User talk:La goutte de pluie/archive 5: Difference between revisions

We want structures that serve people, not people serving structures. — Anonyme, mai '68

la goutte

la pluie

la note

la mémoire

la parole (a)

Email me

Cabal

be closed minded if you want...but dont ever call yourself a progressive — Preceding unsigned comment added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs)

I'm usually open to critique and comment, but giving me a reading list by all your favourite authors (do you ever stop talking about Friedman and Hayek?) then calling me close-minded for not reading them (you did not want to read Homage to Catalonia and that's free, and open right here, and by the greatest anti-Stalinist of them all, Orwell.). So I shall just point you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence. Please examine your own behaviour. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and pleased to meet you Natalina- Bernard, Montreal, PQ. BernardL 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So there is a communist cabal...anyway, No i said your closed minded because 1. I offered you a book that challenged your beliefs you declined on the grounds that you dont pay for books. 2. I offered you a free book and you turned up your nose because it was not technical nor academic enough for you (seriously you get what you pay for) 3. i turn around and give you a reading list of books which you seriously challenge all your held beliefs and you delete the list as harrassment.

I call you closed minded because you refuse any and all effort to educate yourself even on your opponents own line of thinking. You won't even bother to hear what your opponent has to say, and in the bigger scheme of things this leaves you poorly prepared. If you were ever to debate a free market thinker in person you would be seriously trounced... Open up your mind to alternatives...at the very least learn what your opponent thinks and why. (Gibby 01:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

And about the arbitration you opend that up after failing to do any of the steps invovled. You never sucessfully completed the discussion and before that you never bothered to compromise. You only got a arbitration by collecting leftists like Bernard and you sit here and wonder why I say your part of a leftist cabal that works to eliminate opposition through constant reverts of their work. (Gibby 01:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, 172 and Rhobite are not leftists. The RFC was deadlocked because you showed no reason you wanted to come into agreement with other editors, and plenty of other editors concurred with me. This was a suitable reason that previous attempts at dispute resolution had failed, and therefore the Arbcom case could proceed.

It's not that I don't want to educate myself on opponent's stances. It's just that I have rebutted your circular arguments time and time again, and I am sick of tired of you mentioning Hayek and Friedman in every article, given the undue weight, and that you are dogmatic in yourself (in my opinion, pardon the incivility!). Perhaps you want to see meta:how to win an argument. I bet you would be proud; you just "won" the argument, but it's a pyrrhic victory by sacrificing user harmony and what actually matters in the process. I don't want to read your book. It sucks. It's not enlightening. That's my personal viewpoint. Stop pressuring me. There, I've resorted to colloquial language, that explains my utter frustration at your behaviour. Rejecting one book with an awful background, language and goodness knows with what that standard of English has degraded to, is not reflective of my attitude in general. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly call your efforts rebuting my comments time and time again, you still havent explained how your society will gather the resources to build something as simple as a pencil. (Gibby 06:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

no you are just full of petty excuses to not read books that will challenge you. Period. (Gibby 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

"Period". Ha. The one liner. The reason I didn't read it wasn't because itchallenged me; in fact, quite the opposite. There was nothing intellectually stimulating about it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Taslima Nasrin

If you get a chance... [1] for Taslima Nasrin. Thanks. KI 01:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Anyway, I know copyright policy can be rather daunting, but I suggest just studying the image tags now and then to see what can licenses apply (sometimes I petition for licenses; it's worked on several different occasions although half of them don't reply)...I myself am uncertain sometimes, so I just hop on IRC and ask to see what can work. (IRC channel is #Wikipedia at freenode.net). That way you can upload images faster without having to wait for my reply (It's no big deal for me, but I think it will be faster for you.) ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay I checked it. It has a weak fair use rationale, but it might qualify, but it is very borderline. Rationale: will likely not impede commercial revenue; it is used for the critique or discourse about a famous person, it is for educational purposes, and it informs the public. Generally not preferred though. Resolution seems low enough. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Messy Economics

Goodness...who'd've thought my little fleshed out article on Gift economy would spark such controversy! Thanks for leading me to the whole debate on Mr. Gibby! (I expect to be defamed some time soon...) Best wishes! Bo-Lingua 02:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WTF Nati, do you have like a leftist webring you just message all of them and they come running like some freaking cavalry? GOOD FAITH MY ASS! YOu deserve none! Now you have all the numerical superiority go back to deleting all my sections until I'm blocked again! Thats been your strategy so far. (Gibby 05:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

It's another editor. Sheesh. It's called community colloboration. It's not votestacking (this is not an afd), it's organising. That's what "attracting attention" means. I don't have a "leftist webring"; you go around antagonising people it is no doubt that the people you antagonise will all organise together to complain about you. Just because another editor disagreed with you, doesn't mean it's a cabal. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No, what you are doign is trying to collect a cavalry while pretending to compromise and in just a few days you'll delete everything and i'll be able to do nothing lest I get blocked. Its a trademark leftist move, eliminate the intellectual competition and control information in your favor. Its one reason why macroeconomists are so deceptive...and they arent all even far leftists like yourself!...but thats another story. The story is you prefer diseption, bending and breaking rules, and bullying over multiple points of view and intellectual diversity.

It's a community. There is nothing wrong in getting editors to come together. It's not votestacking because I'm not here to call a poll or anything. Neither am I getting people to revert for me; I am simply informing them about the situation. That is what an RFC is. Informing people that you have antagonised about your arbitration case is perfectly acceptable. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For my defense I was not "recruited." I have contributed some to Gift economy; it's on my watchlist. I've seen the interplay between you both, and frankly, I'm not very pleased; I feel that there are some very important points brought forward and frankly, Gibby, you should drop your rhetoric and name calling for a bit and see the valid points that have been made, ie not making every market article a tribute to Friedman et al but rather making a pointed, specific commentary relating to the article in question that links BACK to the Ultimate Friedman Article so that anyone who's interested can learn more about Friedman, but if they're not looking for him, but the specific economic model, they don't have to read a third of the article about Friedman. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of essays. Bo-Lingua 06:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Image status

Sure, not a problem. That first pic you gave me is (IIRC) one of the few colour photographs taken during the entire war, so it should be {{PD-China}}, but I'll go make sure. Where are the rest? A list would be appreciated. Not exactly keen on sifting through pages and pages of untagged images... -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

