not be used as a source of what "Anarchists" think, but should either be a guide for you to find primary citations to specific persons, or as a last resort, as a source for what "the editors of AFAQ" think.

^[1]The reason I say this is that the editorial process for the anarchists FAQ is not transparent, and there is no peer review process. Contributions get e-mailed to the editors and they decide what to include. There appear to be a number of significant sub-groups of anarchists, and you have no real idea whether they consider all contributions in an unbiased fashion or if they have ignored significant views that they disagree with. (Bias can also be subtle, such as presenting "both sides" of an argument but describing one side using weaker language or poorer sources so as to create an impression that it is not as credible.) You state, "The FAQ makes a good faith attempt to explain individualist anarchism" but you don't know that because you don't know what submissions they have rejected. You state, " anarchists of all types may have contributed content to the FAQ." You admit that you don't know whether contributions cover the broad range of anarchist thought, much less whether the editors consider them all fairly. It's nice to assume good faith but that doesn't prove it any more than being suspcious of them proves the opposite.

^[2]To the extent that AFAQ contains broad statements that are not supported by references to specific persons, this may be the voice of the editors and should be considered original research, suitable as a primary source for what the editors think but not a source for what (all) anarchists think.

^[3]Science journals publish lots of review articles summarizing recent developments in a particular field (biology, medicine, etc) that describe, cite and interpret primary research reports. It is generally preferable to not cite previous reviews of the same topic, since that introduces an extra layer of interpretation; rather, authors should go back to the original research reports and cite them directly. Thatcher131 15:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs).(Sorry about that, I wrote it in a user sandbox and forgot to sign when I pasted it acrosss) Thatcher131 15:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the FAQ is not transparent - but the authors themselves acknowledge that "they are sure some will disagree with us" [1]. I just think saying "An Anarchist FAQ says" is clumsy at times and implies that nobody else thinks this. I do think the FAQ does indeed voice the views of many anarchists, but I see your point that AFAQ does not represent all anarchists. At times I have used "Many anarchists, including AFAQ, think". Would this phrasing be acceptable? It uses AFAQ as a citation, but maintains generality. -- infinity0 14:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So... what do you think? I replied just up there. -- infinity0 15:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Working on it. Right now I have to change the oil in my lawnmower, plus a few other things to prove to my wife I'm not a computer-bound paraplegic. I'll get back to you shortly. Thatcher131 15:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally I think saying, "(all) X believe Y" (whether all is stated or implied) is a bad idea. It's much better to say, for example, "George Will wrote..." than "Conservatives say..." Hence my first suggestion that you cite by name the anarchists whose work is condensed and excerpted in the FAQ along with the original source (wherever appropriate).

I agree that always writing "An Anarchist FAQ says" is clumsy, as is "Many anarchists, including the editors of AFAQ, think" although the send seems to be relatively fair and may address some of RJII's concerns. However I generally think that in most disputes, adding more information is a good way to work on the problem. For example, think about this:

Example (My suggestions in bold)

---

Most anarchists (particularly social ones)Social anarchists maintain strongly that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism (even though anarcho-capitalism considers itself an anti-statist philosophy) since they believe anarchism to be necessarily anti-capitalist as well as anti-statist.^[1] They note that "anarchy" etymologically means "without rulers",^[2] rather than "without the State", and they argue that capitalism is characterized by such authoritative structures.^[3]

References

1. ^ Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible; John Clark, The Anarchist Moment; Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against; Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power; David Weick, Anarchist Justice; Brian Morris, Anthropology and Anarchism; Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (no. 45); Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy; Donald Rooum, What is Anarchism?; Bob Black, The Libertarian as Conservative
2. ^ Online Etymology Dictionary entry for "anarchy"
3. ^ |McKay, Elkin, Neal, et al B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty? An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.4. Accessed March, 2006. The editors acknowledge they are social anarchists but state that they accept contributions to the FAQ from all strains of anarchist thought. However, this can not be independently verified.

