User talk:LaszloWalrus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, LaszloWalrus, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Willmcw 09:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spouses

Please don't change the spouses section like you did on the Tony Almeida page, we have decided to put girl/boyfriend's in that category also to make it more interesting.

[edit] Proxy IPs are no user IPs

It's not a good idea to block proxy servers (like User_talk:85.214.73.63) if you're angered about just one temporary user of them.

[edit] check out you userpage now

you said put somthing there so i did

[edit] Upcoming 3RR

LasloWalrus, you've very close to a 3RR violation on Ayn Rand. Don't do it. Come to Discussion and see if you can find a rational justification for deleting that category. If you come and talk about it, I'll even leave the category commented out for now. Alienus 07:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, you want to be a bully, you can argue with the admins. I've reported you. Congrats. Alienus 07:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Ayn Rand. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Ayn Rand). Sceptre (Talk) 10:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't help you out. This was all over before I got online. However I am now in this and will remove the LGBT Rights Opposition category on sight. Billyjoekoepsel 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Billy, I appreciate your commitment to continuing this edit war instead of trying to find a consensus. It just helps prove my point. Thanks again! Alienus 23:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About your user boxes.

I am going to organize them tomorrow in a modified Babel box. It will clean up the way your page looks. And if you want the boxes themselves modified to meet with the possible new draconian standards against polemical boxes I can do that.

Check out my user page to see what I am talking about. Billyjoekoepsel 03:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope you like it. Billyjoekoepsel 05:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of content from Objectivism and homosexuality

[edit] War

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Alienus 04:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Alienus 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace

I am attempting an intervention here, and I need your concurrence. Please see my request for Bjk's help and my comments here before doing any more reverts. Tx,--TJ 13:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW, he did do a really nice job on those user-boxen, didn't he? :-) --TJ 13:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pieces

Dear LazloWalrus, I am old enough that I was able to take the NBI courses when they were an official part of Objectivism. If any of my words to you seem blunt, it is because we are supposed to agree on most things.
Thank you for moderating your editing, at least somewhat. Your last edit summary was certainly to the point, and I agree that the reference was non-germane. Al and I will probably be editing very slowly, only one or two paragraphs at a time. If you could just please join our discussion on the Talk page, before editing, the work should proceed in a much smoother fashion.
My intent here is to produce a good, NPOV article. If people as ideologically different as Al and I can reach consensus, the result should be pretty darned NPOV! Rest assured that any comments you make will be carefully considered, and possibly amplified by me.
You might be interested in Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, to which I am contributing (see the Talk page there).
While the best place for directly article-related discussion is on that Talk page, please feel free to talk to me on my User Talk page, or even by e-mail if you feel the need for privacy. Regards, --TJ 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you unhappy?

The admins have ruled, for better or for worse. Why are you going against that ruling by starting an edit war now?

As far as I'm concerned, you've just shown bad faith. As a result, I will formally reject any suggestions you make for Objectivism and homosexuality out of hand.Alienus 00:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

I'm giving both you and User:Alienus a warning that, notwithstanding the fact that I'm not banning either of you from editing Ayn Rand, I will block you both if you persist in edit warring on the article. Then you won't be able to edit Wikipedia at all for a bit. Please continue to argue your cases on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that Alienus continued to edit war on Objectivism and homosexuality after the end of his three hour block, and LaszloWalrus continued to edit war on Rodeo Drive after the end of his, I've added a twenty-one hour block to both. Both editors must get the message that it isn't acceptable to use edit warring as a tool to get their way. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ARI

Anti-Reason Institute.

Peikoff is a worthless secondhander.