K, I'll look out for these. If you have any other pictures just tell me. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at those articles, even though I already have a bunch of badly-written articles awaiting cleanup. This is what you get when you mix non-native English speakers, historical negligence and systematic bias. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in this. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Argh, it seems that you have to register for the forum to see the post so I'll just copy-paste the relevant parts here:

I have seen color photos from the Sino-Japanese War and this certainly looks plausible.The bedrolls are dark blue and the uniforms are non uniform looking enough in color to pass for this period.The KMT soldiers look sunburned enough to such an extent that it certainly looks like they have been in the field and not merely some extras for a film reenactment.There was virtually nothing of a non documentary nature filmed during this period in China when it came to motion pictures and most of this was in black and white(i.e. Joris Ivens "400 Million")whether it is a posed/propaganda photo from this period is another question. A lot of photos from this period look posed with soldiers in freshly starched and ironed uniforms shown in standing at attention and marching.The Nationalists censored a lot of photos and films of a less flattering and more candid nature. I think that it looks authentic for the Sino-Japanese War,but it comes across as a possibly posed photo using active duty soldiers that was meant to look like a snapshot. (...)

Mibrovsky, I have never seen this photo before and I don't know the source.I have seen many KMT photos and have seen some color group photos of a similar nature in a book dealing with World War II color photos(that one was clearly posed.It is a shame that there were no credits for this one.The barren terrain looks like Xinjiang or maybe some sandy coastal region though. (...)

The man in the front of the photo has a bandolier for a type-80(Mauser C-96 pistol).The image is a high angle shot taken from a platform,possibly an aircraft on an airfield? Note the cross shaped shadow in the upper background of the frame which looks like a possible wings and fuselage of a large plane like a C-46 Commando or C-47 Skytrain.It looks like it may be from an airfield. (...)

The rear vehicle looks like a 5 ton International K-8 truck perhaps?It is tough to figure these old vehicle types,especially when most of the image isn't available.The closest vehicle appears to be crank ignition(a Citroen-Kegresse?).That is a tough call. Their uniforms look like standard KMT and it is hard to tell the summer uniforms apart. Notice how the shades of the uniforms differ,faded knaki tunic,semi green cap, and od green trousers.Just like Han Suyin described them.

There you go, hope that helped. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Three different Kuomintangs

Yeah, when people talk about the KMT, they are almost always referring to CKS & friends. However, the leftwing part of the KMT (led by none other than Wang Jingwei) was still part of the KMT. They didn't have much contact either with the commies, as (IMHO) they were mainly social liberals and (as much as I hate admitting) Pan-Asianists in the mold of Sun Yat-sen. Well, this is if you don't buy into Jung Chang's crying Chinese ladying rhetoric/propganda/shit/lies. Anyway. The KMT was by no means homogeneous, there were a wide array of beliefs held by all the bigshots, which is why you get Hanjian like Wang or communist turncoats like Long Yun and Pan Wenhua all the time from the KMT. The fact that the ROC was essentially (again IMHO) a "federation" didn't help. Warlordism, factionalism, regionalism, you name it. Yeah and there was this warlord who hated CKS so much that he refused to arm his troops with the "Chiang Kai-shek rifle" (essentially a Karabiner 98k) and produced his own copy of the same rifle but under a different name.

Oh oops, rambled on and on. Yeah, when it comes to this period, it's like the People's Front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front... :) I'll see what I can do to clean up those articles. *Warcraft 3 peon voice* Work work! -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Incest article

I like how you help organize this. I am learning how wiki works from watching you. I welcome assistance on the references. As for sources I know these topics are new, and taboo and largely unknown. I added a whole bunch of sources to the article and will add more as requested. What specific additional sources do you need to make these sections credible to you and to others who use wikipedia? Anacapa 22:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good so far. I like using the reference format of global warming (or better yet, the citation format used in Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia, but I was wondering if you had any pysch journals we could directly cite. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wic_vandal.png

They're @ it again... 68.39.174.238 06:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Years, night, state of exception, naughty naughty little boys & else

Pof! si fatigué que j'ai raté la bonne page pour mettre les commentaires... alors Control C Control V !!

Hey! i haven't read everything on your page, but you seem in big trouble girl!!! 15 years old from Singapour, Christian Anarchist, probably a bit too smart, and, beside, lover of classical music, and you still have time to "attempt reasoning" people from the US congress! And I thought being 3 800 years old was a bit too young... Keep it on! Tazmaniacs

Actually, i well may read it all... "Those altruistically ambitious will..." is a jewel! Tazmaniacs

By the way, if you're interested in left-wing politics, have a look at Operation Gladio and Propaganda Due, and consider well the role of people like Licio Gelli, Stefano Delle Chiaie or... Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger. Operation Condor anyone?... I do not know how things have been in Asia, but here as it was in Europe & South America. + read Giorgio Agamben & Louis Althusser ! -- I forgot Clearstream scandal...Tazmaniacs

Have fun, & read critical theory one day: my favorite authors used to be Albert Camus, who was lot more anarchist than Sartre... and it was him that made me understand this "altruistically ambitious" (he said "l'indépendance dans l'interdépendance", and La Chute is THE book which made me understand this thing about "generous egoism" - strange as cynic a book it is... )... but then I started reading Michel Foucault & Gilles Deleuze, and that really strayed me off to critical philosophy! tellement que maintenant le temps me manque pour lire les contes de fées! Salud y libertad ! Tazmaniacs 14:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism... did I write when i was drunk that quote that "the criminal fight against culture is the reverse side of a criminal culture"??? no, that wasn't vandalism, but it's a drunk edit that's been kept there for a while now...

Mao Zedong war

I ran across the ...umm... enthusiastic anonymous editor ... yesterday, did one revert, but he had more energy than I did, and I'm not really a Mao expert. I posted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but they apparently have more serious vandalism to work on. Anyway, I wanted to say, thanks for keeping up the struggle, and trying to reason with him. Keep up the good work. GRuban 14:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk redir

I think the Aetherometry talk page should stay a "black hole". That was the consensus. You can keep your own copy, but setting this link might stir the emotions of the highly "oppinionated" proponents, unnecessarily. Awolf002 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

block on User:219.77.104.75?