---

There are two suggestions here with overlapping purposes. First, rather than say "most anarchists" which, if we want to be picky, can't be proved without a reliable opinion survey of some kind, and which is a poor formulation anyway, just acknowledge that the main dispute is between socialists and capitalists. I don't see the harm in that, and it would avoid the concern that the FAQ does not equally represent all sides. If there is a third branch that has a concurring view, you can put in an extra sentence with a separate ref. The other suggestion is to label the faq to include RJII's concern about who it really represents. I don't believe this overshadows the FAQ, but it does provide some important context. You are already using the cite.php footnotes and since that allows for any text to be added, it can be used to clarify points or provide useful context where doing so in the main body of the article would create a sloppy article.

One value of a secondary source is that it allows you to cite one source cleanly rather than multiple primary sources. If you can determine when the editors are compiling and citing several other notable anarchists (rather than speaking for themselves), then instead of having to include 5 or six separate footnotes, you could write in the article, "Anarchists including Joe Smith, John Doe and Amy Roe have argued..." and in the footnote write, "As summarized in the AFAQ section 4.2 and its internal citations." In this case the AFAQ is clearly an acceptable secondary source summarizing other named authors, as long as it provides citations to those authors.

Exactly how you use the FAQ in other articles will depend on the context and will demand some flexibility from all sides. Quote individuals by name if you can. Sometimes you may want to simply say, "Social anarchists believe...". other times use an explanatory footnote, and as a last resort the clumsy but fair, "Many anarchists, including the editors of AFAQ, think..."

Certainly the AFAQ is a valuable source document, the key is to be open and flexible about how to use it, and provide additional info to avoid confusion or misinterpretation where necessary. I hope this proves useful to all sides in this debate. Thatcher131 03:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

not that anyone seems to care what i think, but Thatcher31's formulation is, to my mind, a an ideal solution to the problem. ElectricRay 18:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem though. The FAQ cannot speak for any "social anarchists" other than themselves.RJII 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that they are gathering and summarizing the views of others, I disagree. See "One value of a secondary source..." above and excercize part 1 below. Thatcher131 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

But, according to Wikipedia policy, it can't be used as a secondary source. Right? It self-published on a "personal website" (the policy explicitly prohibits such a thing from being used as a secondary source). If they're "summarizing the views of others," then citing those summaries would be using it as a secondary source. Policy WP:V says, "Self-published sources... may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them." Besides that, as far as we know, the writers/editors are nobodies. RJII 03:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And, those social anarchists who are writing the FAQ are, as far as I know, non-notable anarchists (they're just your average Joe Blow Internet Anarchists). So, even their own opinion on their own anarchism shouldn't be in an article about anarchism. RJII 01:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This would depend on whether they have been cited as a source by other reliable sources. See excercise part 2, below.Thatcher131 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, their own anarchism could count in such a case, but then only in articles about themselves. RJII 03:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An excercise for the group

• Speaking from an extensive background in several types of research, this is raising some interesting issues for me, particularly because the editors of AFAQ seem to blur the lines between collecting and summarizing anarchist thought and including their own thoughts. Here's an excercise for the group in two parts.

Part 1. Review the cases where you want to cite the AFAQ in support of some claim about anarchism. Are you citing the FAQ because of what the editors are saying in their own voice, or because it is a convenient summary of the writings of other anarchists (via that 50 page bibliography)? If you are citing the faq because it is a convenient summary, change the footnotes to refer to the original writers, for example, "Smith, Jones, and Green, as summarized in AFAQ section x.x and its bibliography." This should raise no objections at all, because it is simply a shortcut for writing out a bunch of separate footnotes. If you want to cite the FAQ in places where the editors are writing in their own voice, then move on to part 2.

Part 2. Locate anarchists who have cited the FAQ in their own work, which will tend to prove that the authors of the FAQ are considered notable by others in their field. Blogs and other self-published sources don't count; let's stick to peer-reviewed academic journals and books published by non-vanity presses and see what we get. If you can find multiple cases of anarchists citing the FAQ in significant publications, that will establish that they are considered notable. The proper form in the article would be, "McKay et al. write..." or "McKay et al, writing from a social anarchist point of view..." or "McKay et al, summarizing several strains of anarchist thought, write..." Just as an article will cite the views of Rand or Herbert or Rothbard or Wilson, you can cite the views of McKay (if he proves notable by this test). Thatcher131 02:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

So, what do we have? Could I confirm the following: The FAQ can be used-

• As a primary source to indicate anarchist opinion. Acceptable wordings? (strike out as you see fit)
  • "Anarchists (such as FAQ) think" - perhaps only in context with non-anarchists
  • "Most anarchists think [cite FAQ]" - usage of "most" too unsecure?
  • "Most anarchists (such as FAQ) think"
  • "Many anarchists think [cite FAQ]"
  • "The FAQ thinks" - a bit clumsy IMO
• As a secondary source when they are summarising the words of others authors.