Pay attention to reality as it is rather than reality as you pretend it to be. Kurt Weber 22:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] objectivism scholars category

Please stop adding inaccurate categories to Camille Paglia and Robert Nozick. Paglia has discussed Rand briefly, and that is the extent of her "objectivism scholarship". She did not write in the objectivist tradition. You cannot place everyone who mentioned Rand once or twice in some catch-all category — to do so is to lie. — goethean ॐ 23:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:71327 copy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:71327 copy.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

Please don't delete sourced material from articles without an explanation. You've deleted material from List of groups referred to as cults twice today without even giving an edit summary. Please use the talk page (talk:List of groups referred to as cults) to give a reason why the group you are deleting does not meet the criteria of the article. Thanks, -Will Beback 08:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

And don't do it a second time when it gets reverted the first time. Ok? Alienus 13:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Objectivism

The project is now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism. I have added the user names of all those who expressed interest to the list of participants on the WikiProject page. I hope this is ok. --Matthew Humphreys 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to Ayn Rand

The responses you've added recently to the Rand article (regarding ARI and regarding dogmatism) were good, and add balance. I appreciate your contribution to keeping the article NPOV. See how nicely everyone can get along when we resolve differences on Talk? :-) Best, --Wilanthule 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hola, LaszloWalrus

Image:Ayn Rand´s spanish version of "we the living", 1962 book cover.jpg
¿Puedes por favor asignar la categoría de copyright correcta a este archivo?. Tengo más libros de Ayn Rand en castellano, pero, paradójicamente, no pueden ser publicados en la Wikipedia en castellano (nuestra política de copyright es más estricta). ¿Merece la pena, aún así, que las "suba" (upload) a la wiki en inglés?.

Soy el (hasta ahora) único objetivista de la Wikipedia en castellano. he creado todo el "complejo Ayn Rand" (artículos más sus enlaces) en la wiki castellana.

Te escribo por tres asuntos:

  • Las portadas de los libros de Ayn Rand en castellano (ver pie de foto).
  • Estoy creando el artículo en la wiki castellana [1], te sigiero que lo examines y que consideres el crear una versión (o adaptación es igual) en la wikipedia en inglés.
  • he creado la categoría "Categoría:Wikipedistas Objetivistas castellano parlantes", en la que estoy yo solo. ¿Te apuntas a ella?.

Si te es más cómodo, respóndeme en inglés.

Mi página de ususario en la wiki en castellano es [2]

Un saludo, y que tengas buenas premisas.Randroide 14:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hola de nuevo. ESCRIBISTE: "no sé el método correcto de "upload" las imagenes correctamente". RESPONDO: ¿Has "subido" (upload) imágenes alguna vez en Wikicommons?. Si no lo has hecho, te explico cómo s ehace. Sospecho que el usuario que "sube" imágenes a wikicommons desde Estados Unidos tiene opciones extra de etiquetado de copyright que yo no tengo. Si no has utilizado nunca la función de "subir" imágenes a wikicommons, el (poco) tiempo que necesites dedicar a este aprendizaje te va a ser muy valioso, ya que hará de ti un wikipedista mejor. Un saludo. Randroide 11:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia University

Hi, do you go to Columbia University? I saw your page on the John Jay Scholars. As I was recently admitted to Columbia and named a Scholar, I figured that someone who knows about the Scholars program must be connected to Columbia in some way. Tyrant007


[edit] Days on Campus

Cool, were you at Days on Campus last week?--Tyrant007 00:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Jay again...

What's the source for this? "It is the most selective undergraduate awards program in the nation." --Tyrant007 04:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Aw, that's too bad. Where are you going? --Tyrant007 19:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Columbia was my first choice, and I got in regular, so I knew I was going as soon as I got the package. Well, best of luck wherever you choose to go! My best friend (going to Georgetown and on the waiting lists at Columbia and Princeton) would kill to go to Stanford (he got rejected). --Tyrant007 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto about Princeton. Yep, that's the problem with the elite schools: you HAVE to apply to a bunch of them, because it really is a gamble, no matter how good you are. It all depends on the overall personality and desires of the admissions committee of each school. Even if School X thinks you're incredibly sweet, School Y may think you're a pretentious moron. And it's kind of a vicious cycle: kids realize this, so they apply to lots of schools, which makes it even more competitive, and the kids the next year see the even lower admissions rate and apply to even more schools, etc. I'm glad I applied today and not ten years from now. --Tyrant007 00:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monroe Trout is he an objectivst?