From [2]:

1. (cur) (last) 2006-02-12 14:12:05 219.77.104.75 (→Singapore)
2. (cur) (last) 2006-02-12 14:11:15 Kimchi.sg m (Revert to revision 39307492 using popups)
3. (cur) (last) 2006-02-12 14:09:38 219.77.104.75 (→Singapore)
4. (cur) (last) 2006-02-12 14:08:57 Kimchi.sg m (Revert to revision 39307214 using popups)
5. (cur) (last) 2006-02-12 14:06:40 219.77.104.75 (→Singapore)
6. (cur) (last) 2006-02-12 14:05:57 Kimchi.sg m (Revert to revision 39306793 using popups)
7. (cur) (last) 2006-02-12 14:04:19 219.77.104.75 (→Singapore)
8. (cur) (last) 2006-02-12 14:01:20 Natalinasmpf m (Reverted edits by 219.77.104.25 (talk) to last version by Kimchi.sg)

Time for a block? although I don't like blocking as a solution... :> — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's basically a meatpuppet, if not a sockpuppet, so yeah, I am going to treat it as the same user for the past few months. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! :) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

wp:1.0/stable

I'd be interested in hearing more from you about the notion of stable pages (or triage, if you like). I think you've got a pretty good idea about it. I went and had a look at WP:STABLE, and I think it defines it pretty well. However, I think the approach may be overly broad. If such a change could be implemented in a subtle way (eg a cookie which was set in ones preferences), it might meet with less resistance. I think the most critical problem with it is the (very correct) "this is anti-wiki".

Picture this. In addition to the "edit page" tab at the top of the page, there could be a "stable" tab. Clicking through to "stable" would show you the stable version. From that point, you could see the proposed changes to the stable version (which would be the delta between the version everyone sees and the stable version you were presently looking at). That would allow the viewer of the stable article to approve changes to the stable version. And the only people that would see it were editors who wanted to work on that project.

• Problem 1: "vandals" can still make accounts and follow that process.
  • Solution?: It's possible you could have a group of editors who approved requests to join said group. I suppose this is something like a "stable cabal," but perhaps a necessary evil.

Hm, I have something of a headache. Thoughts? aa v ^ 18:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (keats)

participatory economics criticism

I'm sorry you are unable to see the connection, but I'm willing to bet you don't want to. The participatory economic arrangement may discuss how it is different than other socialist and communist market alternatives but Friedman and other free market economists state that if you eliminate certain functions from the market system the system will not work well if at all.

For example.

Free Market must have A, B, C to work. And A, B, C, D to work great.

Communism, must eliminate A, B, C, and introduce D, E, F, G

Socialism, must eliminate, A, B, and keep C, D, and introduce E, F

Parecon must eliminate A but Keep B, C, D and introduce Z.

Free market critics will say that Socialism, Communism and Parecon have eliminated one of the primary variables in making an economy work. Therefore it won't work.

If you eliminate wages, or replace wages with credit based on effort and sacrifise you get roughly the same results= very little incentive to work, work hard, innovate, be effecient, work to become a doctor, lawyer, etc etc etc.

I hope this helps you understand how the market based criticism of parecon does not have to be specifically critical of parecon, because to free market people, it is really no different because it eliminates the very basic things that make an economy work just like every other market alternative.

(Gibby 18:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

Oh please. Friedman sees every single alternative as vile evil or basically unworkable, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be mentioned on every article concernig an alternative. The use of abtract alphabets does nothing to illustrate the point. Again, your attitude that I'm wrong and you're right and that if I disagree it's obviously my narrow-mindedness is kind of ironic. Certain mechanisms are used to achieve certain functions. However, some of these mechanisms have flaws and introduce other problems. Thus you want a flexible mechanism that accounts for functions without introducing problems of their own. Reward based on effort and sacrifice doesn't necessarily reduce the incentive for self-improvement (ie. you seem to think people will simply work away at digging sand)...there's a utility aspect, but again, this debate between you and me has nothing to do with the content dispute at hand. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, yes it does. If Friedman says that alternatives to market based economics eliminates the very basic function of the economy and subsequently will not work, it is applicable to all alternatives which eliminate any such function. PERIOD.

Interesting. Excuse me from intervening in a private debate, but... if you define economy by market based economics, than of course alternatives from market based economics would not be considered as economics. That's a question of definition (If Friedman says...). Now, how about defining economics on something else than ideological individual rights which comes from an outdated philosophical theory about the social contract? What if -as Marx said it long before Friedman thought of defining economy according to liberal standards -, social relations preceded individual rights? Tazmaniacs 15:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And no, reward for effort and sacrifise is not enough for most people to engage in high skill labor...especially if you get paid just as much as a janitor. Should a janitor be paid as much as a nuclear engineer? NOOOOOOOOOOOooo, because society does not value the labor of sweeping floors as much as creating and maintaining nuclear power. If we go to the participator economy where both can potentially earn the same amount based on their effort, WHO THE HELL WILL put all the years in learning how to be a nuclear engineer...you could have the same earning potential by sweeping floors...thus there will be alot of people who would rather be a janitor than an engineer.

Your society will have to force people by coercion to get them to do jobs they otherwise would have been rewarded to do through unequal income (which is not a bad thing), because there is more of an incentive to do an easier job such as a janitor rather than a doctor, lawyer, or engineer...

The system will not work beyond a few true believers, like yourself, or by force. (Gibby 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

Your use of the word "PERIOD" demonstrates that you think (or Friedman) thinks that this is an axiom. This is bordering on economic fundamentalism right there. Although you accuse me of having bad debating ability; your use of the term "period" reflects badly on yours. Bear in mind this is my talk page concerning editorial issues; and that I respond to non-editorial topics at my pleasure. Friedman has a point of view that alternatives to market based econmics will all fail. This does not mean that his point of view becomes a fact that his point of view is relevant to the article. Someone could say that all politicians are basically lying thugs. That's a point of view. Someone could say that all Christians are authoritarian, or that Islam oppresses women's rights. That doesn't mean they get to put on the page of every Islamic cleric, including those that campaign for women's rights that Islam is inherently against women's rights. A generalised point of view belongs on the general issue. It may trickle down to the specific pages if it is impactful enough. What you're doing now is violating undue weight. You think you're right, and you think that Wikipedia is censoring the truth just because people don't necessarily accept your arrogance. Think what you like.

As well as who will put all the years into learning how to be a nuclear engineer? I like nuclear physics. It will also let me have more legitimacy to justify my arguments in proposal. Also, the community is likely to disfavour individuals who could have educated themselves, especially since the community supported them, but didn't. It doesn't have to be by coercion, just the exercise of individual capacity. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I do think he is correct, much in the same way you think your favored critics are correct, however you miss the point of the period. Period was refering to the fact that the criticism is applicable, not that Friedman is correct, PERIOD, even though I think that would in fact be an accurate discription (its not what I'm saying at the time).

