User talk:The Ungovernable Force/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of previous discussions. Please do NOT edit this page, except for minor things like fixing links. If you would like to continue any of these discussions, start a new section on my active talk page. Thanks.

Contents

[edit] Groups of like-minded users

Off-limits at wikipedia, or what? I mean, is it against rules, policy, or good taste to form a group of people with similar opinions on wikipolicy (or perhaps politics)? If not, is there somewhere I can sign up? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 01:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also be interested. 782 Naumova 11:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent post

Hey,

I'm an editor at The American River Current. I noticed your post on the talk page of the American River College article, and would like to discuss your post further. Please shoot me an email to adrian@adrian.org. Thanks :)

Adrian Lamo 06:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism

Hi, could you sign your post and get searching for sources that support your claim. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 06:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is kinda embarassing, but I'm fairly limited in the sites I can visit due to restrictions from my mother. It's not as bad as it sounds, it's only because she's paranoid about viruses, but this is one of the few sites I can access and so I don't think I can find much. I have a few books on anarchism, but they don't have anything to back that up, because they don't even talk about anarcho-capitalism (what a surprise). I think someone else should try to find that. I am actually looking through one of my books now to see if I can find any relevant info, and when I do I'll post it. I put some chomsky quotes up earlier, but he did actually recognize anarcho-capitalists, but said that they were not part of the international anarchist movement and had little in common with the majority of anarchists. Actually, I guess that might kinda work, although I don't have the cites to that (I printed it out months ago and don't know where it is from.) It might be on one of the sites I can look at, so I'll look there. Oh, and I signed my post right after I did it, I realized I had not. I keep forgetting to sign posts. It's not purposeful, and I've called myself on it a couple times. The Ungovernable Force 07:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
luckily, it was on one of the pages I can go to. Here it is [1]. I will post this on the anarchism talk page.
I forgot to sign again (I told you I have a problem with that ;) The Ungovernable Force 07:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, books are great, I think we have to put anarcho-capitalism in a historical perspective. Do you mind listing which books you have? Perhaps there are some quotes in them that could be useful. - FrancisTyers 15:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, none of my books deal with an-cap. Here is my list of books that have are by/about anarchists (as well as anthologies with anarchist contributers):
  1. Anarchism by Daniel Guérin w/intro by Noam Chomsky. I was looking through the intro and it might have some relevant quotes, but I will read it later today hopefully.
  2. My Disillusionment in Russia by Emma Goldman.
  3. Secrets, Lies and Democracy by Noam Chomsky (no mention of anarchism).
  4. Voices of a People's History of the United States compiled by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove.
  5. The Communist Manifesto and Other Revolutionary Writings (don't know who compiled it b/c my friend is borrowing it.
  6. Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook by CrimethInc Ex-Workers' Collective. The Ungovernable Force 19:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...

Thanks for the kind words, I try and keep my political beliefs off Wikipedia, moreso when doing mediation. I was struggling towards the end and wasn't really being effective, which is why I handed it over to Nicholas. The right of free movement is one of those no-brainers that should be patently obvious to anyone who gives it any thought. Feel free to use the list as you wish, a warning though, its likely that anything not in confirmed will be wrong. If you can confirm some all the better :) - FrancisTyers 16:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

All I can confirm is Mexican Spanish, and it's already confirmed The Ungovernable Force 03:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair Use Image

I have removed a 'fair use' image from your userspace. FU images are not allowed to be user in userspace - please see the #fair use polict at WP:FU. I assume you were ignorant of this policy, but please be aware that users are now beeing blocked for violations of it. Please read it before using any more images on wikipedia. Thanks. --Doc ask? 10:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really want to know who considers that a copyrighted image? Maybe you don't know anything about food not bombs, but no one involved would ever consider suing someone for using their logo like that. It's a group of anarchists who are opposed to capitalism and the government. I don't think they care if people use their logo. I do see that the image says it's copyrighted, but why? If I find a non-copywrited version online, is that ok? The Ungovernable Force 05:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
If you click on the image and find the copystatus lag, you'll find it is listed as being used under 'fair-use'. Fair use tagged images must not be used other than as outlined by WP:FUC. The legal situation is, I think, debatable, but nevertheless, that is absolute wikimedia policy as dictated by Jimbo. The image, of course, may be wrongly tagged (I don't know), but the policy is you can't use images unless they are tagged as GDFL or pd released - if you think the tag should be changed, you'll have to take that up with others. --Doc ask? 09:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert explanation

Why did you remove my lowercasing of "User" and my removal of the apostrophe from "it's"? And with an edit summary of "rvv"? I don't wish to edit war, but ask you to restore the changes. Or at least explain why they were inappropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not changing that, I was changing the imature vandalism that made the userbox insulting to userbox supporters. I will add your grammatical changes back in, assuming there is still need. I didn't realize that. The Ungovernable Force 06:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's fine; thanks for the apology. I thought perhaps you felt a sense of ownership of the template and didn't approve of anyone else modifying it or something. Maybe in the future when someone makes a change you don't like, you can just edit those changes out instead of reverting all the way back to a version before those edits. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal status update - Anarchism

Dear The Ungovernable Force: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, mediator and coordinator down at the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. This is a status update regarding a mediation request that you are involved in, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism. I have written my initial view on the case and would be grateful if you would please consider what I have written there; in particular, I'd be grateful if you would please carry out the task I asked for to write a single sentence overview of what you think is wrong with the article, so that we can compare viewpoints to come up with a collective solution. Thank you very much for your participation. If you require any assistance relating to this matter please do not hesistate to contact me. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr for RJII

Just wanted to let you know that I asked one of the arbitrators who accepted the case, Fred Bauder, if he felt the arbitration would continue. He responded that it probably would, although he had not looked at it yet. If you have evidence to bring, you might want to post it here. I think that the case is much less likely to be dropped if there is a large amount of evidence from different users. Even if this RfAr is dropped because Firebug left Wikipedia, the evidence could be copied to any future arbitration. TomTheHand 16:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protest Warrior discussion

Don't ever confuse me with a member of ANSWER, who frankly are fascists (though not nazis) as far as I'm concerned. Not trying to sound harsh towards you, I just can't stand those authoritarian commies. And not all PW's are necessarily nazis or even real fascists, but in my opinion, some of the things supported by that group have fascist and jingoistic overtones. My own opinion though. This observation is mainly from a limited pool of knowledge about the group though, but even still. If you want to have a serious and polite discussion on the matter, feel free to start it here or on my userpage. It'll give me a chance to see how your guy's minds work. I do honestly respect other people's opinions, even if I don't agree (with the exception of full-blown nazis, racists, fascists, and other bigots/authoritarians). And calling someone a fascist in a protest setting is a lot different than in a rational debate. In protests emotions run high and group mentality kicks in, so if one person calls someone a fascist, everyone does. I would probably shout that at you during a protest, but in a real debate things become a lot different, because you can actually reason with people. The Ungovernable Force 01:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

To start off with, my apologies for the ANSWER thing; as I said afterwards, I hadn't read your userpage first. As for how my mind works, for me personally I'm in PW for precisely the reason you dislike ANSWER. I can't stand the fact that unreformed Stalinists dominate street protests, and for me, Protest Warrior is the best way to counteract that. I'm hardly the typical member; I'm not a hardline rightist, major war hawk, Republican ideologue, or anything else. For me, PW is an ally of convenience and nothing more; I spend almost as much time arguing with the denser members as I do the WWP flunkies.
To sum up, I'm in because I oppose the same people PW does, not because I agree with their every tenet. I refuse to partake in protests in support of Bush; when I choose to go on a march, it's to have fun annoying the piss out of the idiots in the neon-green vests. I can stand PW mainly because it does have a strong libertarian element that's in it for the same reason I am; were it only Bush-bots, I'd just sit out the whole thing in disgust. Rogue 9 07:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Just join a black bloc, then you could be against bush and disagree with the ANSWER folks ;) To be more serious though, I don't believe that "unreformed Stalinists dominate street protests", most people are just progressives. Of course, ANSWER is a front group for the WWP, but most people associated with ANSWER don't know that, just like most people don't know that Not in Our Name (NION) and World Can't Wait are fronts for the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, which is bascially a Maoist-cult centered around Chairman Bob Avakian. The average protesters have their hearts in the right place, but are either too reformist (the majority) or too authoritarian (the minority, but the ones who run the big coalitions, with the exception of UPFJ, which is really reformist). The interesting thing about it all though, is that before the war, anarchists were actually doing a lot of the organizing, but now these authoritarian communists are more in control of the calls to action and lining up all big mobilizations, whereas us anarchists usually just do break-away marches. Sad in my opinion, because after Seattle, we had a lot of momentum as a movement, and we still have a lot of it, but ANSWER and NION etc are sucking all the spontaneous nature of the protests out.
I don't know if I can really fault you for working with them even though you disagree with a lot of their ideas, because I too am guilty and often work with progressives and the ocassional authoritarian commie (but I do draw a line with that). I am glad to hear that you don't actually support a lot of their ideas though. Anyway, since it came up, what are you ideas on the minutemen? The Ungovernable Force 05:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I've had bad experiences with a black bloc before; I'm not eager to throw in with them. I used to run with Anti-Racist Action way back when Clinton was President, I was sixteen years old, and my main problem was the fucking Klan trying to reassert themselves in Indiana, but ARA was too eager for "direct action," as they called it, which could be accurately translated to mean "let's start a riot." I'm also distinctly not an anarchist; while I don't like government overstepping it's bounds, I really don't like situations that don't have the rule of law; true anarchy is power by personal might, which is not a good situation in my eyes. I've known some good guys who go with the black blocs (Schuminweb for instance), but they have too much of a tendency to get way the hell out of control. As for Seattle, the momentum I saw there consisted of that possessed by rocks flying at windows; if wanton destruction is what the anarchist movement wants, then frankly I wish no part in it.
As for the Minutemen, it's their right to form a citizen's militia if they so choose. Beyond that, I don't have an opinion on them because I haven't seen them at work; if they work for racist reasons then fuck them, but if they're really just in it to hold the border, then I have no problems. For illegal immigration in general, my position is to open up immigration, issue green cards to anyone who wants to work (meaning simple border checks without quotas, allowing anyone without a violent criminal record who wants to work into the country). Then lock down the border; with unrestricted legal immigration in place, anyone who attempts to run the border obviously has criminal intent. This will never be implemented, of course, because it makes sense and Washington doesn't deal in sense. Rogue 9 16:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Subhumans Concert

hey, I am really lost about how to talk over wikipedia, so I am sorry if I am fucking up your site. alright, the show is 7:30pm on Thursday, March 30 at The Empire downtown. The bands confirmed are Subhumans, Born/Dead, and World Inferno. All ages see you next week man

Tickets are $10 here


this is one of the pages I created [the restarts] 22:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ill get around to finishing it.....later.

[edit] Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including keeping, merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. Again, thank you for your comments. -- Jonel | Speak 03:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] KFC Protest

hey, I am going to this protest against KFC on April 1st (its not a joke) and Id like to know if you'd to come too and help me represent the SacFNB with myself and others. information for it is here hope you can make it, man.

[edit] your recent edits

For reasons too complicated to elucidate here, I'm bringing this edit to your attention. Please refer to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL when contemplating your interactions with other users.

Adrian Lamo ·· 07:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Got too upset, I'm trying to stay away from that user now, but I agree, my bad, totally out of line. Bad judgement on my part. The Ungovernable Force 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

: Hey, what's your e-mail address? I have a time-sensitive ARC-related question.

Adrian Lamo ·· 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! That was bizarre, bizarre timing. Adrian Lamo ·· 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

I find some of the statements on your user page completely unacceptable. Please see Wikipedia:User page for examples and recommendations of what is useful and acceptable content. And keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a blog. You're free to publish your opinions on one of the many blogging sites. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

How is this a blog? A blog is a website in which items are posted on a regular basis and displayed in reverse chronological order. My user page is nothing like that. By showing my POV's I am showing my hand so to speak to other users, which helps others see where I am coming from. This has already been helpful on at least one occasion. Anyways, the policy on userboxes and expressing not wiki-related opinions on user pages is still controversial and unclear, so I will not be changing anything until there is some clear command from the powers that be. If you have a problem with a specific item, bring it up, but don't just go around deleting my userboxes. Bush is not a user, so how is calling him a "Neo-fascist pig dog" a personal attack on a user? I did take out the "pig dog" part to make you happy, but you redeleted it anyways. If you really want to keep deleting it, say what exactly is wrong with it, because as far as I'm concerned I have the right to express my opinion on a public figure here on my user page. We are allowed to express our opinions you know. The Ungovernable Force 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey. I'm really not usually this nosy about userpages, but your page came up on the admin noticeboard. Since you'd made a clear effort to compromise earlier, I'm reverting your page back to the next earliest version by you. Hope that works out.
Adrian Lamo ·· 13:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Although I still think attacking Bush does not constitute a personal attack due to his not being a user, and being a public official at that, I am fine with the compromise, otherwise I wouldn't have made it in the first place. Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There's some chatter about modifying the personal attack policy to include an attack on any person. But for the moment, it's a nebulous area, where good faith and WP:CIVILity are important. And ... that's enough of that; I can't quote policy at someone I know in real life; it feels weird ; ) Adrian Lamo ·· 07:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Quote away, it's good to know what's going on. How do you think Nancy, Lou, and all of us allies are combating the SA? We have to know what the policies are and what we are allowed to do. Where can I find the proposal to expand personal attacks to anyone? The Ungovernable Force 07:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, it wasn't actually a policy proposal, but a policy discussion. You can find it here. Wikipedia policy isn't a roadmap to Wiki-combat though; in theory, we're all on the same side ; ) I had no idea you had anything to do with the SA controversy until recently, actually. I'd go further into that, but Wikipedia talk ain't the place for it. Cheers :) Adrian Lamo ·· 07:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess my last message came off too militant, I just meant that I want to know, since there are some people who are very anti-userbox, and I would like to know if some are about to be deleted or something, and maybe put in my 2 cents. Anyway, you can email me about the SA stuff, but I won't check email for a few days (long story, tell you later if you care). Peas and An Are KeyThe Ungovernable Force 07:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply wiki-militance :) You have my card; you're welcome to get ahold of me as well.
Adrian Lamo ·· 08:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I do? News to me, I should look for it! The Ungovernable Force 08:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That makes two of us; for the life of me, I can't find my notes with your e-mail ;x Adrian Lamo ·· 09:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to "subst" a template so it won't be affected by deletions.