Also see the companies website

About Rand:About Rand

A quote from the article:

“Rand holds mystique because the company was founded through the purchase of Gerald Futures by hedge fund legend Monroe Trout. (The name was changed to Rand, as in Ayn Rand, the controversial author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.) Commodity Futures Trading Commission approved the Rand model as the only FCM owned by a fund, despite some industry opposition.”

Reference: http://www.randfinancial.com/pdfforms/TradingPlaces_p10website.pdf


  • Also the article from Forbes Magazine about a documentary about Ayn Rand's life financed by Monroe Trout

RE : http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0323/6106181a.html

"Critics are laying the same rap on Michael Paxton's triumphal two- hour-plus Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, which has drawn the Motion Picture Academy's notice this year. Working with "under $1 million" from Bermuda commodities trader Monroe Trout and the cooperation of Rand's estate, Paxton celebrates the outspoken author's 77 years with footage, effects and music depicting the heroine's underexplored life. Too bad that cultism creeps in."

ThanksTrade2tradewell 08:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logan Clements - objectivist

Please stop trying to cover up Logan Clements' objectivism by deleting it from his article. He admits he is an objectivist, it's legitimately part of his article. Nhprman 06:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempts to move "Objectivism_and_homosexuality".

I've been forced to revert your move attempt for the second time. Please come to the article's talk page to discuss you desire and build some sort of consensus. Thank you. Al 05:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've weighed in on this subject on the talk page. Take a look! Cheers -- Yossarian 11:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh...

Hi Laszlo,

As you know, I've been trying to work out a solution for the title on the Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality page. The most recent post by Alienus has basically stated that he's "writing [me] off," and accusing me of bad faith. It's become increasingly difficult to work with him, and the fact that he has, up to this point, simply dismissed what you say is aggravating and unproductive.

I understand you two have a history, so it would be best if you turn the other cheek in terms of editing the page proper right now. It's just going to lead to revert wars. Please continue to contribute to the discussion, however, as I think there's still hope to get this resolved bloodlessly. It's possible we're all just a bit stressed out, and need to look at this with new eyes.

By the way: a POV tag was added to the page and I assume if anyone moves it, it will be reverted back. If you could discuss this, it'd be a real help.

If this does go on like this, I think an admin should be brought in, as this could go on indefinitely. Thoughts? Things can't be that desperate... --Yossarian 10:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and sympathy. As much as my ego would love to revert every edit he's every made on Wikipedia right now, I don't think an edit war will help. If an admin does get called in, it looks bad to have sunk to one's opponent's level. But I'm sure as hell not going to be written off. Cheers, --Yossarian 10:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated deletions on Pseudoreligion

You've been asked not to delete verifiable content from pseudoreligion to conform to your personal beliefs. Yet, you have done so repeatedly. Please stop edit-warring. If you continue thus, you will be blocked from further editing. As you have been previously blocked three times for past violations, you should be well aware that such behavior is not appropriate for Wikipedia.--LeflymanTalk 00:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivist

As a Wikipedian that also identifies as an Objectvist, I would like to invte you to contribute to the objectivist wiki which is just getting off the ground. Crazynas 14:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoreligion

I'll take a look, hope you enjoy the wiki, several pages are protected or sProtected (which you can get around be registering) due to vandalism. Let me know on my talk page here if you need anything opened up, or go ahead and start talking here about how we can organize the project. Crazynas 21:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you are welcome

If you don't know what this is about it is about the walrus picture, I put it there. †Jakken† 01:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

Twas nothing at all. I think I'll sit out on more detailed work on the page, but I may try to redo that intro at some point. Cheers --Yossarian 10:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staying out

Actually, I'm planning to stay out of any further political discussions on Wikipedia for the moment (aside from finishing up the dictators thing). I'm a little too sensitive for long term efforts. Good luck to you. --Yossarian 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: You're quite right, she should be on the list, but I'm afraid I just can't bring myself to argue such an obvious point. All the best. --Y

[edit] Rand

Please stop adding Rand to the list without addressing the extensive evidence supplied against her inclusion and without making an attempt to arrive at a consensus on the talk page. Thank you. fi99ig 05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that, in this matter, Fi99ig has my support. Al 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

Why did you take all of the stuff off of your userpage?