Friedman believes that the more you eliminate market functions and economic freedom the less likely the system will work.

And as I said, there will be few people who would put the effort into becoming a nuclear engineer under a system like particpatory economics. Your already a true believer...aka altruistic. Try convincing someone else to do that job for the same share in resources as a janitor. There will be so few people in high skilled jobs you will either be a highly unproductive and non innovative society or you will force people into the jobs. There arent enough altruistic people in society for your system to work on a state level scale. (Gibby 19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but the use of a "PERIOD" invokes the use of authority; you have jurisdiction over your own views in an absolutist fashion (ie. I can say, "this is my talk page, PERIOD") but you can't say "this is applicable, PERIOD" (in the sense of not being seen as arrogant otherwise). You think altruistic people are few and far between. It won't work for non-altruistic people. Well, I will tell you this: I reject the former, accept the latter. The solution then is to convince as many people to be altruistic as possible. It's what Jesus would have done, or any other altruistic religious leader. Go climb the corporate ladder all you want; I will take the path of altruism. You disdain kampungs in favour of materialism. Material wealth does not lead to eudaimonia. As a janitor? There is a janitor...then there are janitors who educate themselves and in fact, plays a role (to clean the built environments of society) ... after all, the community will favour a janitor who builds robots, or works with them in order to achieve his or her function. You assume that "oh, janitor, dead end". What inflexibility! There aren't enough altruistic people because people are born in a materialistic culture (my view, right here, yours truly, camarade). It is my perception that people can be convinced to be altruistic.

But THAT still has nothing to do with whether Friedman's criticism is pertinent or not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Diffusion flame

I am fairly certain that a candle falame is almost entirely a diffusion flame in that the vaporized fuel comes off the wick and flows laminarly upward so all fuel–air combination must happen by diffusion. On earth, I suppose the steady-state flow may be faster than the flame speed so there may be time for some air to mix before getting to the flame front. At zero-g, though, I think it would only be diffusion since there is no flow (or really, since the reaction melts wax and is exothermic, the net flow field would radiate out from the wick in all directions). I am fairly certain that the spherical flame front we see is a diffusion flame just like the sphirical flame front on a drop of fuel in an aresol or of coal dust in air. (That said, I took one combustion course a year ago and haven't consulted my text. I may do that and add some citations.) —BenFrantzDale 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the NASA site established a lot of distinction between the candle experiment and the diffusion flame experiment; perhaps the difference is in height or power? (Ie. evaporation pressure isn't so great?) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something. Nothing on the NASA pages I've looked at (that you've linked) show particularly supprising results, interesting though they may be. A flame being diffusion or premixed is different from being convected, as is the case with gravity. In a candle flame on earth, the convection does bring new oxidizer to the flame, but the fuel is not mixed with the oxidizer before the flame front. Again, I may be missing something. Which NASA page establishes a distinction between "the candle experiment" and "the diffusion flame experiment"? —BenFrantzDale 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I meant the cases of diffusion or premixed in both cases of normal gravity and micro. That does remind me. It is mentioned a "premixed flame" has a conical shape, but this seems to only apply for buoyant conditions? Anyway, I made a reading error. [3] It states on "are similar to candle flames except the fuel is supplied by a gas jet rather than by evaporation from a wick". I just really didn't think evaporation was a powerful example of diffusion, but it suffices, I guess. I'll revert myself. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Aah, right, "laminar jet diffusion flame". The evaporation isn't the diffusion. In a candle the wax evaporates because it is heated above its boiling point. Once the fuel is gasious you basically get a laminar jet diffusion flame, the "jet" being powered by convection. You would get a very similar flame if you had a small wick-shaped outlet for propane. Without gravity, a candle won't produce a jet diffusion flame because there is nothing to move the gas along. I suspect if you blew lightly on the flame in the picture, you would get something similar to a normal flame on earth blown in the wind.

As for premixed flames, as I understand it, any time you have a premixed laminar jet (with a circular cross section and) with a flow speed above the flame speed, the flame sheet will be conical. This is because the flame speed in the direction normal to the flame sheet must be equal and opposite to the component of the flow in the same direction. Consider an oxyacetylene torch; it has a bright conical flame even if you point it at the ground.

In the case of combustion of stagnant premixed reactants, the flame won't be stationary. To a first approximation it will move at the flame speed through the volume in a direction everywhere normal to the flame front. Of course, the products will have greater volume which will likely induce flow, at which point all sorts of things can happen. (A cool-sounding demo we didn't get because apparently it is too loud is that premixed reactants in a tube closed at one end will burn slowly if ignited at the open end but detonate if ignited at the closed end.) ―BenFrantzDale 03:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I should add: laminar jet diffusion flames will also be conical for similar reasons, but because a diffusion flame is limited by diffusion, generally, the flame front will not be a thin sheet. (It is accurate, if confusing, to say that the flame front of a diffusion flame will be more diffuse (in terms of its position and size).) Also, since a diffusion flame is essentially a rich mixture, they tend to produce soot which may or may not burn off, but which is what creates the blackbody radiation which is what makes it "fire colored" in layman's terms. ―BenFrantzDale 03:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

[4], [5], [6], [7]. --BostonMA 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

NYC Subway start date

Why did you remove the comment on the "dates of operation"?

It was placed there for a very specific reason. Everytime someone new comes to the page they change 1863 to 1904 (I know because I did it myself) resulting in someone having to change it back. That extra text prevented this from happening without having to worry about people seeing the history section.

You should have at least opened a discussion in the discussion section (or at seen other discussions)

I will be adding it back shortly.