-- infinity0 16:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

None of the above really. Sorry, and see below. I think you have missed some of my suggestions; understandable as I do get very wordy. Thatcher131 02:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

According to policy, it can only be used in the An Anarchist FAQ article. RJII 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use as primary source

When describing the FAQ itself you can use its own words, labeled as "The authors of..." or "The editors of..." When describing how great or useful it is (in its own article) you should refer to the words of others. Although RJII may disagree, I think that now that the AK press web site has announced it as a forthcoming title, that would support the statement, "AK press has announced its intention to publish a print version of the AFQ in 2007." (It is not for us to determine whether AK press is lying about its own business plans. That they have made the announcement is a fact; its truth is not able to be determined by us nor should we try, per WP:RS.

[edit] Use as a secondary source

• I think RJII is splitting the hare a bit too fine at this point, but I'll come back to that.

• In general you should never say "Xs think Y" (or any sub-variation like "Most Xs, such as X¹, think Y"). *It is better to say, "John Smith said..." and give a citation.
• You would never say, "The anarchists who protested the WTO last week think..." because there are too many viewpoints. You might say, "John Smith, one of the organizers, said...", or "A spokesman for Anarchists 'R' Us, one of the groups sponsoring the protest, said..."
• The anarchism articles I have looked at do cite various anarchist writers and thinkers by name. That should be promoted and encouraged. Named writers and the original source should be used in place of the AFQ wherever possible.

• There are two reasons you might want to cite the AFAQ as a secondary source.

1. Because it summarizes the opinions of several other writers in a particulary useful way.
2. Because the opinion of the editors is interesting in and of itself.

In both cases, RJII's argument is that the AFAQ is not a reliable source. The RS policy says in part, a personal web site is no more reliable than a flyer on a telephone pole, or something like that. However, I think AFAQ is in gray area. Certainly the editors have taken pains to compile an extensive bibliography which can be easily checked if there are accusations that they have misquoted someone. The editors of the FAQ may emphasize certain points of view over others but that is true of every book author as well. And since AK press has announced the FAQ will be published in 2007, then the editors certainly will count as reliable sources then, unless RJ wants to claim that none of the books by AK is a reliable source. I think the AFAQ fits the spirit of RS at this time if not quite the letter. I suspect the complaints are more over how it is used anyway than the fact that it is used at all.

• In case 1 where the FAQ is simply a convenient summary of others, you should be able to cite, John Smith and Mary Jones, as summarized in AFAQ section x.x, MArch 14, 2006. Based on what I said above, I believe this is reasonable. A truly concerned reader could go through the FAQ bibliography and break the citation down into its smaller parts, but I don't believe that is necessary as long as the FAQ continues its practice of maintaining a good bibliopgraphy.

• In case 2 where you are interested in the opinions of the editors themselves I believe the AFAQ can be treated as you would treat a book. You would cite it as McKay, Elkin, Neal and Boraas, An Anarchist FAQ, section x.x, March 14, 2006. I know RJ will disagree but I think at this point this is a reasonable compromise. But you have to be careful how you use it. You would never cite a book by Chomsky or Proudhon as if it represented all thought on a topic, and you should not do so with the AFAQ. It represents the opinions of its editors, and should be cited to show that (by their names).