[edit] RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] About Cox&Forkum

You mentioned in your edit to the article about Cox and Forkum that Cox is not an objectivist. If he's not, then what is he? Can you show me a source that verifies his political affiliation? Politicallyincorrectliberal 23:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find a source citing that Cox is not an objectivist, how do you know he isn't? Politicallyincorrectliberal 10:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In their Interview with Dean Esmay Cox says "I'd be an Objectivist, too, if it weren't for the funny hats.". By that I don't think he actually meant that he's not an objectivist, he just answered the question in a humorous way. He also mentions about being "utterly transfixed" by Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Although I haven't read the book, I believe that being written by Ayn Rand it should be an objectivist material. Therefore, I don't think we can draw a conclusion from the interview that Cox affiliated with something else than objectivism. Politicallyincorrectliberal 12:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out when I reverted Lazslo's change, unless Objectivists really do wear funny hats, Cox was joking. Al 08:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

Please do not remove well-cited content that is supported by the consensus. Doing so is considered vandalism. Thank you for understanding. Al 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rand, Objectivism and cults

As you well know, we have a number of excellent sources cited that mention Objectivism as a cult with Rand as its leader. Regardless of the truth of these verifiable claims, we are obligated to apply the categories that they imply.

I know you don't like this and I know you've fought constantly to censor these articles, but it's just not going to happen. Ever. Don't even bother continuing to remove these categories; I can promise you that someone will put them back, probably even me. You've been blocked repeatedly over Rand-related edit warring. My advice is that you just give up: the facts are against you. Al 14:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for edit warring and incivility

Chaps, I blocked you both for this once before, and it seems we're back again. I've blocked you both for a period of three days. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duke ranking first by U. S. News?

Can you supply a source citation for Duke being ranked first by U. S. News and World Reports? Please discuss at Talk:Southern Ivies. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Greetings from a Dukie to be

Hello there! QuizQuick 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Cool. Will you be in Trinity or Pratt? QuizQuick 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll be in Trinity too, probably majoring in Biochemistry.

I hope you didn't find registering for classes too difficult. QuizQuick 16:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == Monroe Trout is he an objectivst? ==

Also see the compan

[edit] Ayn Rand - edit summary

With reference to the edit summary associated with this diff, note that McVeigh's inclusion had been discussed on the talk page.[3] Please ensure your edit summaries are civil at all times.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand

Hello. I was wondering if you would agree that the introductory section in the article on Rand should say this: "Rand's writing emphasizes the concepts of objective reality, reason, rational egoism, and laissez-faire capitalism, etc." rather than make mention of the virtues Ayn Rand advocated in her ethics (self-esteem, etc). I think that this would make more sense, because those four concepts are the principle ideas of Objectivist philosophy.

[edit] Loan

...is a verb, listed as such in my compact OED. See this usage note from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2004) by Houghton Mifflin Company:

The verb loan is well established in American usage and cannot be considered incorrect. The frequent objections to the form by American grammarians may have originated from a provincial deference to British critics, who long ago labeled the usage a typical Americanism. Loan is, however, used to describe only physical transactions, as of money or goods; for figurative transactions, lend is correct: Distance lends enchantment. The allusions lend the work a classical tone.