--Allan 16:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments shouldn't be in infoboxes. I reduced it to a footnote. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Cuba, Gibby

Thanks for the link on my talk page. I'm having some trouble again, I likely will not be on tommorow, so if you could look into this that would be great! User_talk:KDRGibby#Cuba_2, [8]. --Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 09:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nati, is still up to her old games, collecting leftists to bully other users... (Gibby 10:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

On the contrary, I am collecting witnesses. KDRGibby, although you may feel inclined to label all those who complain against you and slap them with a political label, I think you know the truth. Colle: acknowledged. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Socks vandalising Hanging

You'll want to block them all. Namely:

• Fghrty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ghjtyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cvbdfg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Poiuyt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dfgert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

P.S. Just thought this is relevant... when the page wasn't semi-protected, all the vandalising IPs have "contributed" only to that page. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

And all of them were from a Hong Kong ISP. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Got them. Thanks for the notification. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Acronyms in NMR

Hi Natalinasmpf... I've noticed you edits on the Protein NMR pages and I do not like what I see.... First of all the acronyms are a so integral part of the scientific language, that it doesn't make sense to omit them. We don't want to be the only place where the full names are used, right...? At some point the acronyms get so accepted, that the full meaning is less known than the acronym. DNA for an example (Good luck changing that one...). This is the case with a lot of the acronyms in NMR (No one says nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy). Is the acronym HSQC more nonsensical to a layperson that Heteronuclear Single Quantum Coherence...? If you don't know the quite elaborate theory, it does not make sense even though you got the full name. I propose as a possible common ground: The full version stays in the name, but it is changed to "Protein nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy". The first time the acronym is used, it is explained, but in the following, the acronym is used.

By the way.... ¹³C is both more elegant, and at least as correct as carbon-13. It should be stated the first time it is used, that we're dealing with carbon and nitrogen, but the ¹³C is the correct scientific way of describing an isotope....

HNCA and HNCOCA are not abbreviations of anything (THe name describes the path of the magnetization transfer), and cannot be changed to any thing.

Let me know what you think...?? Kjaergaard 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then it should at least be renamed to "HNCA transfer" or something similar - at least the title is descriptive. The entire superscript thing causes special characters — and that doesn't go well with titles and such - I mean, we even have deuterium and tritium for our hydrogen isotopes, I do not think that using the atomic notation makes it any better than using words (again, ideally, all articles will have spoken versions - think of how a reader would say that). If I don't know the full acronym, I don't know where to start. For example, I may have knowledge of relativity and some quantum mechanics, and I want to know instantly what area the article deals with. The entire "state full term first, then use acronyms" is tolerable, IMO - but I have no problem with it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the "state full term first, then use acronyms"-policy applies to NMR as well. Really, nobody says "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy". The term HNCA transfer doesn't exist. The experiment is called a HNCA, it's not our job to rename it. I guess i can live with the isotope names, even though i think it looks horrible.... Kjaergaard 05:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I renamed them to "HNCA experiment" et al in order to comply with style guidelines. At least that has to be done. Frankly I don't know it's horrible - I think it looks better using the Romanised term. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem with the things in See Also...??? Kjaergaard 05:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

They were redundant; NMR is already discussed at length (since protein NMR is a subset of it) - usually things should only go there if it's really really relevant to the article but didn't have a chance (because it's not fully written yet) to be mentioned in full glory. The ideal article shouldn't have a "see also" section (or have it minimalised). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Natalina. I see you're still talking to Gibby re this. Err... isn't that a waste of time? Don't feed the tr*lls and so on? William M. Connolley 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Grounding

Good edit on the Grounding (punishment) page. It is sort of a pet page of mine, havoing cfreated it. Once agin good edit, it needed it. Thanks. Dolive21 09:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! It probably has a good chance of becoming a featured article - one day - I just need to dig up parenting magazines. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Che

Since you did participate on the Che page during the vert war on the criticism section please put your input in the discussion on whether or not the sources were blogs or not. Thanks. (Gibby 20:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC))

Okay, I will see to it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

E-democracy

Thank you for your great clean-up of this article! Very much appreciated. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

To credit you for your tireless contributions, you have earned yourself an original barnstar. Good job.--Terence Ong 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you noticed the barnstar. :D --Terence Ong 15:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes I did, pardon me. Thanks for giving it to me. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

70.251.179.77

Re this vandal, you have got to be kidding. He's had two "final warnings", wipes out a huge chunk of the main page article today, and you want to give him another warning? Then why give any warnings at all? Warning them repeatedly and then not taking action the next time does not good at all and even encourages them. Not to mention, you wiped out my blatant tag, which today's vandalism certainly was. Rlevse 17:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Blankings aren't malicious (I only saw the IP blank the page once today) .... test5's expire after a week or so for IP's (in my book)...now, had it all been within a few days, I would have blocked. I will block for the next one, so bear with me. Page blankings aren't malicious — insinuating vandalism while apparently knowing the rules is, that is "blatant vandalism". Ie. inserting expletives for dozens of pages over and over again in one article is blatant. Blanking is not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this. Wiping out a page is okay and not blatant? That's a deliberate act. How can it not be blatant? This is repeat violator. No wonder Wiki has so many problems with vandals. Even if they're repeats and told not to do it again, they know there's a good chance nothing will happen. Rlevse 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a very good chance it is just testing. It was reverted quickly. Blankings are considered "low level" vandalism — malicious vandalism would be defaming, something that would compromise our reputation in some way, ie. slandering a subject. People will be blocked for repeated blankings, but excessive use of the "blatant vandal" template is frowned upon. For all I know, this is a shared ISP. Oh, I just blocked a nine year old girl indefinitely for legal threats, so don't think I'm being gentle here. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!)

