User talk:That'sHot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia! We're delighted that you've magically stumbled upon our web site, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's marvelous that you already know so much about editing Wikipedia, from wiki syntax to policies and guidelines. It's very rare that new users learn so much on the same day, so congrats! Also, I'm glad to see that you're being bold![1] All of the edits that you're making on anarchism resemble the same kinds of edits made by recently-banned users; it's a relief that their merit is not tarred by the reputation for bad faith of their originators. I'm now confident about the integrity of those edits. It's not every day that new users crop up out of nowhere to continue carrying the torch (well, I guess that does happen every day, but, oh well), so I'm very excited about your enthusiasm, and very happy that you decided to dive in. Please don't hesitate to ask anybody if you have any questions. Good luck, and happy editing! :-) --AaronS 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's hot. That'sHot 19:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your user page
It's a copyright violation to use a fair use image on a User page. I have removed the image from your User page. Please find another, acceptable image, for your page. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure about that? Can you point me to a law against that? Or a Wikipedia policy? Where are you getting this? That'sHot 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- From the Wikipedia:Fair use page: The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. . And Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace.. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There are a vast array of pictures that you can put on your user pages. Check out mine or [2] or [3]. WAS 4.250 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's hot. That'sHot 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please use discussion; edit warring is disruptive
Please stop making major, controversial changes to anarchism without first participating in the discussion at Talk:Anarchism and reaching an agreement or compromise. A great deal of discussion has already taking place, or is taking place, and your edits are disruptive, as they take the focus away from negotiation and compromise and center it on edit warring. --AaronS 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop being hypocritical. You are edit-warring. Obviously there is no consensus one way or the other. I saw the Discussion page. There's no agreement on anything. That'sHot 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Of course there is no consensus. That is why discussion is occurring. You arrived, from nowhere, and began to implement controversial changes, shirking discussion. That's disruptive, and you're provoking an edit war. --AaronS 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're the one provoking an edit war. You're the one being disruptive. You did a reversion without an explanation in the summary and no explanation on the Discussion page. That'sHot 18:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, "I know you are, but what am I?" is not a very good defense. --AaronS 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're the one provoking an edit war. You're the one being disruptive. You did a reversion without an explanation in the summary and no explanation on the Discussion page. That'sHot 18:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Of course there is no consensus. That is why discussion is occurring. You arrived, from nowhere, and began to implement controversial changes, shirking discussion. That's disruptive, and you're provoking an edit war. --AaronS 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, you should explain your edits instead of leaving a blank summary. No one knows why you're doing what you're doing. That'sHot 17:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. I almost always provide an edit summary. --AaronS 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is what I'm talking about: [4] That's good reason to revert you. That'sHot 17:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's hardly blank, and it certainly isn't a reason to revert anybody. --AaronS 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do I need to report you to administration for not describing the reason for your edits? That'sHot 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- No reason is necessary. You already knew the reason, anyways, so don't be coy. People aren't as stupid as you might think. If it would satisfy or entertain you, though, by all means, go ahead. You'll just be wasting people's time, and I doubt that they'd like it very much. --AaronS 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- It would satisfy me if you acted reasonably. One of the first things you can start doing is describing your edits, at least in the summary. The next thing you could do is stop attacking me by claiming I am edit warring. You are. On top of that you are going against the straw poll consensus. Yet on top of that you are going against like 10 or more sources. That'sHot 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- If it makes you happy to believe all of that, then there's not much I can do to change your mind. Wikipedia is a public place, and I trust that the judgments of more objective observers will contradict your strange and false assertions. --AaronS 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- It would satisfy me if you acted reasonably. One of the first things you can start doing is describing your edits, at least in the summary. The next thing you could do is stop attacking me by claiming I am edit warring. You are. On top of that you are going against the straw poll consensus. Yet on top of that you are going against like 10 or more sources. That'sHot 