"Lend" is always a safer bet, though. Jokestress 05:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No apologies needed, just FYI. You just seemed like someone who values precision. Jokestress 04:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning on Pseudoreligion

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Pseudoreligion. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --LeflymanTalk 17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I have already responded a numer of times on the Pseudoreligion page to your continued removal of references to Objectivism. There is no purpose in repeating myself yet again; I have provided multiple sources, which you have inappropriately removed. As demonstrated by the numerous discussions above, this is a particular pattern in your edits. If needed, yet another RfC can be brought up regarding your behavior. --LeflymanTalk 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "adding stuff"

Before you "add stuff about" things, you might want to read the article...

[edit] Rand ad infinitum

I think we need mediation on the "is/is not a philosopher" thing--I don't think that it's ever going to get resolved otherwise. I've been patiently waiting for consensus, but it's not happening. What's the next step? Agent Cooper 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You wanna drop me a line at agentcooper9@gmail.com?Agent Cooper 04:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Smith

I don't think it's out of order to call Smith one of the greatest coaches of all time, at least in collegiate athletics, if not all of sports. He holds the record for Men's basketball career wins, and was very innovative. I don't think he should be called "the greatest", but it's not a stretch to call him "one of the greatest". (Coach K would fit in that category too.) Dubc0724 02:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ====================================================================================

Hi, Just thought you might be interested to know that you are accused of being a sockpuppet.

This is written on the Personal Attack Intervention Notice Board: Now User:LaszloWalrus (who could be another sock puppet of his) is also using a sock puppet against me here. Notice he signs his posts for both himself and the anon IP. -- LGagnon 12:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ciao. --142.161.185.28 03:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical lists, and Ayn Rand

The back-and-forth on the many lists Rand's place is disputed is disruptive and contrary to both AGF and Consensus. I posted some comments and research at Talk:List_of_political_philosophers - look them over and help the users there build consensus on what to do instead of flying off the handle. If you're at Duke now, take some time to use their resources to come up with good encyclopedic precedents - appealing to one simple authority isn't enough. I look forward to seeing what you can get - Sam 04:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:LGagnon

I'm watching his talk page. I advised him to remote that notice because it's assuming bad faith. As for the sock you advised me about, I'll watch the page. But so far, he's only made one edit to that page. If he gets busier on it, I'll protect. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander London

Who is Alexander London? 165.189.91.148 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Do you know which tournament (location, year)? Also, do you have a reference for this game, or for London's bio in general? I couldn't find anything with google, but I might not be looking in the right place. 165.189.91.148 18:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Got it, sounds good. If you find a good reference we will definitely want him on the list. 165.189.91.148 18:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sobornost

Hey could you add a Rand comment or two into the sobornost article? LoveMonkey 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What! This wasn't your edit..1.

LoveMonkey 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Da Walrus being number one Rand fan extraordinaire.

PS- You grumpay! LoveMonkey 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand

Regarding your removal of non-philosophers I'm not sure that makes sense. These are major people who her ideas influenced. It isn't clear to me why the fact that they aren't philosophers should be a cause for removal. JoshuaZ 04:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As an aside to the List of political philosophers discussion - I have sent out a few "feelers" to folks who can weigh in more heavily than you or I on the topic, and am hoping to get input from them soon. DukeEGR93 02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Cult/Cult Leader CfDs

To help with reaching consensus on these CfDs, I added categories to sort votes into reasons for Keep or Delete. You can confirm that I sorted you into the right group here and hereAntonrojo 19:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks

No problem. I know of Alienus, and I'm glad I could help. If you notice that situation with POV pushers is getting out of hand on some articles, just past me a note. -- Vision Thing -- 20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rand on List of political philosophers, yet again