I would like to think RJ could agree on this compromise. The alternative, to wait until publication in 2007 seems like a waste of time and unlikely to result in the improvement of the encyclopedia. The important thing is that you can't use AFAQ to "prove" anything about anarchism; you have to use it like you would a book or magazine article to support your summary of the topic. Not "The AFAQ shows" or "The AFAQ proves" but, "McKay writes" or "Smith and Jones write, as summarized in AFAQ"

---

I have explained my views about as well as I can. I apologize for the length, my wife says I talk too much. If there is still a disagreement, and if you still both consider my comments useful, perhaps it is time to look at specific examples where you disagree. Alternatively, we could jointly file an article RFC (not a personal one but a topical one) and each state our cases and get some more outside opinions. Hope this helps! Thatcher131 02:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Splitting the hare"? Cutting a rabbit in half? Surely you meant "splitting the hair," which is idiomatic English and makes some sense as an image, too -- suggesting a too-dextrous dichotomy! --Christofurio 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Recently I've thrown together a website which I have tentatively entitled "The Radical Economics Compendium" ... as of right now it constitutes little more than a product of a few hours brainstorming. The page containing a directory of radical political economists is currently the most developed part. I thought there was a chance that you might find something there of use to your own endeavours so I am sending you the link .... http://www3.sympatico.ca/bernard.leask/twentyfirst.html ...i can be contacted at bernard.leask@sympatico.ca ...cheers BernardL 21:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics template

Um, Ugly or not ugly, I don't know. The template is placed in all articles mentioned in the Portal:Politics. When the article has allready another template, like template:Anarchism, it is not added, since that template links also to the Portal:Politics. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-capitalism

That is even worse because it makes it seem like all anarchist dispute the place of AC in the anarchist movement. I suggest "some" or removing that part altogether. There is enough discussion about anarchism and AC in other places. -- Vision Thing -- 16:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that it matters little what "anarchists think" unless they are notable anarchists. From my readings, most scholars do regard anarcho-capitalism as anarchism. There is no shortage of scholarly sources for it being anarchism. RJII 16:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant which facts you think matters, RJII. Vision Thing: definitely not "some", but it seems other users apart from me think it should be mentioned. I won't re-insert it this time if you remove it, but if others re-insert it then I will start doing too. -- infinity0 17:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Joe Anarchist on the street has no credibility on Wikipedia as to whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. It doesn't matter what anarchists think unless they're published/notable anarchists. RJII 17:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your help

Thank you for your help regarding User:DakotaKahn earlier. ForgetNever 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self note

An Anarchist FAQ has been cited and used as a reference in two books

• Viable Utopian Ideas: Shaping a Better World - Page 188
  • edited by Arthur B Shostak - 2003 - 288 pages
  • References Agarwal, B. “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Studies 18, no. 1(1992): 119—58. An Anarchist FAQ Webpage (2001).

• Utopia and Organization - Page 201
  • by Parker - Business & Economics - 2002 - 200 pages
  • This principle is also of course central to anarchist ideas and practices on organizing (eg Bookchin, 1971; Malatesta, 1995; An Anarchist FAQ Webpage.

[edit] the FAQ

Ok, but that doesn't mean it's a credible source on Wikipedia. Policy says: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." As far as I or you know, the writers of the FAQ are not "professional researchers in a relevant field" but are just amateur internet anarchists with no credentials. And, of course, it's never been "published by credible, third-party publications." RJII 01:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFAQ and your RFAR

I'm not bothered by your discontinuing the discussion; it was (I hoped) for your and RJII's mutual benefit, and you're obviously busy so no problem at all. I'm pretty sure Arbcom isnt't going to be interested in the content dispute that underlies the personal dispute; they try to avoid making decisions about content. After thinking about it I decided to give them the links to the discussion to show that we were trying to work it out. (They can read for themselves and take it any way they want; RJ being civil and working it out; RJ being stubborn and ignoring good advice from multiple other editors who jumped it, whatever...they've seen a lot of disputes and I'm sure they know pretty much what evidence they're looking for and what they're not.) Good luck. Thatcher131 01:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

No problem, happy to help ;-) DGX 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wage Labour

I'll be happy to give you a hand with it -- I can go over it and gather data on it (maybe I can find one of my old PoliSci textbooks that had an entire section devoted to the exploitation of labour). •Jim62sch• 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll also have a look, all these articles need some working out. But this will need some time... However, concerning the article, I think one big problem is that it says "wage labour has existed for thousands of year", which is quite strange, and also seems to confuse slave labor, serfs and forced labour as "wage labour", which it is not at all. While there is doubtlessly lots to be found in The Capital, the chapter on Wages labour at the end of the first Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 is probably the easier way to understand it. Marx's theory of alienation also need a rewrite following this perspective. A few quotes: "The lowest and the only necessary wage rate is that providing for the subsistence of the worker for the duration of his work and as much more as is necessary for him to support a family and for the race of labourers not to die out. The ordinary wage, according to [Adam] Smith, is the lowest compatible with common humanity [6], that is, with cattle-like existence." According to the early political economists, such as Smith, the wage (determined by the labour market) payed only covered basic expenses to survive; hence Marx's definition of the term as being what permits to reproduce the labour force (that is pay the expenses of the food & lodging of the workers & that's it), no more. In the manuscript, he shows how this produces alienation. Marx didn't invent the concept, but he reversed it against the classical economists:

"In theory, rent of land and profit on capital are deductions suffered by wages. In actual fact, however, wages are a deduction which land and capital allow to go to the worker, a concession from the product of labour to the workers, to labour. (...) It goes without saying that the proletarian, i.e., the man who, being without capital and rent, lives purely by labour, and by a one-sided, abstract labour, is considered by political economy only as a worker. Political economy can therefore advance the proposition that the proletarian, the same as any horse, must get as much as will enable him to work. It does not consider him when he is not working, as a human being; but leaves such consideration to criminal law, to doctors, to religion, to the statistical tables, to politics and to the poor-house overseer. "

The end of the first manuscript on Estranged Labour is also fundamental: "In these two respects, then, the worker becomes a slave of his object; firstly, in that he receives an object of labour, i.e., he receives work, and, secondly, in that he receives means of subsistence. Firstly, then, so that he can exist as a worker, and secondly as a physical subject. The culmination of this slavery is that it is only as a worker that he can maintain himself as a physical subject and only as a physical subject that he is a worker.

(The estrangement of the worker in his object is expressed according to the laws of political economy in the following way:

1. the more the worker produces, the less he has to consume; 2. the more value he creates, the more worthless he becomes; 3. the more his product is shaped, the more misshapen the worker; 4. the more civilized his object, the more barbarous the worker; 5. the more powerful the work, the more powerless the worker; 6. the more intelligent the work, the duller the worker and the more he becomes a slave of nature.)"

Before wages, the means of life were provided by nature and work directly in connection with nature. Now, to find food, one must first find work, and then only can he receive his means of subsistence. This means that everybody enters the system of wages labour, and is thus subject to the pressions which capital exerces over wages (using workers' wages as an adjustment variable for the conjonctural needs of the economy, using the unemployed pool of people as a pression to keep wages low, etc.). The chapter on the Working-Day in Capital may also be useful. Slowly but surely... Cheers! Santa Sangre 21:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

So, how did the exams go? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] projects

Yeh Users in atlanta. heh . This should be cut short or end date full blockage This should be cut short or end date full blockage. This should be cut short or end date full blockage. This should be cut short or end date full blockage. This should be cut short or end date full blockage. This should be cut short or end date full blockage. This should be cut short or end date full blockage. This should be cut short or end date full blockage. This should be cut short or end date full blockage. This should be cut short or end date full blockage. This should be cut short or end date full blockage -- maxrspct leave a message 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I appreciate the Wikistar. Now all I have to do is keep on earning it. The Randists have, as expected, won their bid to excise all criticism to a sub-page. Our job is to make sure that this does not become the POV fork they so desire. This means keeping the summary in the main article accurate, as well as preventing poisoning of the fork. Al 04:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eh???

Well, it's just i dunno why action hasn't been taken over project. --maxrspct in the mud 21:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back 2

Good to see you back. There's a lot more to be done in this part of the universe. ... Kenosis 12:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big surprise (not)

RJII just made some pretty big admissions [2], of course they come as no surprise to anyone who has actually worked with him. The only reason I didn't give up against them is because I knew that is exactly what they were trying to do and that would only give them the satisfaction. I must now say I do not at all regret vandalizing their userpage anymore, and am proud I did in fact! They had it coming to him. The only problem is that his talk page is now protected so he probably won't end up giving his announcement as to why they did all this. I also wonder who the socks were. I have suspicions, but I don't feel like going into them since that would probably do more harm than good. I just hope we can figure out who they are. The Ungovernable Force 06:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and as for my email, I'm going to set up an email account tomorrow for wiki purposes, so I'll tell you when I do. The Ungovernable Force 06:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting.. I still think it's a wind-up. Block him if he turns up as sockpuppet. Against academic hierarchy.. but then he's a social darwinist..? -- --maxrspct in the mud 09:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What really pisses me off is that it took wikipedia 2 years to deal with him, and my cries for help over the past 6 months were basically ignored by admins. -- infinity0 10:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.. 2 years and not one? And no help from the system .. as it's not a musical instrument or sports technique. --maxrspct in the mud 12:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I missed the social darwinist part, when did he say that? Oh, and infinity, I emailed you already. The Ungovernable Force 01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-socialism