There is a better chance it's vandalism. The user has done it before, so I doubt it's accidental. We should even have to worry about the main page article should be protected in the first place.Rlevse 17:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't. Many anonymous editors make good faith improvements and result in a much better article after it appears on the main page. I do not support protection, in fact, it is highly discouraged. The IP has done it before, I am not sure about the user. I give the benefit of the doubt if it is for one week. Now, if it continues to be persistent, it will be eventually blocked, but I do not see much damage. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the numerous reverts due to vandalism on today's article. Why should good users have to chase these vandals? The main page article is like a light to bugs, it draws vandals and us good user get our time wasted. Anyone seriously interested in it will come back to it. This is also why Wiki users should be required to have validated email accounts; it would drastically cut the amount of vandalism, such as you and I wouldn't be debating whether or not x.y.z is or isn't the same person. Way too much time is wasted on vandals. Rlevse 17:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a rollback button, so it only takes a click. Now, I understand how absolutely stressful it is to have to revert each time with three clicks, but it should only take a few seconds? Too much time is wasted on disputes; low-level vandalism like blanking is a piece of cake. Many administrators watch the page, so we are usually lenient. The concept is that, the featured article is the first editable article they see, and therefore the first page to test. In fact, vandalism committed on the featured article, as long as it is not malicious in nature (inserting pejorative comments, etc. with a clear intent to sabotage our reputation) is likely to be more testing than anything else. I speak from experience with dealing with several of these IP's, who in fact, became good users later on. Uh, log on to irc.freenode.net and join #Wikipedia: there'll be hundreds of people who will readily explain why the featured article isn't protected and why warnings are issued, not instablocks for vandals. Now, I advocated instablocking people who wanted to remove the image from the carttoons controversy, as that was a clear act of censorship, but I have since taken a step back. How much is our reputation damaged if a page is blanked? Not much, other than "oh, that disappeared". How much is our reputation damaged if a GNAA member decides to exploit a bug and make it very hard for a page to be rollbacked? That is malicious and can be blocked on sight, even. There is a huge difference. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. We wouldn't be having these discussions if vandals were dealt with more firmly. So, like today (yes, this actually happened), an anon user wipes out the page with a close up of a human male penis, then a new user looks at the article, and that's what we want said new user to see...a FA on the main page with said image on it when it's supposed to be about merit badges...this is wiki's idea of first editable article they see, how did this affect Wiki's reputation? I can bring up just as many who feel the main page should be protected as you can otherwise. You will never convince me otherwise about the main page or vandals. Rlevse 17:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We can block for the penis incident (with one warning, in fact). Blankings are mostly harmless. Being the first editable article they see, there it is a high chance that blankings are a test. So, keep up the good work, but I'm just following policy. I used to be pretty harsh on some vandals as well, but there is a reasonable doubt that was not malicious. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the penis incident was blocked, but I'd have to go back through dozens of cases of today's vandalism to be sure. The blanking that set our round off was a repeat case, and no, I don't care one bit if it's an anon IP. It's the repeat in my book that warrants blocking, and no, I don't care if it was a week ago. If this was a "today was first time ever" case, I'd agree with you, but it wasn't. And, we all know main page vandalism is rampant every day. Rlevse 17:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Test sequences are reset every month because there is a good chance that the ISP reassigned the IP address. Test5's are reset every week at maximum. I'm simply following the current guideline, note that we can block at that moment, but I chose not to, at my own discretion. I am of course, fallible, but I did not see much harm — you can consult another administrator to block if you want to. Blocking is preventive, not punitive, except as a remedy by the arbcom. I haven't seen the user vandalise after that. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Bballdiva52

It's a free country, and admins are free to block ;-)

Cheers Tonywalton  | Talk 17:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, she has yet to know that we deal with much worse people than her. ;-) I can't imagine any good edits coming out of her, and making legal threats as a nine year old conjured too many bad images for me, but I'm not afraid of sockpuppets, she'll eventually learn. Cheers to you, too. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

209.226.122.23

I ran a double check on the IP and yes, its Bell business, highly unlikely to go to another customer. The user has made several threats on several IP's, I'll flag as a sock if they start again. Tawker 21:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Curly Headed Doctor

If it's legally legit, can you add the picture from here to Curly Headed Doctor. Thanks. KI 03:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Invasion

I'd appreciate it if you would revisit your objection on the Invasion FAC page. The references are now in the new <ref> format, I turned the list into prose, I've added examples to air, sea, and land invasions, inserted new sections, and the length of the article now far exceeds 30kb. Everything you asked for and more! :)

I hope you like the changes and will at least withdraw your objection, if not extend your support. Thanks! Kafziel 07:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, no need to vote - the article just passed its nomination. Thanks again for your input, though! Kafziel 08:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, had I been allowed to change my vote I would have certainly done so. So, here is a support, out of principle. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nanyang Primary School

Saw this on Recent Changes, some newbie was editing this in a jolty fashion.. since you come from Singapore maybe you can meld the changes that I guiltily reversed. I need to sleep. -- max rspct leave a message 11:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I fixed the article, but almost nothing was salvaged from that edit, except for formalisation I would do anyway, as the article did have an elitist/patronising POV and I think the editor sought to correct it. In a bad, childish manner. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair trade POV-section tag

If you're going to add a POV-section tag, can you please add your criticisms/concerns to the talk page of the article, and not just mention it in the edit comment. Thanks —Pengo 00:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Gibby breaking parole with impunity

This is outrageous. Gibby is breaking parole in the most obvious fashion, making personal attacks on multiple Talk pages, and no admins seem to take notice. I have written up a list of all the personal attacks he has made since the closure of his ArbCom case on the admins' noticeboard, but to no avail. Here is a copy of my findings:

• [9] "Bad bad bad electionwood!...you are making the socialist free market conflation mistake! free market limited government advocacy does not mean anarchy! Stop that fallacious assumption please."
• [10] "the complaint is actually...stupid"
• [11] "The neutrality complaint is stupid. [...] Nikodemos is simply on a communist hell bent anti libertarian tirade."
• [12] "Ironically you make the same sophomoric arguement that you complain about. Free markets are only an impossibility if you don't understand what the word means."
• [13] "I've got a word for you, its BULLSHIT. You are not allowed to do this. You guys make so much shit up all the time to get rid of stuff, its creative, but it really shows you guys are running out of intellectual steam, arguements, and freaking material."
• [14] "You lefties are so gd amazing! ITS NOT MY POV that is expressed... The section of the article is REPORTING the views of Brink Lindsey of the CATO INSTITUTE. He has a published book which you can read!!! THIS IS NPOV. STOP ABUSING WIKI RULES TO CENSOR MATERIAL YOU DON"T LIKE!"
• [15] "This is the problem with people like you. [...] Nothing is deleted because I reverted your vandalistic censorship like deletions."
• Disrupting wikipedia to make a point: [16] (added "only because citing free market economists is obviously pov" in a NPOV tag).
• [17] "There is no neutrality dispute you are simply ignorant of the meaning of NPOV and neutrality. Reporting what other people think does not violate this. Learn the rule!"
• [18] "ANd it is, your own ignorance is no excuse however. Citing and reporting an author is not POV. Stop it. Stop the total bullshit!"
• [19] "Nati, you are making up crap again. You are one of the worst editors here and you have a knack for deleting content you don't like for any reason you can think of."
• Refusing to keep a NPOV tag on a disputed article: [20] "the tag is evidence once again that only left leaning views are acceptable here. Leftists hate information that contradicts their own poorly held views. The tag does not belong because the criticism section is already NPOV."
• [21] "Niko just wants to delete Friedman because he conflates Friedman with libertarianism rather than understanding that Friedman is an economist who just so happens to scientifically prove that markets work better than any alternatives and that free markets are the best form of market economies. Thats it. He wants to delete this information because he disagrees with it. BUT REMEMBER NIKO...we are only reporting what Friedman says. But seriously, I think your scared people might start to see how rational his thoughts really are and just might start agreeing."
• [22] "Don't bitch about cited Friedman and Hayek material you disagree with. You are starting to irritate me with your lazy deletion censorship-like methods."
• [23] "Its the circus I refer to on my user page. Its also called BS." (referring to the actions of a number of users)
• [24] "If you are in fact a leftist of some sort, it is very likely you would not understand or want to understand if Friedman himself explained it to you."

