User talk:Maziotis

Hello, Maziotis! I'm Clamster5. While creating new and interesting articles is extremely helpful to the Wikipedia project, there are more than 19,000 articles that need to cleaned up. These articles could use your knowledge and time. There are so many pages currently needing clean-up that there is guaranteed to be something that you find interesting. Even fixing up just one is a huge help. If every editor on wikipedia edited just one article each, the backlog would be cleared in no time.

Thanks! Clamster5.

[edit] Portals

Hi, just fyi, portals need to be fully constructed before they're added at Portal:List, see more info at Wikipedia:Portal. Thanks :) --Quiddity 23:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V for Vendetta

How exactly is this movie anti-modernist? Gdo01 10:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-primitivism

Regarding the sentence you deleted from the Derrick Jensen entry on 19:16, 6 December 2006, I don't disagree that it is accurate to label Derrick Jensen a primitivist. However, I find it amusing that you assumed I know nothing about primitivism, and based on that removed the sentence. It is amusing because Derrick Jensen wrote the sentence himself. I posted it on his behalf, which you may confirm if you like by emailing him.LC | Talk 00:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How did I assume that? I changed because I thought it need to be change, and i gave my justification on the discussion page. The reason why i suggested those reading were because in fact they regard those themes as part of anarcho-primitivsit theory. Peace.Maziotis 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do believe, however, that Jensen is a brilliant author and writer. If he says that his wrting on misogyny and racism are out of his anarchist interests, than it must be right.Maziotis 00:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TKaczynski.JPG

Hi, I noticed you tagged Image:TKaczynski.JPG with {{PD-self}}. Are you actually the photographer who took that picture? If so, I'd like to move the image to Commons so it can be used by other projects. Thanks! —Angr 14:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely mistagged then. Cropping an image doesn't give you creative rights to it. Could you add the source of the image and an appropriate image copyright tag? —Angr 21:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. at this point it's probably better to look for a different image whose source you can identify (such a press photograph from the AP or Reuters or the like), and upload that instead. It's unlikely anyone can find or make a freely licensed image of him, so we have to use a fair-use image or none at all, but there are strict rules about fair-use images, including that we have to be able to name the copyright holder. —Angr 21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism messages

Thanks for reverting vandalism to Leo Tolstoy. Remember to place one of the vandalism templates from the WP:VAND page onto the talk page of each person who vandalises. This helps to stop them vandalising, or else to provide evidence that vandalism has continued in the midst of vandalism warnings, prompting a message to WP:AIAV and the eventual blocking of a continued offender. Cheers, keep up the good work! Jpeob 01:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaczynski

Hello Maziotis! It's alright, I suppose, to disagree with either term I added, but, quite clearly, Kaczynski is a bit more than an average anarchist. I would think that as he is insane, a mass murderer -- if not a serial killer, and a terrorist -- in the tradtional sense of the term mention immediately in the article's header is warranted. How do you suggest this information be added or phrased in order to incorporate it there? 67.101.243.74 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You can find my impressions on this matter in the discussion section, which is where you should participate and find consensus.

Regarding your position, I must say right away that the category "mass murder" is clearly not suitable, while others might be very controversial. Ted Kaczynski killed three people on separate occasions, which technically leaves him out of that definition.

If you want my opinion regarding your personal message, consider this: Do you believe that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist? Do you believe that he is insane? Well, to wikipedia neither what you believe of Osama, nor Kaczynski, matters. If you go to Osama article you will find that he is labeled as a "militant Islamist". That article has high traffic and it was asserted for some time now that, following the wikipedia’s guidelines, he should not be classified as a serial killer, mass murder or even a terrorist. Now, have you read kaczynski's manifesto and the justifications that he gave to send those bombs? In what way would you consider Kaczynski's actions to be less political in nature than those of Osama bin laden's? So, answering your question, how about "militant anarchist" as for the initial category in the article?Maziotis 12:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• There's nothing redeeming about either person; I think, simply, that the basis of their criminality should be made clear as that is undoubtedly the most obvious aspect of both figures when one would look for either's article, which is, after all, the foremost use of an encyclopedia. 67.101.243.74 13:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Who defines that? Will you change "osama" article according to those (yours) principles? I understand that you might find this way of argument to be a form of absolute relativism and, as such, unacceptable. But these questions I ask are not rhetoric ones. They are honest straightforward questions. I would like to know what would you do to both of these articles, and what is your position to the issue I raise, regarding the applied wikipedia's guidelines in osama's article, in order for you to be consistent.