Suppose you have {{user some silly userbox}}, change it to {{subst:user some silly userbox}} and if the template gets ever deleted, it won't be removed from your user page. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Please stop creating polemical userboxes. This is your only warning. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

please stop deleting non-polemical userboxes. I'm not going to let wikipedia become a police state, but it looks like it's too late.The Ungovernable Force 07:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't recognize Jimbo's authority then I'm afraid we can have no productive discussion here. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There can be a productive drive towards consensus, User:Mackensen, which is surely what Jimmy Wales would want from the community, no? Adrian Lamo ·· 21:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This is how I feel exactly. I am upset that Jimbo would go against the community opinion, but I am even more upset that some admins don't even listen to Jimbo's well-reasoned advice that we take this slowly. I do hope people can stop deleting all these boxes and just come up with a policy that makes most everyone happy. The Ungovernable Force 23:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to have a look at {{Polemical userboxes}}--Doc ask? 21:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I was considering removing them last week for a seperate reason, but right about now I am going to leave them up, because this is ridiculous and I am not going to let myself and this whole community get pushed around by a few admins on power trips. Now it is a matter of principle. There are three ways they can come down:
  1. The admins who are speedy deleting userboxes decide to cool down and restore all (well, virtually all, there are going to be occasions that they should be gotten rid of) the political and "divisive" userboxes. At this time I will consider taking them down
  2. The community at large decides that getting rid of userboxes is a good idea
  3. They get deleted from my page.

The Ungovernable Force 22:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


I got my warning for trying to open a diolague over the bush templates. i documented it here. maybe that could help for an RfC...Mike McGregor (Can) 03:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry about the rant. I was a streched rubber band that just snapped. I've been speeking calmly about this for a couple months now and these mass deletions are still going on. I just couldn't take it anymore. I also didn't know that the codes were available. I'm usually pretty good about not going off like that. It's just some things do get to me. Sorry. This is just so exhausting. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

We all make mistakes. I've done rash and stupid things too, but I am making sure not to with this, because I know we are all on thin ice now. The Ungovernable Force 04:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

Sorry about the slowness, I was over 2 min reverting, usually I do it in 30s :) - it broke your formatting thats why I pulled. Tawker 08:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] *random*

Hey, your userpage is looking neat :)

Adrian Lamo ·· 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, actually it's largely because of your userpage. You inspired me. Also I ripped of your code for putting in background colors, which I didn't know before. The Ungovernable Force 10:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
User pages are a pain =x Design's never been my strong point, and I'm really jealous that User:Pathoschild came up with their page design before I thought of something similar, 'cos elsewise I totally would have gone minimalist. Ah well.
Adrian Lamo ·· 10:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can anyone

Can anyone sighn The Ungovernable Force/manifesto? Canadianism 10:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, just read your page.
so, yeah anyone can sign. The Ungovernable Force 10:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Some good ideas. Hopefully more people will sighn. In fact, I went straight to Kelly Martin's talk page with my case originally. I think you should do the same. Canadianism 10:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I've been so affraid of template deletion that must of my templates are just copied directly from the Wiki code. This rouge administrating is getting out of hand. Canadianism 10:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I went to the talk pages of everyone who deleted any of my userboxes, but she wasn't one of them. What did she delete this time? All my templates are in code, feel free to borrow any of them you like. The Ungovernable Force 10:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc

Force,

Within the next 24 hours, I will submit an Rfc against the admins who continuously speedy userboxes without consensus, and whatever else. If there's anything you think should be included on there, please let me know. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been noted at the Rfc. You may view it here. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 18:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Heh, I agree with all your userboxes except "vegetarian", "death penalty", "civilian gun control" and "punk rock". Vive les userboxes! Infinity0 talk 18:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually changed my death penalty one b/c you reminded me I wanted to add two exceptions. Are you pro gun control for us civilians? I can understand that, gun control is one of those really sticky issues for anarchists. Ideally we could get rid of them all, but if my enemies have guns (ie: cops, military, neo-nazis) I want to have the right to legally own them and defend myself if anything ever goes down (like the nazis taking their whole race war thing seriously and provoking one). I also like the line from a song by Emcee Lynx that goes "I use the 2nd amendment when they take away the 1st". That's just how I feel though. The Ungovernable Force 09:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, same here. Right to own, but not to use (except for defence, obv). As for the death penalty one, I dunno, I've always been supportive of it, even though I'm a humanitarian in most other respects. Infinity0 talk 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't beleive an anarchist would support the state's murder of someone, even someone who maybe deserved it. You also have to consider the racist and classist nature of it--if you're white and can afford a good attorney, you can probably fight it, but if you're a poor black or chican@ you're screwed. That's not acceptable in my opinion. And why would you trust the legal justice system to actually get the right people and not be corrupt (take Mumia Abu-Jamal for example). The Ungovernable Force 17:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think of it as a necessarily a state thing. All I mean by it is that I believe some people deserve death. -- infinity0 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fellow defender of free speech

Support Revolución in the February 2006 Esperanza elections!




[edit] Free speech message

If you don't mind I've added your free speech message to my talk page. --Revolución hablar ver 00:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

no problem. As my userpage says at the bottom, everything I do is open for ripping off. Then again, I may have ripped that off of someone (I'm not even sure what you're talking about), but I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. I'd be the one in trouble, not you. The Ungovernable Force 09:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manifesto

You're welcome. Эйрон Кинни 09:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: conflicting userboxes

I am indeed quite "serious" throughout my entire userpage (despite sometimes making a joke of those things I am serious about)...including the template near the top of the page indicating that the article contradicts itself ;). It is my incredibly humble opinion that in certain cases, where we are absolutely certain that the crime in question was indeed performed by the person in question, and the person is beyond reform, and the crime is sufficiently detestable, the death penalty would be warranted...in other words, we shouldn't waste money keeping people like Charles Manson alive. Other than that, I believe that every person should be free and encouraged to develop their own beliefs and live their life how they choose so long as it does not cause anyone else undue harm. Very idealistic, I know, I have oft been criticized on this opinion...but not convincingly enough to change it :). For more on my view regarding userboxes and wikipedia, see here (down near the bottom at this point). bcatt 09:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I might repost that well-written argument on my user page if I find an appropriate place. As for the death penalty, I will say only one thing, even though I have more to say: it costs more to keep em on death row than in jail due to the appeals process, and if you are going to make sure the people are really guilty (which is impossible IMO) you are just going to spend way more money. Just release the people on drug charges and we'll have plenty of room in the prisons anyways. BTW, I'm conflicted on issues of criminal justice, but I am convinced our system is so flawed that it is vitually useless. Actually, that's more than one thing, but whatever. The Ungovernable Force 09:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your points completely, that is why I qualified it with absolute proof. Confessions, or photographic or other proof...and mind you, only on extreme charges. In those cases, the appeal process would be moot. I do agree with drug charges in most cases, but there are people who like to sell crack in elementary schoolyards, and these people should clearly be locked up (in my opinion ;)). I may be biased, though, as a result of many long years of intimacy with a big-mouthed criminal defense lawyer...from this up-close-and-personal view of how the criminal justice system works, I agree wholeheartedly that it is flawed and virtually useless. Great work with the manifesto, btw. :) bcatt 09:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks The Ungovernable Force 10:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I was hoping reason was the way out of this. --Doc ask? 10:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

well, we have to see what happens. The Ungovernable Force 10:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, given the current atmosphere, your willingness to follow the argument and take a thought-out rather than partisan poision is commendable. --Doc ask? 10:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I do try to be reasonable. I was really charged the first day this started, but I'm starting to cool down. I'm still quite opinionated and will still fight this to the death (or more accurately, block), but I am trying to do so constructively and I can see some people's points. For example, I wouldn't be too upset if we just deleted all the templates and made these all subsetted, as long as there is a good directory of all the codes and a place to show how to make new ones. To do that though, I feel that the templates need to be undeleted for at least a few days, and hopefully a week or two so that people can get the codes they need and build directories.
Also, is there any policy yet that says userboxes need to be subsetted, or is it still just under debate? That might be important in all of this. The Ungovernable Force 10:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that we have a policy vaccumm at the moment, and that is what is causing the conflict. T1 allows the deletion of polemical userboxes - but DRV will simply restore the. Catch 22 - because we can just speedy them again and the circle continues. Jimbo wants them gone, but Jimbo won't enforce it. So we war. Maybe some form of compromise is possible. As for retriving code for hard-coding, I see User:Pathoschild has been doing that - he been quietly recreating subst userboxes without undeleting. Effectively nullifying the effects of our speedies without undoing them. You might like to have a word with him. If we don't find a compromise, they'll be more bad, the userboxes will probably be undeleted by DRV for now, but Jimbo will eventually step in and ban them. So it is in everyone's interests to try to sort this.--Doc ask? 12:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I love my country

Hey, just because you think this country is shit doesn't mean I have to. Genocide? Please. What the hell are you talking about? How dare you put us on the same plane as Hitler and Stalin. I love my country and can't stand you sitting there insulting it. The upside down flag is used as a direct insult to America. It would be like me putting a userbox on my page saying "F*** anarchists" and expecting you not to be offended. I have no problem with people saying that they're against America but having the upside-down American flag there is taking it too far. Take the upside down flag off and I might agree to it. Put a circle with a line through it over the flag or something but don't use the worst form of insult you can give a country. That's as divisive as it gets. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 14:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Extermination of Native Americans=Genocide. And I never said you had to think so too. In terms of the image, it's a matter of personal opinion. Everyone finds different things divisive--I get quite upset when I see those yellow support our troops ribbons, and I get really really upset when I see those God Bless America stickers and such, but I still voted to uphold your I support the troops thing. Part of the controversy is that we view the flag in fundamentally different ways. If you can put aside your own views and symbolism you have attached to the flag, and understand mine, then there would be no need for this. It's called cultural relativism and is an important issue in anthropology. Not to say you have to agree, you just need to understand. The Ungovernable Force 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I love my country too, I just hate the people running it. I don't see how it would be plausible to hate an entire country, especially your own. That would be like a kid's parents disowning him because he's going down a bad path. The nation's too vast, and the people are too diverse. There are a lot of assholes, and some decent people. But you won't find it much better anywhere else. The patriotic symbols and other excess shit is just dogma, and in my mind it's a shoddy substitute for real compassion. Being as this was a country founded by its people, the best course of action would be for the people to take it back and not just leave it in the hands of people who don't really care that much about it. You don't have to be an anarchist or leftist to see that. It's actually common sense. Thanks for your time.
I don't love my country any more than any other--we are all humans and that matters more than imaginary dividing lines. Some americans are good people, others are absolute idiots and jerks. Same with any place (though I get the feeling we may have a higher jerk to nice ratio than most other places). Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels (that's a bit of a cliche now it's been used so much, but I like it). Thanks for leaving a message. The Ungovernable Force 06:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Moral Support

Thanks for your moral support on the talk page. Kelly was clearly out of conduct with that decision and upon examination of the policy, I can safely conclude it didn’t apply to me. I was civil and respectful, plus I was trying to get consensus, which is at the heart of the Sociocratic method of Wikipedia. It appears she may, possibly, be Anti-Wiki. I will, when I have time, write her a note, attempting to resolve her action, which I consider inappropriate. If she blocks me again for civil discussion, we might have to remove an admin.

Canadianism 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:The Signing

Not a problem, i'm glad I could help as well as inspire you to feel that there is some hope in all this nonsense that's been going on lately. And don't worry, as long as you support me in one way or another, I can guarantee that i'll do the same even if we disagree -- we're stronger if we and others like us all stick together. Thanks for the update on Canadianism. Wish me luck, hopefully i'll be able to overturn such excesses after the re-rfa next week, but it's gonna be a close one, so i'm going to need all the support I can get. Karmafist 15:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What re-RFA do you speak of? The Ungovernable Force 17:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement against Jimbocracy

Statement against Jimbocracy. --Revolución hablar ver 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your manifesto

T1 This user believes that the most divisive thing about userboxes is admins who speedy delete them out of process.