Why has no one taken any action on this? -- Nikodemos 06:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bring this up on the administrator's noticeboard. I like that you have collected evidence yourself already, as I was about to, but I am in no power to take action against him, as I have been in conflict with him myself, and thus cannot take action against a person I have a content dispute with. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

None of those are personal attacks....gosh some people here are so hypersensative they'll do anything won't they! (Gibby 06:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Oh yes, they are accusations of bad faith, attack on someone being a person, not their content, (being a leftist, etc.) A personal attack is a negative use of an ad hominem; it is not necessarily an insult. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I did bring it up on the admin's noticeboard, but it was ignored... I am thinking of starting an entirely new RfAr, since the previous one is obviously useless insofar as it goes unenforced. Or perhaps I should re-open the existing RfAr. What is the process for doing that? (re-opening a RfAr) -- Nikodemos 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for you both. Try discussing your serious changes, especially of well sourced material. That might stop the hostility!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then, try to be open minded. (Gibby 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Uh, you were given parole. Perhaps you should also discuss your changes before you literally push your weight across articles. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant it when I asked you how to re-open a RfAr; I've seen it done before. Do you know the procedure for it? -- Nikodemos 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to reopen it; we can make a plea at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Gibby was blocked by another admin, and I've protected his talk page. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:39 UTC (2006-03-07)

I've read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, and it seems that arbitrators are supposed to leave a report there after each case is closed. There is no report on Gibby's case; perhaps that is why admins are largely unaware about it. Could you contact an arbitrator to let him know that a report is due? -- Nikodemos 10:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk and Snowspinner (I think) were the arbitration clerks for the case. I'll contact Johnleemk and ask for the course of procedure; I think it was probation and therefore not needed (ie. it was not mentorship). My perception (at a glance) is that no report was needed initially, but users can report violation of parole. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: ehh, you already contacted him. He's updated it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Liam Gallagher

Cheers big star.

Yer a bit mental for a 15 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crestville (talk • contribs)

Why do you say that? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha, sorry, that's not necessarily an insult, just some of the stuff on yer user page. Its deep for a 15yr old. I mean, deep is good, I was deep then but not as bright.

I wasn't politically active at that age, nor was anyone I know (depending on how you look at it, maybe we're still not).

Chin up bright star.--Crestville 22:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

aetherometry

Hi. What is the status on this article? If the word exists in the English language, then surely there needs to be a wikipedia entry of some sort...? --Rebroad 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, it isn't a word in the English language. It is a neologism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Paradox

Is not stalinism and bolshevism an inevivitable reality of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the strict element of marxist socialism, i feel your "non strict, liberal communism" is a paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminstewart05 (talk • contribs)

I don't advocate "dictatorship of the proletariat". I am a communist anarchist; "dictatorship of the proleteriat" is sort of advocating affirmative action, which is macroeconomical and thus imprecise. I am not a Marxist, I am an anarchist. There are of course, libertarian Marxists, but that's a different thing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It is also necessary to point out that "dictatorship" was used in a sense that has faded behind the more perjorative understanding of the word. "From its historical origins in Rome as dictator rei gerundae causa, designating an extraordinary office limited and foreseen in the constitution for emergency situations—limited in time to six months, which could not be extended, or in function to carry out a particular task" Linz, J., Chapter 3: Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, In: from edited by Fred I. Greenstein, Handbook of political science. - Vol.3 : Macropolitical theory pp.175-252,264-350,, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co (1975)

An ever-lasting dictatorship is not what Marx was talking about. Slizor 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well yeah, I understand what it meant, but it is still a form of "affirmative action" so I dislike implementing one in the first place (especially as it was indefinite; although supposedly temporary) ... I prefer a microeconomical implementation than a macroeconomical affirmative action . Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

it would become a dictatorship and stay that way permanently, Slizor you have no idea of how governments work. They are very conservative and always try and protect what they have. Do you realize how difficult it is to eliminate government agencies, IGOs etc? Once you give the government that much power over everyones political, economic, and social life it will not revert except by force.

Do you really think Pol Pot started out as a bad guy? No he was an idealistic altruistic communist student who attempted to put his college thesis into practice and killed over a million people in the process. (14:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Except that I am anarchist: there will be no state. An anarchist government at worst is a decentralised direct democracy, true democracy; there is no centralised, concentrated power. States are conservative; anarchism is not. The state will not acquire over political or economic life because it never will. In any case it would be based after the Paris Commune, which was successful internally; the military issue was another matter (and of course there was the fact that they didn't dare touch the Paris Bank's gold — because they didn't want to violate property but Versailles borrowed it to use against them)...but anyway, you are making a straw man. Pol Pot failed because he based his revolution after the Leninist cadre. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comparing his system to yours. Though yours will fail because your system of incentives is far to weak to work. Thats why Pol Pots government, like Lennin and Stalin broke down.. communist incentives are so weak (EVEN WITH A GOVERNMENT) that they break down to extreme violence in an attempt to operate well enough (actually not quite as well as they could with markets...even heavily regulated statist markets do better than communism). Its not a straw man, you just didnt understand. (Gibby 14:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

The straw man is that Pol Pot was anti-science, and that he was supported by the right-wing regime in Thailand, for ex.. It's easy to aggregate in a highly reductionistic way without looking at the history and the ideologies involved closely. Whether on topic, or off. El_C 14:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that Pol Pot didn't get philosophy at all; he encouraged equality through destruction, and that was not the type of philosophy I support. It is certainly not about incentive, but that he never sought incentive in the first place. So what if you think the incentives that I espouse are weak? People join anarchist communes voluntarily. No one is forced to live in an anarchist society. At worst, they are a minority in a society or country when it decides to turn anarchist (the Paris Commune did not revolt until the majority of the citizens consented and that is why the Versailles government were so harsh against everyone in Paris and instituted martial law) and then they are free to leave. If a state government voluntarily dissolves because it decides it wants to change its duties (which would be the ideal mode of dissolution). At worst for those who dissent against communitarianism and communism is that the government no longer wishes to enforce capitalist law, and hence has dissolved the original social contract. Anarchist communism does not force communism on the unwilling. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

People join because they are already altruistic. You are going to have a hard time convincing many people including doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, about everyone in technology, and about everyone in the energy field. You can try your system, and I hope you do, and I believe you should be free to do so, but it won't be a very large community.