Hi there. Regarding your edits to Culture pages, "anarcho-socialism" is a name sometimes given to social anarchism or libertarian socialism (with an anarchistic streak). It's not really a neo-logism, at least in terms of original research (in fact, WP's link for anarcho-socialism redirects to libertarian socialism). So rather than changing it simply to anarchy, could you redirect in future to one of these (or instigate a debate on a talk page)? If anything, in Banks' own words, the Culture is more socialist than anarchist. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

mm It is debatable whether he comes close to saying that. -- maxrspct in the mud 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, but this isn't necessarily the best venue for a debate. My talk page? Infinity0 and I continued a discussion there. --Plumbago 12:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your motive

It seems that you don’t understand that, from my perspective, you are the one who is changing articles to reflect your own opinion. -- Vision Thing -- 13:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

• 1st "revert": Undid changes by WickedWanda. The general concensus is that he is a sockpuppet of blocked User:Hogeye
• 2nd "revert": Undid changes by WickedWanda
• 5th "revert": Undid changes by 70.85.xx.xx. Blocked User:Hogeye edits from the same range of IPs.

The above is invalid since I was only undoing edits made by users who should not have been editing in the first place. See [4] -- infinity0 17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The WP:3RR rule is pretty clear that vandalism does not count towards the limit, and since any post by a sockpuppet of a blocked user is to be reverted on sight, I don't believe that Infinity0 has violated anything. Am I mistaken? Al 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think thats fair. I'll remove the block. Errrm... just a suggestion: if you don't want this sort of thing to happen again, do at least leave some kind of hint that you're reverting banned users William M. Connolley 20:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks a lot :) -- infinity0 20:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As handy as the revert macro can be, I've noticed that a number of admins are, rightly or wrongly, allergic to it. It may therefore be safer to revert manually, with a brief explanatory comment. That's my experience, anyhow. Al 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Thank you for that very handy piece of information. I'll reply more fully via email as soon as I can. :) -- Nikodemos 23:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I sent you an email. Let me know what's up. By the way, thanks for the feedback on the article rewrite. 172 | Talk 00:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Yes i did get it thanks. I didn't reply as i have a few probs with email. I did take a look etc. Oh and thanks for adding me to your list of 'nice people'.. The usual suspects?? or perhaps the frankfurt school lol --maxrspct in the mud 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

IRC: I used to use it in the early days ..i have tried recently but can't figure it out. I do use MSN and Yahoo mssgr tho. --maxrspct in the mud 16:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marxism

Im sorry you found the material i put in to be incorrect, im a marxist myself. Marx in his writings does not specify a culteral or social way things should be. He just states the ideal economic society, so i thought it was safe to say it was based on economics. The 5 step history as defined by marx is accurate however, im sure of that. (tribe, slavery ext...) Zhukov 18:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thats true, its fine im not mad just wondering why it was taken off. But this is wikipedia after all, gerernlizations are everywhere. Zhukov 18:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eh?

I never got an email from you. Try again. I've gotten stuff from others, so it's not just my email being wrong. The Ungovernable Force 19:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] capitalism

It looks like a majority of people prefer my introduction over the current one. However, I respect your own sensibilities, and take your objections seriously. Would you be willing to talk to 172 to revise my proposed introduction into something both of you find acceptable? i am sure if both of you agree, it will be a pretty good version. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies in advance

NHF. -- Vision Thing -- 16:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0

This case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 11:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some pages

Hey man, you might want to keep an eye on Individualist anarchism in the United States and Anarchism in the United States, Vision Thing, and User:Drowner (a probable RJII or Hogeye sock) keep insisting on restoring RJII's original research. PS. The Anarchism in the United States page could do with a lot more on the movements. I've left this note for TUF too. - FrancisTyers · 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alienus

You wrote:

It is frankly irrelevant whether Alienus has criticised admins for being corrupt or incompetent. Doing so is not against the rules; it is rather like criticising a bad edit.