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- No reason is necessary. You already knew the reason, anyways, so don't be coy. People aren't as stupid as you might think. If it would satisfy or entertain you, though, by all means, go ahead. You'll just be wasting people's time, and I doubt that they'd like it very much. --AaronS 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Do I need to report you to administration for not describing the reason for your edits? That'sHot 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's hardly blank, and it certainly isn't a reason to revert anybody. --AaronS 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is what I'm talking about: [4] That's good reason to revert you. That'sHot 17:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about. I almost always provide an edit summary. --AaronS 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR Warning
Your edits to Anarchism are approaching edit warring. You may want to review WP:3RR. Happy editing! joshbuddy, talk 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Two edits is approaching edit warring? Okey Dokey. That'sHot 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop editing anonymously in order to avoid violating WP:3RR. --AaronS 16:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] email
Hello, do you have an email? By the way good point you made about the scholars who say it is individualist anarchism are aware that Tucker's form is anti-capitalist. I borrowed it for the Anarchism article. DTC 04:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll set one up. I don't want to use the email address for my ISP. That'sHot 14:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, let me know when you do. I want to give you access to an information resource. DTC 17:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit warring
Please stop edit warring on anarchism. It's disruptive and doesn't get us anywhere. --AaronS 16:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not edit warring. You just don't like my edits so you call them edit warring. You are right in there making edits as well and editing contrary to cited information. I would say you're the one whose edit warring. That'sHot 16:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- "I know you are, but what am I" does not really cut it, so far as arguments go. I don't care about the content of your edits, really, in this regard. What I care about is you constantly reverting other people's edits. That's what we call an edit war. My editing "contrary to cited information" comes with the citing of information that contradicts your cited information, hence my position that the issue is controversial. --AaronS 16:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're hardly one to talk. I see plenty of reverts coming from you. I'm not "constantly reverting." I did two reverts. That'sHot 16:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- "I know you are, but what am I" does not really cut it, so far as arguments go. I don't care about the content of your edits, really, in this regard. What I care about is you constantly reverting other people's edits. That's what we call an edit war. My editing "contrary to cited information" comes with the citing of information that contradicts your cited information, hence my position that the issue is controversial. --AaronS 16:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removing sources and cited claims
If you're going to move a section, please be sure to indicate in your edit summary that you're also changing the section and removing sources and cited claims. --AaronS 17:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Same to you. That'sHot 18:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The attacks
Thanks for standing up for me on talk:anarchism. Are you from the U.S.?
20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm American, but I'm not in the U.S. right now. How about you? hot 23:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm from the U.S. and living there. Never lived any other place. Have you noticed that there's quite a bit of pov pushing on the political articles? A new friend of mine who I like a lot, Justforasecond called it revisionist/apologist. This sounds about right to me. Also there's a strong anti-American sentiment here which is really disturbing. What do you think? Have you noticed this at all? Or is it my imagination? Whiskey Rebellion 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know. There is pro and anti-american sentiment. It always looks like it's biased from which POV you're coming from because there's always someone fighting against you. But I do know as far as the anarchism articles are concerned, most of the anti free market people are just trying to push their POV. They don't care if the majority of scholars disagree with them. They've convinced themselves that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism and won't listen to the sources. They either don't realize or don't care that this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to reflect the mainstream sources, instead of the minority of virulent anti-capitalist anarchist/scholars. hot 01:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying and I'm sure it's true to an extent, as far as the anti or pro American pov. If you look around and read some of the political articles, though, the winners are usually anti-American and decidedly communist, or at the very least, left-wing liberal. If I have to put a qualification on the type of anarchist I am it would be individualist, I guess. But the individualists, as well as the ancaps, are slammed throughout the anarchism article. Conservatism is bashed a lot and the U.S. in general is slammed. Look around. (I don't have anything against anarcho-capitalism, btw, it's just some aspects that I don't care for too much. Then, I don't know much about it, either.) Just