I agree wholeheartably, and have therefore added my endorsement of it. I do not, however, believe that T1 is the problem - rather, it is the admins who liberally interpret it to mean that they can and should delete anything that they want to, and screw anyone who thinks otherwise. It is nice to see some sense in the midst of this pointless "war" on userbox templates. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/February userbox deletion

You may be interested in the above-referenced project page. — Adrian Lamo ·· 11:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII Anarchism

RJII has been banned from editing Anarchism for two weeks. I suggest you use this time as an opportunity to do any work on it that you think needs to be done. :) -- infinity0 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought he was supposed to be banned for a year if he stepped out of line. What happened? Anyway, I've been trying to stay away from that article (and wikipedia in general) lately, and I trust you guys to do a good job. I'll check up on it every now and again though. The Ungovernable Force 02:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, he was repeatedly re-writing my ind-anarchist criticsm of capitalist structures in the anarcho-capitalist section, which lead to an edit war. He wouldn't accept any of my rewritings of the section, so in the end I got pissed off and RfAr'd him. -- infinity0 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Policy Poll

The official polling spot for userboxes is up. Go here. Since you'd been so outspoken on the topic, I figured you might want to know about this page. As of now, about 62 percent of those polled support T1. Eh. Typos 07:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question

I saw that you edited the article I started on Jeff Monson, and came to check out your page. I noticed several of your userboxes were for animal rights and vegetarianism. I was just wondering why you believe the way you do about animal consumption. Thanks

Well, as I see it, there is no need for us in this advanced society to kill animals for nutrition, since most people can live off a non-meat diet without any adverse health effects (and some benefits, such as reduced rates of cancer and such). Basically, my main ethical code is "an if it harm none, do as thou wilt", which is known as the wiccan rede (although I am not wiccan, I just like the idea). Since we do not need to harm animals we shouldn't, it's gratutious violence for no real purpose. Of course, I am actually quite critical of civilization though (including intensive agriculture, which is the only way vegetarianism is really feasible for humans) so I am not inherently opposed to the idea of eating meat, but I am opposed to it under our current circumstances. I hold no false ideals about human consumption of meat, as a student of anthropology, I do know that for many societies it is a necessary source for protein. Furthermore, I believe that when we allow ourselves to exploit non-human animals, it is only a short step before we start exploiting other humans. I think the band Conflict say it well in their song "This is the ALF" (ironically, my username is taken from the name of the album the song appear on). "Human freedom, animal rights. It's one struggle, one fight. When animal abuse is stopped then human abuse will soon stop also, an attitude of mind. 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'. Start by protecting the weak, the defenceless, animals, the sick, the disabled. Compassion and emotion are our most important safety values. If we lose them, then 'we lose' the vitality of life itself." Also, on a more specific note, the one regarding moral equality between humans and great apes has special significance, because since I study anthropology, I have a fairly advanced understanding of non-human primates (well, more advanced than the average person, I'm no expert though), which leads me to be absolutely appalled with the treatment of these creatures. Great apes are very intelligent and are much more like us than most people want to admit (or perhaps, we are more like them than we want to admit)--there is less than a 1% difference between the DNA of us and chimps (in fact, some scientists think chimpanzees should be reclassified in the genus Homo, which would make them humans), gorillas and chimps seem to show the ability to communicate with sign language, and also seem aware of their own existence. Many people are intimidated by these facts, because we want to think of ourselves as unique and seperate from the natural world (I personally attribute a lot of this to western religion) and get very upset when people show that these animals are like us (or more correctly as I've already stated, that we are like them). If you want an example, look at the talk page for ape, some people get really upset when we add in that humans are apes, which is a scientific fact. They just can't handle the knowledge. It's called anthropocentrism and is a big problem in my opinion. Anyways, sorry for taking up so much space and time, but it is a complex issue. I am happy to further discuss this or anything else on my userpage if you want. BTW, thanks for asking! The Ungovernable Force 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayson_Virissimo"

[edit] Stop vandalizing

Note: This issue is already dealt with on my userpage under the title "Your recent edits" and in my history here [2].

Just so you know, you're not ungovernable. Don't ever vandalize my user page again. [3] RJII 05:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You might be able to smooth things over with RJII if you would apologize to him. I'm sure the vandalism was an isolated incident. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
actually, I made that edit before I even saw your post, but thanks for the advice. The Ungovernable Force 05:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, sorry for that spate on your userpage. The Ungovernable Force 05:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Apology not accepted. You just tried to get me banned from Wikipedia a few minutes ago. I don't believe for a second that you're sincere. RJII 05:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Trying to get people banned over trivial matters seems to be TUF's M.O. For someone who attests to be an anarchist he's pretty into trying to misuse rules to his advantage. Tombride 00:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
First off, you have no idea of the background with that issue, and I can assure you that just about anyone who has worked with RJII on the anarchism page would back me up on that. Anyways, I don't consider purposefully edit warring to change the already established genre of a band to something else with absolutely no evidence to be a "trivial matter". I also don't consider being purposefully disruptive to be a "trivial matter" either (ex: making personal attacks, blanking your talk page, linking to porn). Since you no longer seem interested in screwing around with the genre, I no longer really care about blocking you, it was only to prevent you from continuing to vandalize the article (and I don't care what that other person decided about this just being a content dispute, I still consider it plain vandalism, and I know at least one other user called your edits vandalism). And unless you're an anarchist, I don't think you should be talking about what is and isn't anarchistic, because you probably have no idea of the true nature of anarchist politics. And what makes you say I misuse rules? What rule did I misuse? I'm not the one who made flagrant violations of WP:NPA. The Ungovernable Force 02:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an anarchist, but to benightedly suggest the notion that one must be something for one to be informed about it is simply inane. Tombride 03:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well then, how many hours have you spent reading and discussing anarchist philosophy? The Ungovernable Force 04:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize that the search for political truth was a contest. I don't know what you're trying to prove. Tombride 04:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to prove you have no ground to criticize my actions from the perspective of anarchism, unless you actually have knowledge on what that philosophy involves. The Ungovernable Force 04:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry. I do. Tombride 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm writing this here because the thread is going too far to the right. Fine, I will trust you really know something about anarchism and will give you the answer I would give to an anarchist. By setting up an account you agree to abide by the rules established by this group. If you do not follow the guidlines that you willingly and without any cohersion accepted you can be kicked out of the community and/or reprimanded. And many anarchists have no problem censoring neo-nazis and others who incite discriminatory hatred. I'm not saying that you're a neo-nazi, you aren't (as far as I know), I'm merely showing a common example. There is a difference between the government censoring somebody, and a community taking action against someone they believe is causing unneeded problems. Anarchism is based on mutual cooperation, and if people are purposefully disrupting a community, that community has all the right in the world to kick the person out. The Ungovernable Force 04:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY don't want to get into a debate about this, so I'm not going to respond to this thead after this. I'll just say that I agree with you on some points of that, but not others, my questions come not from the rules themselves, but from your lone wolf pursuit of their enforcement of them. But, in the end, what does it matter? It's just the internet.Tombride 04:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear you say you don't want to get in a long argument. I'm willing to put this behind us as long as you are sure to no longer make personal attacks or disregarding the concerns of other editors (especially when a fair number show concern). In my defense, I did try to talk to another user before making any complaint against you, and gave you several warnings. I don't feel I was acting like a lone wolf, especially since two other users backed up my position, otherwise I wouldn't have pursued it. The Ungovernable Force 04:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] e-mail

Can I get you to set / confirm a valid e-mail address on your account? Thanks! :)

— Adrian Lamo ·· 09:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

why? I kinda want to keep that sorta thing private. If you just want to have my email, I can email you because I do still have it. The Ungovernable Force 09:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Establishing an e-mail address in your account settings doesn't impact your privacy in any appreciable way.
— Adrian Lamo ·· 10:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
But what is the benefit? And I don't really want people being able to email me unless I want them to. The Ungovernable Force 10:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to explain your reservations. — Adrian Lamo ·· 10:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb

I've warned the user on their talk page. Their edits are not clearcut vandalism, and cannot be blocked as such. However, they're apparently one edit away from breaking WP:3RR, and I've warned them of that as well. Please note that WP:3RR is reciprocal -- in a content dispute, both parties reverting can and are blocked for 3RR issues. — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks. A registered user just defended the anon's edits on the talk page, but as far as I'm concerned they are totally wrong on this issue. The Ungovernable Force 20:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
My mistake in re. WP:3RR ... didn't look at the dates closely. I just shouldn't touch Wikipedia until well after waking up. Neither of you are in instant danger of WP:3RR issues, unless I'm actually too drowsy to read ;x
— Adrian Lamo ·· 20:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
*yawn* So how's your Sunday working out? — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Boring, couldn't go downtown to the banner making thing today, I have too much stuff to do. The Ungovernable Force 23:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Check discussion. Posted a pretty clear ref there. Sorry if I don't think that wikipedia should be a part of labels' using the word "punk" to sell 3rd rate folk records.Tombride 06:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made one more change on this article. I'm not going to continue to fight about the genre issue, I don't care that much about that anyways. However, after reading the article several times I did make one final edit to remove a line about their "talent and musicianship". Regardless of my (or your) opinions of the band this is clearly not NPOV. Please consider that before making a knee-jerk revert. Tombride 18:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the only good edit you've made. The Ungovernable Force 04:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why you continue to think that a factual dispute constitued some egregious form of vandalism. Tombride 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: your report on WP:RFI: The article edits certainly appear to be a content dispute, I haven't seen any that come under Wikipedia:Vandalism. Correct me if I've missed any. [4] is a personal attack, and I've warned Tombride about that. Hopefully the above message from him suggests a conclusion to this dispute. For future reference 3RR violations are reported to WP:AN3 and for disputes see dispute resolution. Thanks, Petros471 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Random Stuff

I'm a girl:P I'm always really flattered when people feel they have to ask though:) Means I;m doiung a good job of bluring the boundries. I just prefer the word gay. Sounds nicer than lesbian. I rented Ma Vie en rose as well. Lyo 13:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I just wanted to give you a shout out and say thanks for getting my back there with This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb, I really like your userpage and I'm glad to see likeminded people keeping wikipedia safe for folk-punk and userboxes and all us anarchists. And that "proper tea" joke is great, it's a wonder I've not heard it before. Cheers 149.43.x.x 20:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up Vandalism

Hey there - glad to hear you've taken an interest in keeping Wikipedia neat, tidy, and all that. Two great places for general resources are the Cleaning Up Vandalism and Counter-Vandalism Unit pages. However to directly answer your question, you should list obvious vandals on Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. An admin will then take a look, decide if the situation warrants a block, and either way hopefully resolve the situation. If there's anything else I can help you with, feel free to let me know. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 09:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 09:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-gay slogan

I made the change because:

1. Anti-gay slogans are rarely aimed at love. They are much more often aimed at sexual acts or desires.
2. I generally see the use of terms like "same-sex love" as biased towards certain bourgeoise ideas of what a relationship is and should be.

So, there's (as I see it) two issues with "same-sex love" appearing in articles, one factual, and the other a POV issue. (You'll notice I did leave one occurance of "same-sex love" intact, which is an instance where the context seemed to indicate the sentence was pointed at love and not desire.) Anyway, I'm not making the change systematically all over wikipedia yet, so there's plenty of time for debate if you still feel the changes aren't for the better. As for your other question, I would be in favor of adding an article along the lines of "pro-gay slogans" or something, but it would be a lot of work - it would have to be kept neutral, contain criticisms, and we would have to be willing to point out those times when even pro-gay slogans are used in an Orwellian fashion. (Sorry, by the way, if this comes across as slightly bitchy - its not at all intended, just stress peeking out.) -Seth Mahoney 04:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

lol, love as bourgeoise, nice. I don't know, never been in a committed enough relationship to decide whether love was a sham or not, but I have to admit, I'm still a hopeless (if not unconventional) romantic. I can see where you are coming from on the first point, but I think desire might not be the best word either, still trying to think of a better one. Same-sex sex (and it isn't just about sex) seems repetitive, same-sex relationships might work. As for the pro-gay slogans I agree, it would be a lot of work, which is why I never started it on my own, I wanted others to help. Maybe I can find a few other people and we can get started. PS: I just got an edit conflict message with your little apology and no offense was taken on my part. It didn't seem that bad, although I did detect a small amount of unhappiness in your "tone", but I assumed it wasn't meant to be ill-spirited towards me (I just thought it was a natural part of your style perhaps), and your explanation of stress seems good to me. We all have our bad days. Hope the rest of yours is better. The Ungovernable Force 04:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hurrah! Well, if you think of another word to use than 'desire', don't let me dissuade you from changing it. As for the other suggested article, I'm knee-deep in another article for at least the next week, but I'd be happy to help out if you get bored and decide to start pro-gay slogans (or even if you decide to start it for another reason!). Another place you might go if you want to recruit some editors is Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. Good luck, and thanks for paying attention! -Seth Mahoney 04:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Just finished Pro-gay slogans and symbols! Needs major work though. The Ungovernable Force 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice start! You've not only got a good working article, but you've set an example of what anti-gay slogan should look more like (that is, it should be organized around actual slogans!). I'll see if theres anything i can add over the next few days. -Seth Mahoney 07:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. And speaking of editing anti-gay slogans, I think it should be moved to Anti-gay slogans and symbols and have some emphasis on anti-gay symbols as well (as well as focus on actual slogans like you said). The Ungovernable Force 07:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest it myself, but I just finished a giant userbox orgy, so I'm not sure I have the brains for it, but suggest moving the page on Talk:Anti-gay slogan. -Seth Mahoney 08:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anarcho-capitalism userbox

It's been broken for some time now, replaced with a censorship text. Possible to fix? Coolgamer 01:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I really couldn't care less. If you can't tell from my userpage, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. With that said, I am still opposed to censorship, so I guess I'll do what I can to help. Just find a user with the userbox code on their page and put it onto yours. That's about all I know. Actually, it is still up, so here is the code:
Libertatis Æquilibritas This user is an Anarcho-capitalist pig-dog.