In fact, and perhaps ironically, if WE had my preferential system you could actually start your micro communist community within my decentralized free market community without harming anyone else. (Gibby 15:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but we would encourage people to abandon the culture and treat those who adore the concept of private property with suspicion. You may be sure it "won't be a very large community", but many scientists are actually altruistic, as those involved in open source (and this project) are already dedicated to an extent, including WMC, and the editor at Nature. As for lawyers, well, that's a different thing. In an anarchist society, the system would make it easy for one to know his or her civic duties and rights, although rhetorical aid would probably be a living of some sort. And the fact that there is the concept of property is theft, not exactly in Proudhon's terms but roughly the same problem. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Your going to have a hard time shaping that new culture, its not going to happen over night.
• China tried this already and it resulted in the theft of property and the execution of many people.
• Not all people are here because they are altruistic. There are hardly any real experts, those people get paid to do this stuff not waste their time. Most people here are hobbyists. I'm here because its fun to argue and fun to learn of new things lefties are thinking about. Not all scientists are altruistic, it is almost very likely that they do the job because they not only are interested in it, but are paid well to do it too. Very few will do the same job if their benefits from that job were no different than someone whose job it is to mop floors. Your incentive structure is very regressive for most people. ONly altruistic people who already accept your philosophy will find it compelling.

• We already know our civic duty in the capital market system...increase profits. This is done by making customers happy.

(Gibby 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

It is very obvious that culture change won't happen overnight. China tried to do it by the force of the state. That was the mistake. The idea is pressure and encouragement of acquaintances, not coercion by a state. If it takes 500 years to finally achieve the goal, so be it. We'll be the noble martyrs in the end - we'd allow ourselves to be oppressed before we ourselves oppress. Thus, we move towards our non-oppression as long as it does not oppress someone else. Please stop generalising leftists as some Bolshevik Leninists who wish to expand the power of the state, Gibby. I can tell you're not very familiar with anarchism.

The benefits for science and expertise is to discover knowledge, and apply it intellectually without restriction. Many scientists find disgust with say, patents on genes, because carving up property like this on information leads to in fact, a so called "regression" as you like to use it, on intellectual progress. If you think most people that are here aren't experts, well, please take a look at User:William M. Connolley, who is an administrator, User:Raul654, as well as the many anonymous editors who in fact edit regularly as encouraged by Nature, oh, did I forget the kind people from the United States House of Representatives?

Profits is a very narrow-minded way to look at it, and is a principle that will only last for an age. As technology progresses, the concept of profits for the private individual and circulated through private transactions will be continuously under stress, for technology doesn't care about private boundaries, and the universe is far from private. We always have certain "holy cows" and sanctitious beliefs about borders that can't be crossed, only to be totally upset by technology. For example, rudimentary brain implants have already been invented, but then what? People will possibly start file sharing and forwarding their thoughts or captures of them, say, a tune they heard, to their friends (pardon my counting chickens before they hatch, but as an example), and that will again ruin all the traditional assumptions of capitalist law. Communitarian order, on the other hand, has no such confinement or pre-assumptions about the traditional barriers of property, because it doese not regard property as a barrier. What happens when we leave Earth, or obtain the technology to drill into it more? Do property rights extend all the way to the core? Then what? Does it come at an angle, using appropriate geometry to define the borders, or does it overlap? What about widely eccentric ellipsoids, or highly irregular ones? Or closer to home, the ocean, or property rights for space itself? You'll probably say that isn't a hindrance and that society could adapt to technology with property rights without a problem, but then, capitalist libertarians advocate a constitution that is unchangeable, or that is nearly static, and that having to redefine the concept of property to deal with technology and the way that we view the universe will cause again, losers and winners (in redefinition over property disputes). How do you "own" a photon anyway? Will you take me to court if my nanorobots keep creating phenomena that continuously steals protons from your side of space to mine? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

It is reporting history. If say, the Court were to prosecute a neo-Nazi in Germany for hate crimes, and used Nazi insignia as evidence, the Court admitting that into evidence and allowing the jury to see it does not mean that it offends the jury, but rather proof of the defendant's offense. Elle

I'm not sure if this was directed at me, but I agree with you and I've used the same logic with this guy. If one reports an offense, they are not repeating the offense. This guy doesn't seem to get that. Haizum 00:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, btw; I've been wrestling with this guy all weekend. Haizum 01:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Slow

Man, you guys are slow at reverting today, usually it takes you ten seconds. linkdump!Wurst

Interesting Info

I think (if you have not already read it) you would find Gerald MacCallum's article Negative and Positive Freedom where he rejects Berlin's dichotomy between Negative and Positive freedom and instead advances a unitary "triadic" theory of freedom. Well worth a look if you're interested (and if you can obtain access to it.) [25] Will give you the first page, I'm not sure where else to find it.

Slizor 19:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Han Civilisation.png promoted

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Han Civilisation.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations! ~ Veledan • Talk 01:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Carolyn Meinel

If the copyright is alright, can you add the picture from here to Carolyn Meinel? The picture is on the net in several places. Thanks again. KI 01:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Article 153

I have no idea what I meant to do, but I see no problem with your attempt to fix it. Johnleemk | Talk 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Chat Day

Hi Natalinasmpf, to bring you some update from the board, there will be a chat day every Friday and weekend. You may also like to drop by at the Singapore IRC Channel for a chat anytime. Also do see this Singapore-related AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Suet Fern, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Shengwu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everitt Road saga. Thanks ;) --Terence Ong 16:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of your administrator powers

As you feel entitled to misuse speedy deletion when it has been pointed out that it does not apply, I think you should be stripped of administrator status. Osomec 02:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Then submit it for Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you think I'm misusing my powers, apply for an RFC. Although I think it is a tad extreme. Just what article do you have a grievance against? That high school election article? That first, it was already tagged as CSD. That second, it did qualify as CSD A7, please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If not, I haven't deleted much of anything recently, so you would be kind to tell what exactly you want undeleted. I haven't wheel warred with anyone. What exactly is your grievance?

Oh: check this. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You know full well that is pointless as you administrators always look after each other. Osomec 05:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)