check some of the political articles out and see if you can see what I'm talking about. Whiskey Rebellion 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- You may be right. I'm thinking it may be because they in general have more time on their hands. There's probably a lot of government workers and college professors on here that are living off taxpayers that have to justify their own theft from the businessmen by inserting their anti-capitalist POV. Also probably a lot of unemployed lazy people on here who justify their own failure by blaiming it on the rich man. Also there is probably a lot of rich kids on here living off their parents while they spend their time on here. A lot of rich kids turn leftist as an act of rebellion against their parents who became successful through capitalism. Not that everyone with free time to spend on here is a leftist, but it may be that most of them are for the reasons I just stated. Most capitalists are out creating wealth that the lefists are living parasitically off of. They're not going to waste their time on here. Just think of the demographic of who has a lot of free time. Though there are some exceptions, it's mostly the most non-productive members of society who are here to push a POV that appears to rationalize their own non-productiveness. hot 04:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- LOL Whiskey Rebellion 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- :) hot 11:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Or because most rightwings who has alot of spare time goes to the gym all day, being to dumb to argue and read books. Or at least thats what the people in SA did before Hitler got money from rich rightwing capitalists to afford to pay them to do his dirty work. If you want to talk sociology might you get some data thats i little less subjective than those you need to rationalize your using time here instead of doing you homework like you said you should! (ps. Iam not leftwing, just mad like hell to read how much people put into a meaningless and outdated way of categorizing themselves politically) --Fjulle 19:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- :) hot 11:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- LOL Whiskey Rebellion 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- You may be right. I'm thinking it may be because they in general have more time on their hands. There's probably a lot of government workers and college professors on here that are living off taxpayers that have to justify their own theft from the businessmen by inserting their anti-capitalist POV. Also probably a lot of unemployed lazy people on here who justify their own failure by blaiming it on the rich man. Also there is probably a lot of rich kids on here living off their parents while they spend their time on here. A lot of rich kids turn leftist as an act of rebellion against their parents who became successful through capitalism. Not that everyone with free time to spend on here is a leftist, but it may be that most of them are for the reasons I just stated. Most capitalists are out creating wealth that the lefists are living parasitically off of. They're not going to waste their time on here. Just think of the demographic of who has a lot of free time. Though there are some exceptions, it's mostly the most non-productive members of society who are here to push a POV that appears to rationalize their own non-productiveness. hot 04:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying and I'm sure it's true to an extent, as far as the anti or pro American pov. If you look around and read some of the political articles, though, the winners are usually anti-American and decidedly communist, or at the very least, left-wing liberal. If I have to put a qualification on the type of anarchist I am it would be individualist, I guess. But the individualists, as well as the ancaps, are slammed throughout the anarchism article. Conservatism is bashed a lot and the U.S. in general is slammed. Look around. (I don't have anything against anarcho-capitalism, btw, it's just some aspects that I don't care for too much. Then, I don't know much about it, either.) Just check some of the political articles out and see if you can see what I'm talking about. Whiskey Rebellion 02:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know. There is pro and anti-american sentiment. It always looks like it's biased from which POV you're coming from because there's always someone fighting against you. But I do know as far as the anarchism articles are concerned, most of the anti free market people are just trying to push their POV. They don't care if the majority of scholars disagree with them. They've convinced themselves that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism and won't listen to the sources. They either don't realize or don't care that this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to reflect the mainstream sources, instead of the minority of virulent anti-capitalist anarchist/scholars. hot 01:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm from the U.S. and living there. Never lived any other place. Have you noticed that there's quite a bit of pov pushing on the political articles? A new friend of mine who I like a lot, Justforasecond called it revisionist/apologist. This sounds about right to me. Also there's a strong anti-American sentiment here which is really disturbing. What do you think? Have you noticed this at all? Or is it my imagination? Whiskey Rebellion 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anarchism in the US
Yo, glad to see you're editing that article, cause we need more actual US-type anarchists in there who understand US libertarian anarchism. That's cool, That'sHot. :) Whiskey Rebellion 04:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
That'sHot, check your email. k? Whiskey Rebellion 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