The Ungovernable Force 04:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII

Hmm... while I agree with the sentiment, I think it would be best (for your own sake too) if you left RJII alone for the time being. It's a bit harsh on him; also, he could report you for harassment. Just a friendly warning. :) -- infinity0 23:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think RJII cares whether what someone says is nice or not--just who says it. Just look at his/her response to your "friendly offer" [5]. He/she can accuse me of harassment all he/she wants but since it's baseless, the only thing that will come of it will be RJII looking bad, especially if they post it to AN. Those two posts aren't harassment (I helped direct him/her towards policy so that they wouldn't get in trouble for violating sockpuppet rules and pointed out a simple piece of information that he/she happened to not mention about his/her block), especially when you consider the types of behaviors he/she has taken against us. I know what I'm doing, but thanks for the advice anyway. The Ungovernable Force 06:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Edit of American River College

Why? Aelfthrytha 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To see if I know you--you're a marxist so I might. The Ungovernable Force 04:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Considering that I've never set foot in California, you're welcome to make whatever inferences you want about that. Aelfthrytha 06:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I was there ...

...were you? Morton devonshire 01:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is "there"? I've been in a black bloc, and they do not always engage in violence. There is much more to black blocs than that. You are trying to make it seem like all black blocs do is destroy stuff, which is incredibly false. The Ungovernable Force 01:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Seattle, November 30, 1999. Ten square blocks of windows smashed, cars turned over, newspaper boxes thrown through windows, dumpsters set on fire, people hit with crowbars and angle iron, stores vandalized, and not just the "big multi-nationals", but small shops that couldn't afford it. I saw some of this first-hand, and happened to be standing next to Fox's Jewelry, the first store hit, when one peaceful brother showed "the man" his anger by taking a crow bar to the window. You don't have to rely on my recollections though, see the Seattles Times and Seattle PI coverage from 11/30/99 through 12/15/99. Most of the protestors I saw in Seattle that week were peaceful, but not the Black Bloc from Eugene -- they were thugs. So yes, I think your version of the article is misleading, because it paints the Black Bloc as some group of daisy-planting peace-loving free-thinkers. I apologize, but I couldn't read the minds of the Black Bloc -- but I could see what they did, and what they did was commit violence. Morton devonshire 01:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
This is about black blocs in general, not just the battle of seattle. And as I have said, the current article doesn't hide the fact that they sometimes engage in destruction, but that is not all black blocs do and you shouldn't remove info on other less violent activities just because you want to paint us in a negative light. The Ungovernable Force 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII RfC

I am thinking of starting an RfC on RJII for his recent behaviour over at An Anarchist FAQ, amongst other articles. Would you be willing to participate? -- infinity0 10:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hallo. Thanks for helping me out with RJII's harassment and attacks. Could I ask a favour? I'm going on holiday until the 21st - could you please watch An Anarchist FAQ? Careful with it - try not to let RJII get to you, and remember WP:3RR. If his behaviour worsens, I have written out a draft RfC with much evidence at User:Infinity0/Drafts. If you do decide to submit it, put down my name as one of the users certifying the dispute. You can also ask User talk:Libertatia, User talk:Aryah, User talk:BlackFlag and User talk:Steve block to comment. If it gets much worse, you can use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thanks for everything, and bye for now. :) -- infinity0 16:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RJII 2? Thanks. -- infinity0 16:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchist Law

Well, I looked at it: It's rubbish. I've hacked it back, and suggested it should be merged with Natural Law: [6] ElectricRay 00:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-Capitalism

Instead of sniffily reverting the edit, provide a source. If you can't, the deletion should stand. You can credibly say "xxx and yyy anarchist writers do not consider anarcho capitalism a form of anarchy...", but point to who these writers are. The section as written is entirely speculative, and not fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. How do you know what a majority of anarchists believe? Have you polled them? You certainly didn't ask me. ElectricRay 07:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been debated mercilessly in the archives of the talk page. Before making a controversial edit bring it up there. I can tell you that many many writers consider opposition to capitalism fundamental (Goldman for example). Chomsky says that anarcho-cap is a new ideology that is not very common and that they have little relationship with the anarchist movement. And as I said, most encyclopedias don't even mention an-cap as a type of anarchism, so chances are most anarchists aren't an-caps. Most anarchists polled in the archives at the anarchism talk page don't consider it to be a type of anarchism. Even Hogeye once said that most anarchists aren't an-caps. The Ungovernable Force 07:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
So, say "Writers such as Goldman, Chomsky and Hogeye have said ..." - which is fair enough, and not the utterly speculative "most anarchists..."? What's so hard about that? ElectricRay 08:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Because most anarchists don't support it and I don't feel like listing all the anarchists who don't (it would be a very large list, consisting of most anarchist writers). And btw, hogeye is a user (currently banned I believe) who strongly supported the inclusion of an-cap (I believe he/she was an an-cap). This shows that you haven't looked at the old archived discussions on this topic (or at least not any from more than a month or two ago) because they were incredibly active in those discussions. Oh, Chuck Munson also says it's not anarchism, as does the anarchist faq. The Ungovernable Force 09:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
My dear old thing, you're missing the fairly simple point of what I'm saying. The conjecture "most anarchists don't reject anarcho-captialism" is one you have made on the basis of your experience (you talk frequently about people contributing to the articule on wikipedia, as if that is even remotely relevant). That is, therefore, original research. It might be your opinion - it might even be true, for all I know - but it isn't suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia unless a notable source can be cited for the assertion. You haven't provided that. What you can (you say) provide is statements that "such and such famous anarchist writer dismissed anarcho-capitalism in his work x on the basis y" - and fine, if you can cite these, then go ahead. But that is a much weaker statement than "the vast majority of anarchists say that anarcho-capitalism is not even anarchy" - let alone "...because profits and capitalism are intrinisically counter to the idea of anarchy", which is, frankly, utter rubbish: if the vast majority of anarchists believe that, then they don't understand anarchy (or free market capitalism).
On the merits of your argument, since you don't appear to be much of an anarchist yourself (beleiving as you seem to that there is a need in an anarchist society for rules achieved by consensus across a whole community - as I noted on the talk page, that's called "democracy") - so your view of what most anarchists believe isn't particularly credible. ElectricRay 12:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Your right, I was missing the point, it is original research and I was merely arguing the truthfulness of the statement. Fine. In that case I will do what I can to compile a large list of as many published/prominent anarchists as possible who I can cite as having said an-cap isn't anarchism and put this in the article. I will also find as many older anarchists (the ones who lived before an-cap came about) as I can who say that anarchism is inherently opposed to capitalism. It will be a long list and will just be wasting space, but this seems to be what you want. And I think it is very ironic that you are questioning my anarchist credentials so to speak when you are the one pushing wikipedia policy on me. Anyways, the term anarchy merely means "no rulers" not "no rules". Having rules is not unanarchistic as long as the rules are agreed on by everyone they affect. I support radical direct democracy (consensus) as do many other anarchists. You seem to be the one who thinks rules are inherently unanarchistic, so why are you trying to get me to follow one? How do you propose to run a non-authoritarian free market anyways? If there aren't any rules, what's to stop me from shooting you and taking you money (don't take this as a threat or attack, this is purely hypothetical and I'm using you only because I'm discussing this with you)? If we have never tried to come to an understanding of what is and is not acceptable in our society, how do you plan to keep it from degenerating to chaos? The Ungovernable Force 04:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

These are the rules we have agreed to follow by signing up for Wikipedia. I have assumed you acquiesce with them: apologies if I am wrong about that. I don't agree with a lot of the rules of Wikipedia, but I do my best to comply with them anyway, because that this the basis on which I'm most likely to be able to remain here. Self interest.

Now, how do I propose to stop you from shooting me? By making myself useful to you - I have skills which you could use, and it would make more sense for you not to shoot me - and/or to other people who are smarter than you and who have a bigger gun than you - I have skills which they value, and it will annoy them if you shoot me, and will increase the likelihood of them shooting you.

Thus, everyone acts in their own best interests. Simple, really. ElectricRay 07:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey

You seem like a very cool person. I'm new on Wikipedia and have managed to piss off most of the people I've interacted with, without even trying. I found a couple of really good people, too. Merecat and Tijuana Brass have been very decent to me. Merecat steps in at times, and helps me out when the Goon Cabal is on me. I'm a life-long anarchist and environmentalist and hater of all those that pretend to be spreading peace, when they're really just spreading shit. What they do and what they support is horrible.

I already stood up to an administrator and a huge troop of drooling, controlling idiots in this place. They're mainly Democrats. I would love to hear from you. Please leave a comment on my talk page if you get a chance.

in peace and justice for the wildthings Maggiethewolfstar 03:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cover "by" George W. Bush

what you said I heard a cover of this on the radio in which someone took soundclips from Bush and arranged them in such a way as to make the lyrics of the song. I don't know who did it or when, but if anyone knows about it, they should mention it. It was really funny. The Ungovernable Force 06:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My answerThe artist is Wax Audio and the album title is Mediacracy. The version is called Imagine This. The song is available for free at [7]. It is hilarious and well constructed. Dankru

[edit] hey again

Thanks for your response. I appreciate that and I do appreciate your concern. I've been holding my own under a lot of pressure and even managed to get some edits in, in a real war zone.. The Democratic Party (of the US) article. So far I have won every battle I fought even with the administrator. I know when I'm right. Anytime you need my help just give a holler and I will also think of you when I can use a helping hand.
peace, Maggiethewolfstar 05:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJII RFC talk page

Okay. You are planning on making a statement for the infinity0 (and RJII) request, and adding evidence if it's accepted, right? I'll restore it temporarily; it's not to be edited. Dmcdevit·t 04:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: backslashes

Any anonymous editor that causes unintentional \'\'\'backslashing\'\'\' should be blocked on sight as a (poorly configured) open proxy. Any logged-in user (much rarer) causing the same behavior should be reported to WP:RFCU to determine the user's IP address, so it can be indef-blocked as well. The backslashes are typically inserted before apostrophes, quotation marks, and other backslashes. — May. 3, '06 [04:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>

What exactly is an open proxy and why is it so bad? I'm pretty computer illiterate (though I've gotten pretty good at wiki). Anyway, that user should be blocked indefinitely anyways for blatantley violating sockpuppetry rules and making clear personal attacks. The Ungovernable Force 04:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Main article: open proxy
That will explain it quicker and better than I could. I guess I should have linked there in the first place. — May. 16, '06 [14:25] <freak|talk>

[edit] RfAr

Hi. Would you be interested in adding evidence to my Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Evidence? Thanks :) -- infinity0 22:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I was in the process of finding things actually. How much longer is it open? The Ungovernable Force 04:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit told me arb cases usually run for a month. You don't have to post everything in one step - for example in the Sam Spade case the evidence page is currently incomplete and being added to. Any input would be appreciated. :) -- infinity0 22:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Quick Question

My username did have its origins from "MAILER DAEMON" many years ago, then to the current one to avoid confusion and it stuck with me. It is basically a mail-bot, that is now simply known as Postmaster. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Furry thing

Hi, I was wondering if you could maybe explain more to me about your use of the term "furry" to describe yourself. I have seen it on wiki a few times, and I clicked on the link on your page, but it went to a disambig page. I'm interested in learning what this means to you, and to other in general. Is it a role-play thing, or do you actually consider yourself a fox (in the same way a transexual actually considers themself a member of the opposite sex, versus a transvestite who merely dresses like a member of the opposite sex)? FYI, there will be no negative judgement on my part either way, I'm really open minded and am merely interested in understanding this more. You can respond here or on my talk page if you'd like. The Ungovernable Force 07:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

See Furry fandom.
As for your question, no, I don't think I'm actually a fox on a human body (though there are others that do think so - I'm only speaking for myself). But, strange as it might sound, I'd like to be one.
Please feel free to ask anything you want to on the subject. I realise my answer was an oversimplification, partly because of my English not being yet perfect (though I couldn't put it even in Spanish ^^U), partly because sleep deprivation prevents me from thinking straight (this will hopefully end soon enough). -Fibonacci 09:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Dear Ungovernable Force, I wanted to stop by and thank you personally for your encouraging words and your support. As I said, I'm more or less used to deal with bigotry in my everyday life, but I guess actually seeing it here so blatantly caught me by surprise. Yet, the words of a single person mean very little, and I always try to see the bright side of things. In this case, this episode has shown me how conscious, kind and thoughtful our community is, and you are a prime example of it. You even managed to make me laugh with that "cute" thing! ;) I want you to know that, from now on, I consider you one of my wiki friends, and should you ever need my help, or you simply feel like talking, my Talk Page will always be open to welcome you. Have a great day, and kisses, Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 23:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Protect, bug

Just to be safe, I'll leave the page fully protected for another 15 minutes, then I'll move to semi protect. By the next hour, I will remove all protection. Regarding the bug, I can't say what the problem is. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Userboxes

Haha, thanks. The boxes were fine on my screen, I guess it's down to resolution. I'll probably revert eventually anyway because I don't like the page getting too long, but thanks. When I first created my user page I didn't know any wiki formatting, and most of your userboxes were a perfect fit for me, so I "borrowed" your userbox code. I plan on making my page more unique/clean when I have time. Later, Rock on and be excellent to each other, and Anarchy & Peace. --Switch 12:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May userbox policy poll

Hi. You're a supporter of userboxes, and there's currently a policy poll going on about userboxes that might solve the speedy deletion issue. I encourage you to vote if you haven't already. Thank you. Dtm142 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Thanks for maintaining a crazy-cool anarchist presence on Wikipedia. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of hijacking some of your userboxes, and setting them up as subpages of my userspace. See my userpage if you're interested. I've edited some of these to suit my tastes. You might be interested to know the Image:Food_not_Bombs_logo has had it's copyright fixed; you're free to use it on your userpage now. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the logo. I had asked around about it, but never could get it changed, and couldn't find a place to prove it wasn't copywrited.-- The Ungovernable Force 07:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHat the Fuck?