For the record, I completely agree that it isn't wrong to criticise administrators for being corrupt or incompetent. I simply raised this as evidence because I didn't want Alienus', perhaps legitimate, criticisms to be overlooked. I deliberately framed the arbitration application as a clash between two competing, but perhaps not mutually exclusive, contentions: firstly that Alienus has edited disruptively, and secondly that he has been victimized by corrupt or incompetent administrators. I believe that there is a reasonably widespread perception that the latter is true, and this is the reason why normal administration activities were not lessening but rather worsening the conflict, thus requiring the intervention of the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for helping me get my block lifted. I really appreciate it. Also, if you haven't already, be sure to watch all those invidualist anarchism pages Francis and I mention here so that I don't have to be the only one reverting socks. Thanks again. The Ungovernable Force 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Anarchism table

Template:Anarchism table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. FrancisTyers · 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rewriting the marxism page

Hi, I noticed you've made some contributions to the marxism article in the past. I was hoping you could look at User:JenLouise/Marxism proposed and give me your ideas. I think you'll see from the outline that I've created, that I have really big plans for creating a Marxism article that is structured and comprehensive and deals with everything that Marxism implies. It's a big task, and I need as much help as I can get! Cheers JenLouise 23:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bit of advice

Thanks for the advice :^) I do tend to get a little too entrenched in this Wikipedia business, and I have spent a lot of time this weekend trying to prevent any of this anarcho-capitalist nonsense from making its way into the article. Your advice made me think: Wouldn't I get more out of Wikipedia if I read more articles rather than argued endlessly over them? Good to see you back, by the way. -- WGee 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

I was just thinking yesterday about how I wished you were still around. I almost left you a message, but I "knew" you wouldn't check. So guess what? Hogeye's been indefinitely blocked. It hasn't really changed much though, since thewolfstar keeps making new socks (you were here for her sock Lingeron, right?). I don't blame you for not wanting to get too involved. Oh, and even though Aaron's talk page says he's quit, he really hasn't. Just thought you'd like to know. Well, hope to see you around a bit. I'm trying (not too well) to cut my time back too. I'm not spending too much time on the anarchism article though. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration enforcement

copied from WP:AE

Infinity0 (talk • contribs) is on a revert parole, however he again started to engage in edit warring on Anarchism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) [5], [6], [7]. -- Vision Thing -- 22:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I was replacing weasel tags which you removed without discussion, whilst there was a discussion going on on the talk page. Whilst editing with other editors, it is extremely impolite to remove tags they have put there without addressing their concerns. -- infinity0 22:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes. One more thing, as we chinese say. My revert parole is for content reverts only, not tag reverts. -- infinity0 22:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case I agree that the reversion of the tags was a "content" reversion within the spirit of the decision. It is certainly commenting on and deprecating the content, so I count it as a content edit (as opposed to reversion of simple vandalism). Reverting the tag without discussion was defintely a violation of the parole. Infinity is required to discuss his reverts; he made no contributions to the article talk page yesterday. If the issue was under discussion by other editors, they could have replaced the tag if they felt it was needed. However the damage was minimal so consider this a warning. If Infinity want's to challenge my interpretation of "content", he can take it up with Arbcom in the Requests for clarification section of WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

As it just so happens, I have recently returned myself after a wikibreak of a month and a half. I have some advice for you on the best way to minimize interactions with pov-pushers, but I'll talk about that over email. -- Nikodemos 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right back atcha!