Dear LW - as you are well aware, whether Rand should be on this list is a matter of ongoing dispute. Sneaking her back on without discussion or reference to ongoing argument is unacceptable and counter-productive. Your sensible options are: 1. back off, if you find yourself unable to take part in a reasonable discussion of the issue; or 2. try to build consensus on the talk page. I and others are willing to be convinced by rational argument. Yours, Sam Clark 18:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You've just put Rand back on the list, again, with the edit summary 'rv per talk'. What's going on in the talk-page is a debate, with no consensus reached, and in which you are currently taking no part at all, so what on earth do you mean by this edit summary? Sam Clark 19:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You added a comment to an earlier debate, rather than the one that is actually going on. And you didn't 'justify' the addition, you simply repeated the same old 'reputable sources describe Rand as a philosopher' argument which has been rejected (by me and by others) several times. So, no, I'm not wrong: you're operating without consensus, without making any serious attempt at discussion, and without paying any attention to the arguments in play. This strikes me as unimpressive. Yours, Sam Clark 08:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The 'relevance' of your argument is not what's in question, and I have 'acknowledged' it by giving reasons for disagreeing with it. The point, as you perfectly well know, is that your argument is not accepted by many of the people, including me, who are involved in editing the article. Sam Clark 19:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yaron Brook

Why do you think the world should not know what Yaron Brook said in his O'Reilly interview? Have you watched it?

What is wrong with putting it up on the net? He said so? No? Are you his keeper. Why are constantly deleteing it? Just curiousLeaNder 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atlas Shrugged Revert (No Hard Feelings)

Hey LaszloWalrus, I am not sure how notification works, but I responded to your comments on my talk page. Thanks! Statistical Mechanic 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting

Dear Mr or Ms Walras, please let me know how pasting Peikoff's own words, and adding a little bit of background, constitutes "my opinions"? I am reverting the page, but I delete the firt sentence that may mildly sound like a personal point of view. mrjahan Nov. 20, 2006

Objectivism Hello, I have never contacted you before but I just wanted to ask you a few questions, I would like to add my name to the list of wikipedians who are objectivist's, but don't know if its reasonable. Can you be an Objectivist if you agree with most of the basic philosophy re: Capitalism, reason, freedom, art, rational self interest and the basic nature of man, that he is self-interested by nature and allowing man's basic nature to flourish improves the world by virtue of improving the man, by virtue of giving him self-respect and true freedom man is ennobled. But my problems come with a few points in objectivist thought, specifically Atheism, is it not true that the truth of religion is unknowable?, that however unlikely based upon factual, scientific reasoning it is, and however possible based upon empirical evidence (the vast majority of people who are stated theists, the lengthy empirical evidence of miracles/unexplained phenomena, the basic arguments in favor of intelligent design. I realize this argument lacks truly logical or scientific veracity and therefore could be thrown aside out of hand but that doesn't change the basic fact that regardless of how likely theism is it doesn't change the argument from ignorance problem. It seems logical that there is no god, and it is certainly rational, but the problem comes with a strict atheism. atheism says their is no god, but that seems like a fallacy, there may very well not be a god, it might be incredibly unlikely (though one might put forth the argument that without any true evidence there is no basis for how likely it is one way or the other), but if their is no evidence than it seems to me that skeptical agnosticism is the only purely logical concept. My second problem comes from Ayn Rands own discussions regarding the difference between men and woman, please explain her argument to me because I don't understand it. It seems like old fashioned sexism, I hate the term but can't think of a better one, a good example would be an argument I read once where she explains why a woman would be unfit to be president. I am not saying her basic premise was faulty, the linear thinking and hard quick decision making needed are proven to be predominantly male qualities, but this doesn't explain why it would be wrong for a woman who was part of the unknown percentage of woman who have linear thought processes to be president. A last question comes from the practical side, if laissez faire capitalism was realized, how would we do it?. It seems we would need a period of adjustment to change society or things could degenerate into anarchy. Also, how do we get past the hurdle of public opinion?, by this I mean is it moral to impose a correct, moral and rational system in place if we suppose (as I think reasonable) that most people don't want pure freedom. That most people, silly as it seems, actually want socialism or a mixed economy because though it doesn't make them more free or more happy or better people it is undeniably easier to let the state take care of this or that. The question comes up, how do we take into account the opinions and desires of the average person where that person's opinion or desire conflict with rational self interest?. It may seem like i'm contradicting objectivism but these questions are the main problems I have and I wonder if you can disagree or question some points well accepting most of the concepts and still be an objectivist.--Colin 8 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