Why are you facilitating attacks against Infoshop and myself? How in the fuck can you call yourself an anarchist? Chuck0 06:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm offended you would say I'm attacking infoshop, seeing as I use it frequently and I personally am fairly happy with the project. I actually have it opened in another window right now, and have used it a few times as a source here on wikipedia. I've also had one or two pieces published by infoshop, so please don't go around trying to make me out to be some anti-infoshop crusader. I'm trying to make a neutral encyclopedia, and that includes allowing a reasonable amount of criticism of the topics under discussion--even ones I support. I do think the alleged censorship issue is something that should be talked about, if nothing more so that we can get a better understanding of the issue and what is really happening. The thing is, many people believe the moderation policy goes to far or is enforced too broadly, and talking about it can help enlighten everyone as to the full nature of the issue (if there is one). If you are truly in the right, you have nothing to fear and the truth will be apparent. You seem to be trying to avoid the issue though, and many people do consider it to be an issue. I think we need to be critical of our movement and the way it is running, just as we need to be critical of our government and the way it is running. If we are lazy and don't look at the possible blemishes we have, then it makes it all too easy for those blemishes to get larger and rot. I hope you do not think I am trying to crusade against infoshop or you, because I'm not--I'm just trying to do what I think is NPOV. I could be mistaken, which is why I'm waiting for more people to comment before continuing editing on that page. I would also appreciate it if you could not be quite so inconsiderate on my talk page (titling a section "what the fuck" seems a bit aggressive to me). This is a disagreement over content, and I would hope you could refrain from making this a personal issue. The Ungovernable Force 07:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert?

I don't understand the point of reverting? That version undoes a week of changes. He just took an old copy, added a few more POV changes from even older versions, and then tried forcing it in through mass violation of 3RR. I don't care about some of the changes, but it's way too much to just take the article back and then claim it as the legitimate version of the article. Sarge Baldy 19:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I thought the only difference was formatting. I just fixed it. The Ungovernable Force 19:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the boxes

Short and sweet, thanks for your wonderfully set up boxes. I heart you. Tenacious d

One of your userboxes says you're straight though? Are you sure? How can you "heart" me and be straight? I think you're just in denial...or maybe you just had one too many beers ;) The Ungovernable Force 05:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I think I kinda like the randomness. I know it's taken my over about 6 time to remeber to liscense tag. LoL.

[edit] suggestion new section

Excuse for becoming a butt kisser? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.22.26.46 (talk • contribs).

Wow, you're really mature. Might I ask what your talking about? The Ungovernable Force 03:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler/Bush image

Hi. It's been brought to administrators' attention that you have an image of Bush on your userpage accompanying the text "Death to tyrants". That counts as a death threat against the President of the US, so I'm removing it, since that's against federal law in the US, where Wikipedia's servers are. Please let me know if you have any concerns about this action. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, poor Bush. Fine, I changed it. And wishing the death of someone is different than a threat. A threat would be "I will kill tyrants". I would rather see him die from choking on another pretzel (or some other non-violent way), which is a bit different than a threat. The Ungovernable Force 04:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not telling you what I think, just what the law defines. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I came accross as a bit, well, cross. The Ungovernable Force 05:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
No worries; isn't the same thing Jesus said, after four days? (Sorry, a little tasteless religious humor. Get it, "a bit cross"? :D) Anyway, I replied to your post at AN/I here, I hope it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I get the impression from your response that you didn't read what I wrote; please see my reply there. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] finally,..

finally someone in US politics who strongly objects to liberals! you're so origional--205.188.116.199 12:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

great, another anon attack on my talk page. If you're going to attack me, at least do it right. I mean, one sentence snide remarks don't mean much. At least be creative when you're criticizing me. The Ungovernable Force 06:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?

Ponder it. 216.22.26.46

yeah, um, I don't really even know who you are, so how could I guess that one? Is it in response to the infoshop stuff? I don't really know. If you want to go insulting me that's your business, but you're not being very effective in getting a point accross. The Ungovernable Force 06:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hi There

So it was a lovely leap of fuzzy logic that lead me to your userpage. Suffice to say, I like it. Don't worry about my page so much...It's a bit of a mess at the moment. I'm still a bit new at this. A pleasure, however, to meet you, and I hope to be borrowing some of those neat userbox images. Ecopirate 17:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Graeber

I don't know if you've heard of him, but he has a mini-book called Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology I think you'd find very insightful. Sarge Baldy 02:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he's on my to read list. He looks really interesting. Thanks for the tip though. The Ungovernable Force 03:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Central Farm

Hi. I have given him a short block and will keep an eye on it too. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 06:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been down there, but I was thinking of going tomorrow, since I'm going to be in LA. I have just been following the story. And it was amazing to find out how the story has been reported in the MSM. I went to the corner pub the other night and the only thing people had heard was that "Daryl Hannah had been pulled down from a tree", which of course led them to suspect it was a celebrity drug overdose or something along those lines. It almost made me cry 8(. Of course I told them all the real story, but I can only reach one barroom at a time... Thanks for your support nonetheless, --Rockero 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I had never heard of Daryl Hannah until this--I'm kinda removed from the pop-culture world. I was surprised to see that my local Fox news station actually had the best coverage of the story. It wasn't great, but it was better than the 30 seconds on my prefered tv news station. The Ungovernable Force 06:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hey

Yer frontpage kicks arse. -- maxrspct leave a message 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for helping me out with my Arbitration case while I've been away, and for looking out at my user page. I am please to say that I am now back, so yay :) -- infinity0 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My talkpage edit

It is considered vandalism to edit my own talk page? I'd like to distance myself from the mistakes I made so long ago, is this unforgivable (as your name implies)? What if I move it to an archives page? How do I do that?

I didn't realize those were so long ago. Since they are almost a year old, feel free to archive them, but make sure there is a link on the page. It should be clear enough that those things happened in the past and as long as that behavior doesn't continue, no one will make a big deal of it. See here. The Ungovernable Force 02:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, btw, the name is ungovernable, not unforgivable. The Ungovernable Force 02:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
ahh... the ungovernable governer :P Two-Bit Sprite 12:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namings

That project.. either a joke or anti-semitic..give the impression jews in an office are burrowing their way about secretly.It must be. He popped up at the same time as another far-rightist in same article see Talk:Anarchism/Archive15, --- Talk:Anarchism/Archive21 ; Talk:Anarchism/Archive18 . --maxrspct in the mud 22:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You think? I was wondering about that, seeing as few of their edits that I saw had anything pertaining to "Radical Jewish" related things. I was thinking to myself eariler today that it seemed like good conspiracy theory fodder for any anti-semites on wiki, but maybe that was the point of the name. I don't know. This whole thing is fishy though.--The Ungovernable Force 22:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is that deep a cover. --maxrspct in the mud 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

He also had an inkling for... [8]. Have been suspicious all along.. that R.J.I.I is either a silly wind-up to put us off the track.. or it really is the product of a false flag operation. Weren't loads of Stormfront nuts threatening to come on here? around the same time. They never overtly materialized. Sinister. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.. usually. --maxrspct in the mud 23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Bit off topic but.. check this Fran Trutt --maxrspct in the mud 23:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That Fran Trutt thing sounds a lot like the people in Auburn. It looks more an more like Anna not only spied on them but actually provoked and organized them. I hope she gets charged with entrapment, but I doubt it...As for RJ, I can't say, but I've had suspicions for a while. I don't know about Stormfront people saying they would come, since I didn't show up till long after RJ did, but who knows.--The Ungovernable Force 04:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck the Border

No problem, and regarding FTB, see above :) - FrancisTyers · 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right! I remember that now. I've actually been wanting to start a section for links I like, I'll put that in. I might not do it for a couple days though. The Ungovernable Force 21:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I'm sure I've heard that one before in German, something like "KEIN MENSCH IST ILLEGAL", pretty cool. Would be nice to have a list of translations of that too, although I'm not sure "illegal immigrants" are "illegal immigrants" in all countries. Btw. Check your email. - FrancisTyers · 11:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I never gave out an email, and I don't see any in any of my accounts. What are you talking about? 19:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FeedTheCommie.com

As you suspected, it's satire, my friend. I didn't really do this, and nor have I got an olive grove or a herd of alpacas. I do have dandruff, though, from time to time. However, the point is that there were a vast number of inestimably stupid people at Liverpool Street, two years in a row, really just going along for a fun day out, and I dare say Pret A Manger made a killing. As with all political movements left, right and centre, as I'm sure you'd agree, 95% of the people who participate in them are sheep, and pretty stupid ones at that - "we're all individuals! We're all different" etc etc etc.

Tell me, though, why did you give your food away for free? ElectricRay 21:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we get the food donated from a store or a dumpster, so why not give it out for free? People are hungry and we have more food than we could ever eat ourselves. Plus, we get to have fun cooking with a bunch of cool punks and anarchists, listening to Salt-N-Pepa, Prince, The Clash and Blondie (our cd player is busted so we can only listen to the cassettes, and we don't have many good ones). As for your other comment, 95% might be a bit steep, but I agree with the overall sentiment. It reminds me of a pro-immigration protest I was at in Seattle recently, where some guy was selling those cheap plastic american flags (you know, the ones made in China). The Ungovernable Force 21:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Eat to the Beat (how appropriate!) was the first record I ever bought, and I still have it on high rotation twenty something years later. London Calling is one of my favourites. Why give food out for free? Because even though you get it for free, you're putting a lot of effort into finding it, transporting it, and giving it out. That's a waste of your time. And if people think it's free, they'll treat it like it's worth nothing. If you shelled out for something, you eat it. If it was free, maybe not. Also, what if rich capitalists like me come by? By having your free food, I can save my pennies and use them to buy some Nike sneakers which oppressed some six year olds in Pyong Yang. Etc. If you charge for it, maybe it's worth you doing it on a bigger scale, beign more organised, getting better food. Charging for stuff incentivises people correctly - the people who buy, the people who sell, and the people who you get it from.
Plastic American flags - I'm sure we'll never agree about this, but what's so wrong with those? It is a much better use of American resources - and Chinese ones - for someone in China to make these. Who in America would make these for 5c each? Would you? If not, why not? In China, it beats the 1c you'd get for doing anything else, so it's good business. Aren't market's great!
I note you're a fan of evolution and no great fan of religion. Me too (we have a lot in common, it seems!). Have you read Dennett's recent stuff? I'm totally fascinated by the idea of the universal acid and its applications in other fields - especially politics and economics. ElectricRay 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, first I'll address giving out food. First off, we are pretty organized and feed a lot of people already. Although we have not officially counted how many people we have served (we were actually thinking of starting a log though, maybe I'll bring one tomorrow), we estimate between 60-100 people a week average. Also, the food is pretty good anyway, especially considering how much of it was thrown away. Every now and again something won't be too good, but there are some really awesome things we make, especially considering everthing is vegan. Recent examples include strawberry shortcake, deep-fried tofu, banana bread, cherry pie, stir-fry, donuts and tons more. And after around 20 years of FNB servings in my town, people have not begun to devalue our contribution--in fact I get a little annoyed with all the people who say "god bless you" to us, since we are almost all atheists or agnostics (of course I never say anything). And although it is work, like I said, we have fun. And what's more important is that we are helping people who would have trouble finding something to eat otherwise. We are demonstrating that true anarchy (anti-capitalist) is a functional means of organization and that there are plenty of people willing to help others instead of screwing them over for cash (what you seem to be suggesting). We are showing that mutual aid can in fact exist (although for the most part, we are doing most of the aid, so maybe it's not too mutual. There have been a few cases of people we serve helping us out though). We are also demonstrating the wastefullness of this society--the fact that we throw out enough food to feed hundreds in just one city while so many people are starving all over the world. Sure, we could make some money, but then we would just be a restaurant and the people we want to serve wouldn't be able to afford it. There are enough restaurants out there for people to pay for food, but there aren't a lot of people serving warm, fresh cooked meals to people. And sure, a few people might come to get food who don't really need it, but most people who come do need it. We're not going to penalize dozens because of a few people who don't need it. Anyway, we have enough food, so who cares if a few people get it who can afford to get food elsewhere? I've never seen any rich capitalists taking our food, the closest thing I've seen to that is a city guide who has been coming for the last month, presumably while on the job (which is actually pretty good, since it means we have an ally within the city guide organization, because some of them act as snitches to the cops, who sometimes hassle us). I do hope you were acting as a Devil's advocate though to some extent by suggesting we charge the homeless and poor for food, otherwise you should probably meet up with Dorothy so she can help you get a heart like the Tin-Man (we need more friends of Dorothy anyway).
As for the flags, you're right--we won't ever agree. I find this all-too-common argument incredibly fallicious. Yes, paying the Chinese 5¢ to make these beats paying them 1¢ for something else, but that doesn't make it right. Segregation was better for the blacks than slavery, Bush is better than Hitler, being beat up by cops is better than being shot by cops, but that doesn't make it ok. Why should the Chinese get crappy jobs in near-slavery conditions while American companies take in massive profits? Is there something inherently better about us Americans? And don't say we have worked harder to get where we are--all we've done is not let ethics get in our way of profit. And I doubt any CEO works as hard as a sweat-shop laborer in China. Why should someone be cursed to that kind of existence merely due to the circumstances of their birth? Anyway, those cheap plastic flags are really horrible--they melt when you try to burn them, which isn't as cool as the cloth ones that actually catch fire (actully, I've never really tried burning one of the plastic ones, but that's what my friends and I assume will happen). The only good thing about them is you can easily take them off the stick since the adhesive is so cheap and re-stick it on upside-down (which is what I did with the one I found on the ground at that protest).
Lastly, I've never heard of Dennett or universal acid. I searched on here a second ago to find out more, and I found two articles and skimmed them, but I'm too tired to really absorb or think about it. I will say that I have problems with the scientific world view as well (read my rant on world views on my userpage). I think it makes a lot of metaphysical claims it can't back up, often times without even realizing it (the entire basis of science is that we live in an objective world and there is nothing else at all, which can't be proven through any scientific experiment). I don't claim to know the nature of the universe, and I get upset when others do with such certainty, whether they are Christians, scientists or other. I do however believe science is a good way of understanding the objective aspects of our world, which does at least appear to exist. But to claim that's all there is upsets me. I dislike fundamentalism from any camp--in fact, that's the only thing I am intolerant of (and racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc, which are based on fundamentalist beliefs anyway). The Ungovernable Force 07:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan Dennett is a philosopher, not a scientist. Two books of his I'd recommend - Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Breaking The Spell. He's no laissez-faire apologist, by the way - I'm suggesting these books because I think you'd like them. I agree with you re the scientific world view, I saw your remark about every "fact" being an opinion, and I agree with it completely. Rorty got it right in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Dennett is more pro-science than me, but his work is nonetheless fascinating. Will reply in greater detail soon. ElectricRay 08:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to say, it's nice to meet an anarcho-capitalist who isn't a jerk. Even though I disagree with you on a lot of issues, I'm glad we can at least get along and have productive discussions. You seem like a pretty cool guy. The Ungovernable Force 08:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Likewise. It's ironic that the two camps should be opposed, since they're 99% the same, really. I think you'd find the "lot of issues" we disagree on are all pretty much different manifestations of the same thing. Having looked at your userpage, I'm with you on a great deal of stuff (religion, evolution, immigration, death penalty, women's rights, and so on); just not necessarily the economics and "moral" parts (being sympathetic to cultural relativism, I don't think having "morals" is significantly different to having "tastes" - and being the son of a butcher one of my "tastes" is for meat!). The reason you meet so many an-caps who are jerks (you're totally right; you do) is that many of them are really old-style conservatives in drag - liberal on economic issues, but (on the quiet) intolerant on moral and social ones. The flip side is that (without wishing to generalise) a lot of "socio capitalists" are the inverse of that, and only like anarchy to the extent it involves enforcing their own deeply held moral preferences. One or two are active on this page, indeed, as I'm sure you've noticed. On either side of the debate, in other words, there are way too many sanctimonious twits. Myself, I'm not particularly committed to a cause - I don't like labels - I'd call myself a pragmatist more than anything else, and pragmatically I work in the capitalist system, and see co-operating with it as my best strategy, and as it happens not (for the most part) inconsistent with doing what I want to do anyway.
Re the food, I don't have a tin heart (honest!) - in a perfect society charitable donation and charitable work would achieve what taxes achieve, and would have the collossal benefit of being targeted at exactly what people, in aggregate, as they, as voluntary donors, get to choose precisely or to whom they donate. I think we'd probably agree on that? I would go on to say that this can only work as a system supplementary to something else which distributes resources in the community in the first place, and the fairest and most efficient such system is free-market capitalism.
For the flags, well i think you're imposing your own values on the situation - whcih is fine; it's your prerogative. I wouldn't do that, though - I figure the people in china can make up their own mind whether they want to take the flag job or not. And also I wouldn't equate "value" and "hard work", and any business model that does is truly screwed. I just read an interesting book by a hedge fund manager called Andy Kessler. He'd say that America contributes high margin intellectual capital; China contributes low margin labour and manufacturing, which explains the current disparity, but that the disparity won't last. Compare Korea now and 50 years ago.
Check out Darwin's Dangerous Idea - give me a post box number and I'll buy you a copy, even (to pay you back for the free food at the rally!) - it's hard going, but (I think) provides a fantastic frame in which to contextualise our political discourse (though this is not explicit - Dennett doesn't touch on politics much at all). Here's a review I wrote of it on amazon entitled "And that about wraps it up for God"
Take care and God Bless. Not! ElectricRay 22:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll respond to the rest later, but right now I will just say that I won't be giving my address out for security reasons. Not anything against you personally, I'm just paranoid. Thanks anyway. Maybe I can find it in a library. 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
that's cool - i understand. ElectricRay 06:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Crazynas/Block