To be honest, my head hurts from banging it against the brick wall that is the "anarcho"-capitalists! I'm thinking of taking a break as soon as my work gets busy (hopefully soon). Donnacha 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Apology

Hello. I made a change to the philosophy template you created. Then I used the strike-through feature to put line through 'Objectivism' (which I had put in with the Schools) and through 'Randism' which struck me as more insulting than a useful term. I did this on the talk page. But, as it has pointed out to me, I should NEVER be modifying what someone else has written in the talk pages. I apologize for that - it was never my intention to make it appear you said other than what you actually said. Steve 21:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revenge box

Hey, I liked your revenge box so much, I shamelessly swiped it. Actually I just included it in my user page :-) Dullfig 00:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions on your userpage

Hello. I just had to point out the apparent contradictions you make on your userpage. You say you're "Anti-human rights, anti-absolute morality - Arbitrary, morality is subjective, absoluteness is authoritative and unnegotiable. Anti-private property - Absolute and authoritative. Sure, people should have possessions, and other people should respect that and not mess with their possessions, but there are situations where this is overridden by more important things, eg. to save lives." If you're anti-human rights then a person has no right to have his life saved. And if morality is subjective as you say, then you're statement that there are more important things such as saving lives is meaningless because what's important to you may not be important to me. Moreover you would have no right to save his life. You would have no right to do anyting whatsoever for that matter. Also there is a glaring contradiction when you say "Truth exists, but we shall never know it, since the brain is smaller than truth." That's incoherent because when you assert that we shall never know the truth, you're also asserting that you know that we shall never know the truth. That is, if it's true that you can never know the truth then you could never know that you couldn't know the truth because that itself would be knowledge of the truth. So the statement is incoherent and meaningless.

^^^What a load of twaddle _ maxrspct ping me 16:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems User:Rejoinder made his wikipedia account just to say the above to me. Whoever it was, why don't you come out into the open and use your real name?

"If you're anti-human rights then a person has no right to have his life saved." - depends on the situation, and the person. Some people shouldn't be saved. I'm anti-"the concept of rights". The statement "a person has no right" is equally invalid to me as "a person has a right". Understand now?

"That's incoherent because when you assert that we shall never know the truth (etc) " - by truth I mean physical truths about the universe, etc. My statement isn't a physical truth, it's a logical conjecture. Anyway, it's labelled under "my views" so I'm not claiming I have a fully rigorous proof of it. -- infinity0 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should I use my real name? Is "Infinity0" your real name? Anyway, about truth... truth just means correspondence to reality. If my opinion is that Jupiter is larger than the Earth and if Jupiter actually is larger than the Earth, then my opinion is true. I would have knowledge of the truth. There's no reason to think that it's true that all of our opinions about the universe are not true...that none of our opinions are true.

Yes, but how do we *absolutely know* that Jupiter is larger than the Earth? How do you as an individual *know for certain* Jupiter is bigger than the earth? When we say Jupiter is bigger than the Earth, we are assuming that our experiences are real, that our sources are not lying, and the Jupiter and the earth exists, etc, etc. So to "know" anything you must assume something - ie. acknowledge the fact that there are some things you DON'T know.

My name is on my front page... you should at least tell me who your are, and more interestingly, why you want a debate with me, an unimportant teenager living in the UK. :) -- infinity0 17:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

Well done :) I'm ok, working in London at the moment while I wait to apply for funding for my PhD. Fairly unstressed, but working sucks :/ (IT helldesk) - Francis Tyers · 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Double-congrats! I started my last semester at junior college yesterday and should tranfer to Humboldt State University this fall with an AS in anthro. One class left for the degree. Ah, college. And to Francis, good luck getting some funding. I'm working on undergrad scholarships right now. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 05:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: rand

Well, I'm glad you don't subscribe to LTOV :-) I have to disagree with you though, on the subject of values being subjective. The need might be subjective, but the properties of objects that can satisfy those needs are definetely not subjective. Case in point:

• you are being attacked by a wild animal. You think to yourself "I wish I had something to throw at it, maybe it will go away". you look around you, and you see a tomato and a fist sized stone. Which one do you pick? why? was the choice purely subjective, or was there something about the stone that made it more valuable than the tomato?

Sure, if the stone doesn't do it, maybe you'll pick the tomato in a last ditch effort. In any case, like I said, the needs might be subjective, but the properties of objects are not. You cannot eat a stone and expect to be nourished, no matter how much you wish you could. -- Dullfig 20:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess game

So are you going to move or not ? :-) Dullfig 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just saying hi

Hi Infinity0, just wanted to say hi. Haven't seen you around the forums or Wikipedia. Life is busy I know, not trying to bug ya. Hope you're well, and take care! whynotanarchy 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He is a nice guy -- Librarianofages 02:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)