Personally, I believe that Theodore Kaczynski is a political prisoner. But my political and moral views on this subject are irrelevant, no matter with how many people I share them with, just like yours.Maziotis 13:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have read your arguments on the discussion page for the article since writing my reply to you. I find your position on the matter indefensible and ridiculous, but, as you would agree, that is neither here nor there. With regard to the "Osama" article, according to my principles, which almost certainly correspond directly to the principles of every sound beneficiary of contemporary civilization -or, at the least, the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking peoples for whom this encyclopedia is maintained- it should make immediate mention that he is a terrorist and a mass murderer. To suggest otherwise goes so far beyond moral relativism as to make the sentiment simply demented. There is such a thing as a terrorist and there is such a thing as a mass murderer. If there were not, the terms would not have use. There is, to-day, no more widely acknowledged example of a terrorist than Osama bin Laden, who is, by consequence of his activities, a mass murderer. Yet, we digress, as I have not seen that article nor have I, at present, any want to edit the "Osama" article, but only to ensure that the "Kaczynski" article is undistorted and legitimate. You have asked "who defines that?" Who defines what? I suggested nothing that should not be self-evident and I did not put forth some term that is vague or undefined. A terrorist is one who engages in acts of violence or fear-mongering that resultantly causes terror. By all accounts, and from what I have read on the discussion page, even his own account, Kaczynski is a terrorist. It does not matter whether some insensible editor has applied his efforts to remove that language from the "Osama" article or any other article because it is an irrefutable fact that Kaczynski is a terrorist. One can always engage in word-play and conjecture to affect the removal of a correct and legitimate term, but it is rather a show of incompetence than an act of scholarship. Also, as Kaczynski has murdered --that is, knowingly and premeditatingly killed-- multiple others, he is a multiple murderer. I would consider him a serial killer, but again, that would be a personal determination. The fact of the matter is that he is a multiple-murderer. If one chooses to split hairs, one can say that "mass murderer" is inappropriate based on number of those killed, but because the term "multiple-murderer" is definitely lesser applied than "mass murderer," the latter would seem more natural in expressing that quality of Kaczynski. The position you have taken, regardless of my belief that it is indefensible and ridiculous, is to employ semantic concerns to the fact that he is a terrorist and a multiple-murderer, if not a mass murderer. Those concerns, and the insistence that he not be labeled with those quite correct terms, immediately demonstrates a personal insecurity with your ideology. That is, is your belief in Kaczynski's ideology authentic or is it simply awe with the terrible crimes he has committed, disguised by exercises in intellectual discourse, such that you must refuse to recognize the fact that his acts were terrorism and murder? 67.101.243.74 16:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have moved this discussion to Talk:Theodore Kaczynski so that it is accessible to a wider participation. 67.101.243.74 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I have never argued that Kaczynski should not be called a murderer or a terrorist, in the beginning of the article. You said that you have read my posts, but in it I discuss, technically, if his profile fits the common use of the term "serial killer". Since this term, as the term "terrorist", are widely identified as controversial in themselves, I do not understand why would you assume with such a clear voice how these terms are applied in an "evident" way. Another person changed the consensus that was reached by the end of that conversion and, from there, other people came and changed it to the way it is now, without a different consensus being made again.

All that talk about civilization values are just your own view on how wikipedia should be use to reaffirm what you perceive as common social values, just like television, radio, and mass media in general, has done in the past. I am not saying that is wrong, I am just looking for the wikipedia guidelines that define clearly that objective, and in what way.

Some people do feel confuse on exactly what constitutes a neutral and factual point of view, and on how further powerful technological tools, as the easily accessible wikipedia, could be promiscuous in the way we have discussed and find time to reflect on our own, in the past. For some people, nothing of this is obvious. I do not find challenged in any way by your comments as to how "ridiculous" and “indefensible" I am.Maziotis 14:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Ted Kaczynski, he did not send bombs to establish a sense of terror in the community, to further his political goals. Or at least, that expression is not "evident". According to his argument, he was trying to eliminate concrete targets, as calling for others to join in the movement, to participate in a revolution against Industrialism. Some people look at this facts and say, like you, that clearly he is a "terrorist", others might say something like "revolutionary".Maziotis 14:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In the last discussion we had reached the conclusion that multiple point of views should be expressed in the article itself. Like the suggestion: "Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942), also known as the Unabomber, is an anarcho-primitivist and terrorist who some have called a serial killer who gained notoriety for sending mail bombs to several universities and airlines from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, ultimately killing three people and wounding 29."Maziotis 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How about how it is now, with SqueakBox last change? It states that his campaign was murderous and infamous. Further Classification, such as "terrorist", is perceived by wikipedia as a word to avoid, as SqueakBox made it clear.Maziotis 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unabomber

• "Suffice to say that Fight Club isn't merely a bloody buddy movie. Uhls' script, based on a novel by Chuck Palahniuk, delves into avenues of Marxist ideology, Fascist motivations, psychological dilemmas and Unabomber answers. If that doesn't make potential viewers squirm, the genially dark humor Fincher injects into the issues may do the trick."^[1]
• "I thought it fell apart when the fight clubs began to metamorphosize into a fascist urban militia and I think its agenda goes a lot deeper. The Unabomber might have written it. The twist is still a cheat."^[2]
• "Soon, Jack is back where he started, and on a flight home from yet another business trip, he encounters Tyler (Brad Pitt), a nutty character reminiscent of The Mad Hatter, William S. Burroughs, and The Unabomber all rolled up into one."^[3] (may not meet reliable source criteria)

I have not found any other news articles using Access World News or Google News Archive. This is the best I can do in terms of authoritative sources. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had much time to work on my project due to school; reception and interpretations are secondary right now. I'm focusing on production and themes as presented by the director and actors. Take a look here. It's still a work in progress; I haven't tied everything together in the proper format. Feel free to find out what I've been learning myself about the film. Hope it helps you understand the reason why I haven't agreed with you on the anarcho-primitivist theme. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

Please don't give out ridiculous vandalism warnings as you did to me. What I did wasn't vandalism: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fight_Club&diff=prev&oldid=118833512 In fact, all you did was readd vandalism (see your edit). Dlong 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I made a mistake, thinking your edit was the add of that sign. Sorry.Maziotis 18:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)