Indeed, regardless to say said person is a friend no longer. Out of curiousity, why did you link to that? Crazynas 08:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Link to what? If you mean why did I go to that page, it's because I saw your message on RJII's talk page so I went to your userpage and saw the link there. I was curious. The Ungovernable Force 08:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hi, do you have an email address? I'd like to talk with you in private. -- infinity0 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Problems with another admin

I don't think you're out of line, I think he's just being pushy. Certainly not civil. I don't know if it's necessarily because you're a "commoner" but there's certainly no grounds for blocking someone just for making some suggestions. If you're interested in looking at anything that was on RJII's userpage, let me know. Though I doubt you'll be able to get him unblocked just out of curiousity regarding his "mission". I think for the most part he spelled it out anyway.

Edit: Actually, I only just read the final revision now. Radical Jewish Intelligence Initiative? I don't know, he's really pretty full of himself. I don't think there's much else to know about it. Sarge Baldy 08:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding RJII, think very carefully why Wikipedia would not want such stuff hanging around. - FrancisTyers · 13:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that directed at me, or at the idea of leaving his page as readable? I can see how if his page was available to anyone looking at the contributions, it'd be a way of saying "oh, Wikipedia doesn't have enough checks and balances". I don't think having it for historical interest on my userspace is a problem, since it's not likely to be read by anyone who didn't already have an interest in knowing what was going on. I don't have any problem with deleting it again though, either. Sarge Baldy 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Fully agree with you re the other admin's actions - he's out of line. ElectricRay 17:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand why we wouldn't want it on, which is why I suggested letting him edit the page then remove it and protect it again, that way it will be in the history. And I didn't want them unblocked, I just wanted the talkpage unprotected. Whatever. He's caused so much stress to so many people and I would like to know why exactly, which was the only thing left. Oh well. I do agree he's full of it though! The Ungovernable Force 05:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

TUF - I replied via email. Also, see my thoughts on User:Infinity0/RJII. -- infinity0 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleas and Lice

Hello! I am hoping for your help. As I'm sure you know, Fleas and Lice are a credible, notable crust punk band, but their article is targeted for deletion. I am hoping you or someone you know in the community can help add reliable and relevant information to the article to assert it's notability. I have come up short in my efforts to find anything. Thanks! Parsssseltongue 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Puppet de sock possible

Thanks for the heads-up, TUF. I won't worry too much about it. --AaronS 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits to American individualist anarchism

Your recent edits on this article come up on my watchlist, yet when I go over to the article, and look at the history, the edits are not there. I've used two different computers, and reloaded the page, but I still do not see the edits on the history. Do you have any idea why this is so? Thanks. ---Charles 02:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why you can't see the edits is because I reverted the edits by User:217.160.230.161 (who is a sockpuppet of the blocked User:Hogeye) back to a redirect to Individualist anarchism in the United States. When you click on American individualist anarchism, it takes you to the other page, and you are looking at the history for the other page. Here is the history for the page I edited. I later had to do it again when another sock of Hogeye (User:64.159.81.81) reverted back. The reason I made it a redirect again in the first place is because any edits by hogeye's socks can and should be reverted, and because the page was clearly a POV fork. Hope that answers your question. The Ungovernable Force 03:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that answers the question, and brilliantly! Good show, old man. Cheers! ---Charles 04:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, you might want to keep an eye on Individualist anarchism in the United States and Anarchism in the United States, Vision Thing, and User:Drowner (a probable RJII or Hogeye sock) keep insisting on restoring RJII's original research. PS. The Anarchism in the United States page could do with a lot more on the movements. - FrancisTyers · 21:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they're both on my watchlist and I reverted one of them a few hours ago. The Ungovernable Force 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Also, American individualist anarchism (that's actually the one I reverted just a few hours ago). The Ungovernable Force 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hogeye infestation

yeh hogeye.. is that his chart? can't we ban all his IPs? --maxrspct in the mud 11:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awww thanks!!

Thanks so much for the kind words and the beautiful Smiley, sweetheart :) Don't worry, it'll pass... it always does. I really need to hug a friend, so I hope you don't mind if I make you choke for a moment... ***hugzzz*** there, thank you! Please, visit me whenever you want, my door is always open :) Please take care, and a big hug, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 06:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bandera de aztlán

Hey! You used my flag in a userbox! Awesome!--Rockero 07:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw it on the userbox page a long time ago (I'm sure it's been deleted out of template space though). Honestly, I'm not really a huge fan of the whole Aztlán thing (or any other nationalistic movement). The Ungovernable Force 07:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I prefer the concept of Aztlán as "any liberated territory" over that of "a bounded nation with a state-violence apparatus" myself.--Rockero 15:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harrassment

Why are you harrassing me and deleting my entries in articles? I believe you have violated the "three revert" rule and am going to report you. Drowner 02:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, you're the one breaking rules, not me. 3RR specifically states that reverting the edits of a blocked user evading with socks is not a violation of 3RR. But hey, try me! The Ungovernable Force 02:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not a blocked user. Ok I will report you then and you will be blocked. Give me a few minutes. Drowner 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Have fun with that Hogeye, oh, I mean Drowner. The Ungovernable Force 02:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking you both for disruption

I'm blocking you both, The Ungovernable Force and Drowner, for disruption. Edit warring over trivia, well over the Three revert rule, on Anarchism in the United States, and you both clearly knew you were doing it. --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log) asked to be unblocked. The reason given was: Reverting a sock of a blocked user
Tony Sidaway has reviewed this request and declined to unblock the account.
The reason for declining was: see below
Administrators: you may also review this block, but do not unblock (unblock link)
without a good reason; see blocking policy.
Blocked editor: your unblock request continues to be visible. Please don't replace this message with another unblock request. Thank you

Perhaps you didn't look at any of my edit summaries, but User:Drowner is a sock of blocked User:Hogeye, who has used more socks and open IP's to evade their block than I can count. The contributions of Drowner reek of sockpuppetry. I honestly didn't even look at the content of any of their edits, just the fact that they were editing when they were blocked. Other users who can attest that this is a clear hogeye sockpuppet include User:AaronS, User:Infinity0, User:Max rspct, User:FrancisTyers, and User:Sarge Baldy, the last two of which are administrators. The Ungovernable Force 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're so sure he's a sock, have him checkusered. I blocked you both for edit warring over stuff like this and this. --Tony Sidaway 03:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Because that takes ridiculously long, and by the time it gets done, he will have already stopped using the account and screwed up every article they touch. Like I said, hogeye has a slew of sockpuppets and trying to checkuser them all will take forever. [9] Anyway, Francis even asked me to watch that page today, saying in the process that Drowner was probably either a sock of Hogeye or User:RJII, although looking at their edits, they are far closer to Hogeye's style. [10]. The Ungovernable Force 03:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the edits you kept reverting on that article, they seem quite trivial. One was the addition and removal of the statement "Goldman was an anarcho-communist." (a statement that seems to be confirmed in the Emma Goldman article) and the other was even more puzzling: warring over the words "property" and "possessions". What harm would have been done if you had let the article stay in the form that drowner edited it to? How was the disru[tive pattern of a mutual edit war between you preferable to that? --Tony Sidaway 04:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I already said I didn't even look at the content of any of their edits, they shouldn't be editing in the first place. 3RR clearly says: Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy. Infinity0 recently had the same problem with another hogeye sock, and they were unblocked. [11] The unblocking admin, User:William M. Connolley told Infinity that in the future they should note that they are reverting a blocked user, which is why I was sure all my edit summaries made that clear. So why am I blocked? The Ungovernable Force 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I told you. You're blocked for disruption. --Tony Sidaway 04:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My edits don't fall under disruption according to policy.[12] Although it says there are other forms, my edits were merely multiple reverts, which were fully warranted as I have noted above. It also says that a warning is usually given, and none was. Considering the fact that my edits didn't even fall under the explicit definition of disruption, I of all people should have received a warning before being blocked. The Ungovernable Force 04:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I also just noticed that the reason you blocked me, according to my block log is edit warring, not disruption, so I should be unblocked according to the original reasoning you gave. The Ungovernable Force 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
No, let me explain. Edit warring of the scale on which you were carrying it on, and over such trivial content differences, is disruption. In less than ninety minutes, you each performed about six reverts. At each point you, yourself, had the option of saying to yourself "oh, the content isn't so bad, I'll wait until he can be blocked for evasion." And yet six times you decided to blindly carry on your edit war. That, my friend, is disruptive editing. --Tony Sidaway 05:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I told you, I had no idea what his content was. Regardless of if I could have stopped, there is no policy issue that says I should, since this user isn't supposed to be editing anything at all. Again, I should have received a warning at the very least. And 48 hours is excessive. The Ungovernable Force 05:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a good idea to perform edits on Wikipedia if you don't know what you're editing. Please don't do that. I'll adjust to 24 hours. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked him indefinitely for being a Hogeye sockpuppet; however, I agree with Tony Sidaway that constant reverting is completely pointless and gains nothing (he simply does it again, you revert again, he does it again); in fact, that's why WP:3RR exists. --cesarb 05:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, 3RR policy says my edits were justifiable, so I should have at least had a warning. And considering all the talk about Hogeye's socks on WP:AN and AN/I this week, more people should have been watching this guy. The Ungovernable Force 05:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
What it says is that such reverts don't count towards the limit established by the Three revert rule. But that doesn't give you a license to edit war. You know there were other editors there. If this fellow's edits (which you didn't even look at) had been so toxic, somebody else would have dealt with them. Should you have been warned? I sadly admit that, given your manifest ignorance of how Wikipedia works, some effort should have been made to inform you that you shouldn't be doing what you did. I'm not at all convinced that you would have listened, however. You still seem to think you did nothing wrong. --Tony Sidaway 05:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Warnings usually aren't given for people who are on Wikipedia for long enough to know what 3RR is, and doing too many reverts too fast usually results in the block preceding the warning (which you did get just above). As for watching that guy, it's nothing more than one single user in a sea of WP:AN and WP:AN/I reports (did you take a look how many are there every single day?); useful for when you bump into him somewhere and can say "I think I read about it on AN or ANI last week", but not a "MUST WATCH" list. I did my part; I went through a huge list of open proxies of the kind he normally uses, and blocked all of them (a really boring job, but also helps with a number of other annoyances, not only with Hogeye). --cesarb 05:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ungovernable Force is an *asset* to wikipedia, not a disruption. He has worked extremely hard to negate the blatant POV pushings of a few certain editors. Kindly do not treat him as if he is a bad guy. If admins responded quicker to deal with POV-pushers and aggressive edit-warriors, defensive reverting would not be required in the first place. --Infinity0 08:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If by "defensive reverting" you mean what we have seen tonight, that is never required on Wikipedia. Those who engage in it will be stopped, no matter how much "good" they might think they're doing. --Tony Sidaway 08:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? You have seen what RJII has written. Certain parties wish to use wikipedia for their own purposes. --Infinity0 08:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