I've got your back on the Objectivism related pages. You'll have to bear with me, though. Right now I only know the very basics. For example, there needs to be pages for Allan Gotthelf and Ed Locke. Both are highly regarded Objectivists, and highly regarded outside of Objectivism as well. Gotthelf for his Aristotle scholarship and Locke for his theory of goal setting. I'd write those pages myself, but I'm not sure how to do it or what the Wikipedia rules for starting new pages are. Endlessmike 888 17:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sold. I'll make those pages when I get a chance. Thanks for the help! Endlessmike 888 01:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alienus

Question regrading your recent revert to the article on Pseudophilosophy: Is there adequate administrative evidence that User:Alienus is editing from IP# 128.197.11.30 ? ... Kenosis 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

RE your reply on my talk page. That is unfortunate, as I recall seeing some seemingly well considered edits earlier in 2006. Take care. ... Kenosis 07:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't find it odd at all. There are plenty more anonymous editors than registered editors. What I do find odd, however, is the attitude that all anonymous IPs must be the same person, and that every edit made by an IP should be reverted on sight. That's contrary to Wikipedia norms. See: Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Registration), which notes, "'Everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, regardless of whether they choose to register." .--LeflymanTalk 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think 151.100.107.63 is this Alienus character? Could he be the one behind all the anonymous vandalism of the Objectivism template recently? Endlessmike 888 22:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Warning on Pseudophilosophy

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Pseudophilosophy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--LeflymanTalk 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The reversions you made were to your own deletion of content-- which had been returned to the article by the anon IP. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, you have no cause to claim that IP to be a particular user; nor to refer to "vandalism" when you are the one removing content. I would have expected that the four previous blocks you've been given for edit warring should have sufficed in demonstrating that such tactics are not considered appropriate to Wikipedia.--LeflymanTalk 06:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You were blocked for such reverts prior to Alienus being placed on a year ban; and you've not demonstrated that the anon IP is a banned user. Even still, if there's a dispute over content (not obvious vandalism) -- as in this case-- and you're repeatedly reverting, you are engaging in edit warring. Further, if you're reverting multiple editors, as you did to my restoration of content, expect to be warned. Please review WP:3RR, which specifically points out, "Note that reverts in edit wars in which one side describes the other side's edits as vandalism are generally not only contentious reverts, but are also assumptions of bad faith. Blocking can be expected in such cases.'' --LeflymanTalk 07:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] a call for comments

On the Talk:List of philosophers born in the twentieth century page at the bottom of the section on Rand and on the Template talk:Philosophy navigation page, near the very bottom, is a request for comments - I hope you will take the time to express your views. Steve 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivy Plus Group

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Ivy Plus Group, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.

Unless you have a source that documents the existence of a formal "Ivy Plus" group (and that Dartmouth teaching center link is not such a source), I see no reason for a new "Ivy Plus" article when similar material has already been deleted several times. -- Rbellin|Talk 06:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wake Forest University

THANK YOU! I was going to do this the next chance I got. It was getting a bit ridiculous. :-D. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Periods and quotation marks

I've reverted your edit to Eton College article because in British English periods go outside the quotations marks. As this is an article about a British institution, it should conform to British standards rather than American ones. For further information on the differences, please see American and British English differences. -- MightyWarrior 12:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivist movement

Check out the Objectivist movement article :) Endlessmike 888 02:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A. D. Kirwan

I see you removed Category:University of Kentucky from the A. D. Kirwan article. Kirwan was actually better known as a professor, administrator and president of the University than has was as football coach for a short time early in his career. In this particular case, I would argue that this category isn't redundant since he was far more than a football coach. Thanks. --rogerd 14:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/s/User_talk%7ELaszloWalrus_a009.html"