By "defensive reverting" I mean reverting blatant POV. I have no idea what happened tonight; but TUF isn't the sort of person to revert repeatedly for no good reason. --Infinity0 09:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For example, this edit which you call "disruption" is an example of blatant POV-pushing in the form of undue weight. The disruption was intentionally caused by User:Drowner (since that edit is of no informational value whatsoever) with the aim to disrupt. To put it crudely, that edit is vandalism. It may seem like a minor detail to you but for those accustomed to the subject it is a major detail, one which when worded wrongly, as User:Drowner did, gives readers a false impression. Do you want wikipedia to be inaccurate? That is the major issue surrounding wikipedia right now, isn't it? TUF, far from disrupting the article, was reversing the effects of it. --Infinity0 09:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism. Moreover Ungovernable here has admitted that he was reverting without even looking at what he was editing. I don't see the harm in asserting Goldman's strand of anarchism; your mileage may vary. These things should be settled by discussion, mot edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 09:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to discuss things with RJII for 8 months. It got nowhere. TUF and above stated editors have been tried to discuss things with Hogeye for at least a year and a half. He should have been permanently banned long ago. After a while motivation to discuss is drained out of you. I suppose you should know that, with your reluctance to discuss why people consistently revert, instead, just asserting the 3RR. I suppose that was why 3RR was set up in the first place. Because admins were too reluctant to discuss the reasons behind why people revert. TUF is a good person, trying to do the right thing. It's irrelevant whether he broke 3RR; his edit (in those series of edits above) improved wikipedia; User:Drowner's was disruptive. Assessing Goldman's position on an article opposed to her position is akin to using a loaded word - giving readers a subconscious impression that "of course Goldman is opposed to them, therefore anything she says shouldn't be trusted." It's an old POV trick.

Similarly, with Alienus, I don't know the details of his full activities but please give him some slack. I've talked with him before on a few philosophy articles; he was very nice and treated everyone there with respect. As for his edit warrings on Objectivism, I can almost certainly say that he is in the right and the opposers are in the wrong; but I don't know for his other activities.

Please don't mistake the fire brigade for the fire. It's where wikipedia is heading, and it may become bloated by beareaucracy and bloated, unnegotiable rules that don't make sense. -- infinity0 09:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This account is blocked for less than a day, just wait.


RJII and hogeye have been disrupting the articles for over a year. Hogeye just comes on and inserts pov material he knows will get changed or deleted fast but just likes to exercise the totally un-wikipedian, abusive attitude that got him banned in the first place. We have been plagued by sockpuppet hogeye for so long that all the editors can recognise him when he pops up. We are that familiar. Of course there is humanity there but Hogeye has always been abusive, disruptive and a supreme edit war instigator. The vast majority of hogeye's edits especially as sockpuppet . are unmalleable and too pov to be molded into the article. Hogeye knows this. Please lift the ban on TUF. He is just looking after the page like the rest of us. Notice that most of the editors of Anarchism are NOT admins who would probably be using their own sysop powers to protect the page. We can't unless F.Tyrers repeatedly does it --maxrspct in the mud 10:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

TUF was doing a service to Wikipedia by reverting the edits of a disruptive sockpuppet, regardless of their content. This block is unfair and unjust. --AaronS 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate that what The Ungovernable Force was doing was unacceptable and should in no way be emulated. He was not doing any kind of service to Wikipedia by repeatedly reverting trivial edits. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and those who persistently treat it as one are harming it. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I point you to WP:3RR#Reverting_banned_or_blocked_users. This is the official policy regarding reverts. TUF was reverting the edits of a banned puppet master. Whether or not they were trivial edits is of no import whatsoever. --AaronS 15:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't misread that clause as granting editors a right to edit disruptively. --Tony Sidaway 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Editors can revert banned users and sockpuppets regardless of the merit of their edits. --AaronS 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
We're going around in circles, and you have just cited a non-existent policy. --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
From WP:Ban
All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.
(taken from further discussion of this issue at Tony's talk page). Anyways, final word: I was unblocked. The Ungovernable Force 23:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

No problem re: the block. That really was a bit overzealous of him. --AaronS 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but my main issue with him, now, is the rudeness with which he treated me. So, I'm sorry to say, it's purely selfish. ;) --AaronS 00:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, just try not to get blocked. ";)" right back to you sir. The Ungovernable Force 00:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too worried. His actions were pretty indefensible. I apologize if you felt the need to jump into the WP:AN/I discussion and defend yourself. I hope I didn't waste your time. --AaronS 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No harm done. I wouldn't have done it myself, but it's your call too and I know you were operating under good intentions. The Ungovernable Force 04:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

heads up! - FrancisTyers · 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing!

This Barnstar is presented to my dear

The Ungovernable Force
for being the very model of a great Wikipedian and an even better friend!
You are awesome!
Presented by Phaedriel

This is the most amazing thing that has "ever" happened to me at WP, hun - do you know just what I was reading when I got your message? That's right: your talk page!!! This had never happened to me before :)

Once again, thanks for the comfort and the beautiful words, sweetheart. I see you've had your own motives to be streesed, and I want you to know that I stand by you, all the way. You are a wonderful person and a bright Wikipedian - no matter what, keep it up! A great, big hug, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, shucks, I'm blushing! You are one of the kindest editors the kindest editor I've encountered on wikipedia, and judging by everyone else's comments on your talkpage, I doubt I'm the only one who thinks so. Thanks a lot, and personally I'm not too stressed anymore, partially due to this. The Ungovernable Force 00:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your welcome

Sadly I have had a run in with Mr Sidaway and found that he has an infallable belief in what he believes is right and heaven and earth cannot be moved before he will see differently. I have tried to reason with him, even asked him to take part in conversation but he just simply ignores it, makes his change and leaves it at that. I believe he should have given you the decency (civility?) of warning you and having you ignore the warning instead of just automatically assuming what he believed your reaction would have been. That to me is bad faith, clear and simple. Enigmatical 01:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That bad faith issue was something I almost brought up last night, but I didn't feel like arguing anymore, since it seemed pointless. I'm glad others brought it up though, and I'm especially pleased (and surprised based on the way things went last night) by the support I've received from editors both known and unknown to me today. Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 01:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] zap

Hey,

Thanks for reverting that image removal on my article. This note acts as notice that the anonymous dude was most assuredly not present to take that photo, and could not have done so, because it didn't exist six years ago as he claims. So, consider this carte blanche to revert him if he pops up again.


How's stuff?

xoxo — Adrian Lamo ·· 03:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixed. On wiki there's some bad and some good if you look at the last few threads on my talk (bad: got first block, good: got first barnstar and first block removal), in real life it's mostly good (but I don't want to talk about it all in public, I'll email you after dinner in 15 minutes or so). I thought all the block stuff was taken care of, then AaronS complained on AN/I about Tony Sidaway's behavior. Although I agree with him, I really didn't want to drag this out more, and now I have to defend myself again. Oh well, Aaron was doing what he thought was right and I don't hold any grudge. The Ungovernable Force 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA questions

Heh, yeah. Well, I want to be able to vote against administrators who will have that kind of attitude. :-/ --AaronS 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. The Ungovernable Force 22:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Anarcho-capitalism as featured article

I have posted the anarcho-capitalism article to undergo a major review due to my belief that it is not up to the standards of being the best wikipedia has to offer. If you are interested in participating in the process please do. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 11:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Scare?

Question: After reading the article on Green Scare, what does the Red Scare have to do with it? I know the name was based on RS, so it would seem logical to put RS on GS's page, but GS isn't even mentioned in RS's article, so why put it in with the "See also"? --BigShock 00:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's supposed to be a modern day version of the red scare, at least that's how it's perceived by many. And the name is taken from red scare, like you said. And the See also sections typically link to similar things that are not mentioned in the article, so it makes more sense for green scare to be in the red scare's see also than the other way around. The Ungovernable Force 00:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, The Ungovernable Force, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC Tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Chili14(C|@|T) 19:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABH

Hi Mr Force, Fraid I don't know anything about ABH so can't comment one way or another, my area was more Anarcho-punk than Oi, but it does seem that getting oneself included on a White Power compilation was not the most astute career move if the band weren't actaully facsists!!! quercus robur 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, got to agree with you there! I'm not too big on Oi! either, which is part of the reason why I had no real idea. Thanks anyway. The Ungovernable Force 22:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Anarchism table

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

[edit] A(nti)sexual

I do have an email listed, so I'm not sure why that wasn't working. I mostly removed them because I think they're imprecise. Asexual most often refers to people who have a lesser sex drive, and doesn't so often include people who have a regular sex drive but find something disturbing about sex. Anti-sexuals by contrast are opposed to sex for moral or ethical reasons, which could be for concerns ranging from the environment, religion or feminist or anarchist beleifs. That fits me a bit better, but I don't like it because it sounds unilaterally opposed to sex, where I think my concerns about sex could be remedied under the right circumstances. I think I could better describe myself as a "pro-intimatist", who thinks the whole point of a relationship is to bring a couple closer together.

With my own girlfriend (who is asexual, if not a textbook example) this means a) not doing anything we don't both want to do b) not doing anything that doesn't benefit us both c) aiming to be as comfortable with one another as we are with ourselves. Essentially, an anarchist, egalitarian relationship. I'd say that sex tends to be more divisive and less intimate than activities such as hugging, cuddling, and so on, so in general I'd consider it less important. But I'm not convinced anymore than sex is necessarily incompatible with intimacy and could be managed in a way that brings a couple closer together without one individual dominating the other, so I'm not comfortable with the term "anti-sexual" so much now. Sarge Baldy 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange, when I click on the "e-mail this user" it says "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users". I'm pretty sure the problem isn't me since I've emailed a few users already, with the most recent being yesterday. I wasn't able to email you a week ago when I was blocked either, but I could email others.
Anyway, I can understand where you're coming from, though I might not be as wary of sex as you are. Still, I personally feel there needs to be a strong emotional relationship before going to that level, at least for me. I don't have anything against people who just want to go out and have sex though, as long as it's consensual and there isn't any coercion, but I personally don't find that too attractive. Well, yeah, I have more to say, but I don't feel like saying it here, so if we can figure out what's up with email, maybe I'll tell you more. Perhaps you never confirmed the email? I know I had to when I gave one a few weeks ago. Or maybe the email address doesn't work anymore? I don't know. The Ungovernable Force 04:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RJ

Thanks, it took a lot of time. Given that all the evidence is circumstantial, and the use of multiple IPs on the RJ account, I don't think any of us can be 100% convinced. But there comes a time when even circumstantial evidence gets too overwhelming to ignore. Regardless, the evidence proves beyond any doubt that Vision Thing is purposefully replicating RJs edits. This would make Vision Thing a meat puppet. Meat puppets are not in themselves a violation of wiki policy. However, RJs explicit goal was to violate wiki policy to input his own POV, so any meat puppet of RJ would intend to do the same. Therefore, its a wiki violation deserving of a ban either way.

If he is a meat puppet, I'm guessing its wonderful Mr. Hogeye. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's not Hogeye. Hogeye's editing is completely obvious. His sockpuppets are very easy to detect. I can't picture him doing nearly such a convincing job. Neither Vision Thing or MrVoluntarist is Hogeye, as convenient as that would be. Although MrVoluntarist is clearly a resurrection of someone. Sarge Baldy 06:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
MrVoluntarist? I've never suspected much, but then again, I haven't had much contact with them for a long time. I wasn't paying much attention back then to conspiracy things though. I agree that I doubt Vision Thing is Hogeye. Actually, I didn't know Vision Thing was so new. Since MrVoluntarist and Vision Thing both have a username with a word that starts with "V", I just absentmindedly thought they were the same person. I wasn't paying too much attention obviously. Now I feel stupid. I saw your comment on the anarcha-feminist page Sarge, and I'm guessing that's what makes you say that about MrVoluntarist, right? The Ungovernable Force 06:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that for starters, but I also remember him knowing the history of [[anarchism]] quite well when he first registered. He said he'd just been reading through the archives, but I don't know who would honestly have the time or willpower to. Though as I don't remember anyone quite like him, I can't say for sure. I've been around that page longer than anyone but Hogeye, but that's still only a year. Sarge Baldy 09:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use image being removed

Hey chief, noticed you'd taken the image of the NZ boneheads off a couple of pages, as it was "violating fair use policy." Just wondering what exactly is wrong with it? - We had a bit of discussion when that image was first being added to WP, and it was all cool in the end, so... just curious as to the deal, eh bro. Drett 05:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: [13] We ended up using a lower resolution version of the original pic so as it would be legit. Interesting sidenote - the wikipedia editor who objected to it's inclusion recently served time for a graff attack on a mosque and shooting at people with a bb gun. 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I was looking at that a few minute ago. I agree that it can be used on NZNF, but like the tag on the pic says, other use may be copywrite infringment. I personally don't care too much since I'm not a huge fan of intellectual property laws, but I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't technically be using it on other pages. If you really want to put it in though I won't do anything about it. But I don't see the point. As for the editor...serves 'em right. The Ungovernable Force 05:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Nah, it's cool. One pic is as good as any other on the generic nazi pages. Solidad, bro. Drett 06:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Dear Mis(ter/ses) Force,
I regret to inform you that I unintentionally vandalized your user page while attempting to rip off some of your very nice user boxes for use on my own user page. I believe I have restored your user page back to its original condition, but you may want to check it over to make sure no damage was done. You have my sincerest apologies and a promise that I will be much more careful in the future.
Yours in solidarity,
--Aelffin 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Sending email should work just fine now. Sarge Baldy 07:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your non-stop rudeness and show of complete ignorance

I'm glad you find my posts so damned funny. All you continue to do is show a complete lack of understanding of freedom and anarchy. Uh, btw, I thought a change in user name might be a good idea as The Ungovernable Force sort of implies independence and an inability to be, well.. governed. How about the Governable Farce? A little more fitting, ay? Just a friendly suggestion to a superior college boy who's head has been filled with the opinion of others and whose actions sort of denote an inability to stand on one's own feet. Ta Ta! Remember before you got banned and you actually had balls? Uh, what happened, Gov? Of course, I'll probably get blocked for this terrible assault now, in spite of the fact that your attitude toward me and everyone who disagrees with you has been so incredibly sucky. Shannonduck talk 06:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Apology for last mean comment

I wrote the last comment I made here and then went to the talk:anarchism page. And now I feel really bad about what I said here. It was mean and rotten. I'm really sorry, UGF. I mean that. Please don't be hurt or mad. peace, Shannonduck talk 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you apologized before I posted the response I had written up. I really hope you can show this with your behavior in the future. You really need to stop taking things so personally here. Just because I disagree with your ideas does not mean that I have to be in a constant war with you. I don't have a bad attitude towards people who disagree with me--I have a bad attitude towards people who refuse act with kindness. I've had good conversations with ElectricRay up above, and he's an anarcho-capitalist. I don't agree with his ideas, but he (usually) acted politely. In real life I have Christian friends, even though I think religion is crap. I've had Republican friends and there are some anarchists I refuse to be friends with. I've even had good conversations with a small number of the military recruiters I have protested against. It comes down to respecting people and their opinions. I do admit that when others are disrespectful, I often return the favor. But a disagreement over content does not have to take the road that this one has and become a conflict over character. I hope everyone remembers in the future. My only problem with your previous actions is your tendency to make personal attacks and completely invalidate other people's ideas. I am howevever open to forgiveness, and I would hope most other people here are as well. If you were to just stop posting impolite and inflammatory material many people would be a lot nicer to you. This apology is definitely a large step in the right direction. And if you ever think I am not living up to this myself, please let me know in a respectful manner, like I am trying to do right now. And try to do so with other users as well. As long as you can act respectfully, I will forget all of the crap that has happened in the past. And if I have said anything that offended you (which I obviously have) please forgive me as well. We all make mistakes, but it is what we do after realizing we have made a mistake that really defines our characters. Well, have a nice night and I really hope this is the start of a new chapter. The Ungovernable Force 07:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's true

Whacky, whacky, whacky. And RJII's not gone. But who cares? The "RJII Project" is nothing but a fantasy made up in his mind. Whether or not he has a couple of other pimply-faced nerds helping him out is of no import, really, although I doubt it. He's probably just an anti-social nut-job who comes on here after working the late shift at his local Blockbuster, looking for kicks. Although he's on the Internet quite often, so I actually imagine that he has a kind of Office Space type job, or worse, and that Wikipedia is a time-killer (like it is for a lot of us). His whole mumbo-jumbo spiel about "psychological warfare" and spreading the seed of truth and blah-blah-blah was absolutely hilarious. The fact that he's still lingering around is both pathetic and amusing.

Things aren't going to change much. On Wikipedia, technogeeks rule, and anarcho-capitalists are mostly technogeeks these days.--AaronS 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, thanks

Thanks for the cappucino. You know what? I'm really starting to think that what we would both want might be more the same than different. Much of it is words and our own perceptions of different concepts. Maybe it's not so very different!.. in freedom and justice, Shannonduck talk 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I just responded to your last post on Talk:Anarchism on this subject. The Ungovernable Force 07:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Punk Revival Merge Discussion

Saw you on the Punk WikiProject list... Your input is valued! - Sir, please check out whats going on there Talk:Pop_punk_revival and add you opinion to the "Merge Discussion" Xsxex 22:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random compliment

I thought you've done some good work, so I've added the new barnstar. Took me a few tries. And for some reason it says Phaedrial did it not me. I can't figure that one out. Anyways, kudos to you. Baiter 02:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. Her sig had a lot of coding and it was hard to tell it was even a sig. It took me a while to figure it out :) Oh, and thanks. The Ungovernable Force 04:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I removed my comments on purpose... I figured the Barnstar said it better. Thanks for fixing it for me. Nope, never met Hank, just read Spiritwalker. Baiter 17:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Ever hear of Makhno? I think that's how it spelt, the Ukrainian anarchist? He's a hero. Baiter 17:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
That's funny, I was just thinking about him 30 minutes ago! The Ungovernable Force 04:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lingeron

how did you find that btw?

I'm just that good ;-) Actually I was just very lucky; I was randomly poking through Thewolfstar's contribs and happened to fall upon it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow. I was going to post that myself since I doubted anyone knew about it (I actually did on Lingeron's talk before reading AN/I) and I was pretty shocked to see someone who didn't really even know me (and probably hadn't read my talk page) had found it already. The Ungovernable Force 05:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rovics

Download "I remember Warsaw" and "Black flag flying". :) — you can get them free from his site. - FrancisTyers · 11:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A "Fuck the border!" tshirt of course :) - FrancisTyers · 11:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamaica

I spent my 19th birthday in Ocho Rios. I really wish I could have stayed longer. I can't wait to go back sometime. There was such a nice vibe there, and I'm guessing the rest of Jamaica is pretty interesting. I saw Life and Debt a few months ago and it only made me appreciate Jamaica more. I think the most interesting part of Jamaica was the juxtaposition of poverty and luxury. The greatest example was seeing a huge resort (I think it was a "Sandles") and literally a few seconds down the road were run-down shacks. It was depressing and beautiful at the same time. The people were really great though. Anyway, I want to go there sometime after college to see what's beyond the surface. Maybe spend a few months travelling around the country. I really want to go to some of the coffee farms in the Blue Mountains to see what the labor conditions are like. The coffee is really great, but I feel guilty because I'm sure a lot of the workers are treated like dirt (then again, what workers aren't?).

Oh, and Phaedriel, see me meeting another person from your soundtrack? :) The Ungovernable Force 06:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoy your time there. Yes, the people there are great (well some of them anyway). I love it and miss it so much. I wish I could go back for atleast a day.
And no, the coffee pickers arent "treated like dirt". I should know, I lived around the Blue Mountain area :). Orane (talk • cont.) 23:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Firebreathing

Hey, thanks for the comment. I gotta do something to keep myself entertained! --Aelffin 01:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear Ungovernable sort of likes the border. --Aelffin 21:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, only when it's around a template and not around people. I don't think the various types of anarchism want to immigrate into the articles from the template too much :) The Ungovernable Force 09:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objective Truth and World Views

I just read a random comment you made on someone else's user page about no one commenting on the aforemetioned rant. I'm not going to make much of a comment since I don't think its that crazy sounding, but I was thinking that you might like to read the book Metaphors We Live By, written by George Lakoff, and Mark Johnson (professor) if you haven't already.

Also do you have much of a science background? One thing about the concept of "truth" that I've always found interesting is this: Newtonian mechanics may be veiwed as special limiting case of special relativity (the same is true of quantum mechanics, see Correspondence principle). For example the force, F, on an object of constant mass m, moving with an acceleration of a, in Newtonian mechanics is F=ma, but in special relativity this equation would be F=ma+(...)v where v is the object's velocity and (...) is small in most cases (bold is a vector -- I'm sorry if I'm underestimating your knowledge on this, but better that you know). So which equation represents the Truth? The first is obviously just an approximation to the second. But if we don't wish to say that the first equation is the Truth because it is an approximation, we will also have to admit that the second is also just an approximation, and therefore is not the Truth. In cases such as these we might say that truth is relative, in the sense that the truth of each of the equations above is relative to a specific domain (if the object has a small enough velocity, the difference between the first equation and the second is small enough to be immeasurable in practice).

Have fun! millerc 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhg, I hate physics! Oh well. I've heard of Lakoff, but after looking at his page I have no idea from where. It was probably mentioned in one of my classes in passing. It wouldn't surprise me--probably an anthro class or my public speaking one. I haven't taken linguistics, but I might when I transfer to a four year (I probably have to if I want a minor or double major in anthro, which I do). The Ungovernable Force 05:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Check your email. Lakoffs stuff is interesting, but not science enough for me. I did an essay on "Metaphor in advertising" about deodorant if you're interested I'll send it over. - FrancisTyers · 11:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist

You're welcome. SpinyNorman does this from time to time. He doesn't edit for days on end, and sometimes weeks, then suddenly turns up at a bunch of environmentalist/animal rights articles and makes a bunch of POV edits, usually reverting multiple times; he does that for a few days, then disappears again. It's been going on since around December last year. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DHS

I would greatly appreciate further research into constructive criticism. I personally do not want anything more to do with editing the page. Thank you and goodnight.

Why not? You can if you want, I'm not trying to get you off the page. I would actually appreciate some help from someone else who has gone there. I was just looking at some stuff about the Youth In Focus group and their findings. I found some articles that I'll use as sources for racial problems. I'll try to find more tomorrow. The Ungovernable Force 08:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DHS2

This may be a double post but the last one didn't go through. I'm probably not who you think I am since I graduated in 2005. My younger sister tells me that things have not changed there. Anyways, I only wanted to post so someone would see it and realize the issue. And you responded so I'm content. Thank you and if you could remove my short editing history I would appreciate it since the Eragon and Davis material proved inconsequential.

[edit] DHS3

No thank you but I appreciate your interest in the issue. As for now I am only curious if my user number is tracible to my new house as I'm a very private person.

[edit] DHS4

Besides my narotic quesions I only hope that my preliminary edits can be expanded on and solidified and maybe draw interest for change at DHS which should be made better for future generatons like my sister.

Hey man, see WP:OVER, I don't have time to explain, but to answer the anons questions: 1. His IP will only be traced to his house by his ISP — no-one else can do it as its assigned from a large range in this case. 2. Only very few people can delete edit history (WP:OVER). - FrancisTyers · 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My old account

Actually I like the name of my old account, it is the alias I go by most often on the internet. However, I was hoping for a couple of days peace when I first started editing again before the Hogeye and RJII sockpuppets started automatically reverting everything I wrote. Plus, I haven't used it in so long that I lost the password, and I'm not sure if I set an email up for recovery. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 20:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earth First!

I specifically used the label 'terrist.' It does not mean what you think it does. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Mass

Howdy. I borrowed your Critical Mass userbox—hope you don't mind. My bicycle (which has just today been stolen, unfortunately) is usually my only means of transportation, so it's only fitting that I support Critical Mass. -- WGee 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad: Ron Johnson Insurance is buying me a new one. :-) I haven't been in any Critical Mass rides, either; I merely feel a sense of solidarity with the organization. I would take the bus in my town, if only the bus schedules weren't so inconvenient. For example, the bus stops only once an hour (once every 2 hours on weekends) at the Orillia Square Mall, which, despite being just outside of city limits, is the only placeat which to get basic things—the downtown area is full of useless specialty shops, which usually go out of business in less than a year. -- WGee 05:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk subgenres

A a followup to the AFD for "funny punk", here's some other genres on the Punk template that should probably be deleted, redireced, or merged:

Some of these seem like outright neologisms to me (and a few seem like joke articles) but let me know what you think. WesleyDodds 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not Afro-punk, that's a page for a documentary, not a genre. Perhaps remove the excess stuff and focus on the moview more. I'd say you should put this up at the wikiproject page, and possibly on the talk pages for punk rock and punk subculture before listing any. Just get a feel for other's opinions. The Ungovernable Force 06:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution stuff

(This was originally placed on my userpage, I'm moving it here) I'd like to apologize in advance, for I'm new in this "wikipedia stuff" and didn't know how to simply message you without editing your page. Even though I think you have a great page and good arguments to sustain your opinions, something caught my attention: "Conservative Christians hold that creation is a fact, whereas scientists hold that evolution is a fact (btw, I agree with the scientists)". Your theory about undoubtful truth is interesting, but to use evolution as example in that theory is wrong. Scientist do NOT hold that evolution is a fact, but "merely" a THEORY. Evolution can NOT be proved (at least not just yet, for we live too little to witness evolution itself), therefore, science does not take it as a fact. You can, and you probably will be able to find another examples that fit your 'truth theory', I just thought that I had to warn you about that. Thanks, keep up the good work. P.S.: You can always visit the wiki for Evolution :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.32.215.50 (talk • contribs).

Actually, microevolution has been observed. I think most scientists don't have any doubt at all that evolution is the Truth-with-a-capital-t, but I understand what you are saying. Thanks though. I don't know if I'll change it or not. The Ungovernable Force 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User_talk%7EThe_Ungovernable_Force_Archive1_eade.html"