User talk:68.7.212.152

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.—chris.lawson (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] [[Category:Objectivists]]

Hi there -- I know for a fact that Jimmy Wales is, and considers himself an objectivist. Before you change this for any more articles, can you please tell me something about how you are deciding who to remove from that category? I am not an expert of the topic, but I will be compelled to go back and reverse the changes you've made, as I know that this particular one is incorrect, and that Alan Greenspan is also conidered to be one.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that you removed the objectivist category from David Kelley. This is baffling when the article begins:

"David Kelley (Born 1949 in Cleveland, Ohio) is an American philosopher and writer. He is best known for his advocacy on behalf of Objectivism, a philosophical system created by philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand."

From your note on my talk page you seem to have some standard in mind for your edits, but it is not in evidence. My guess is that it is part of the sectarian splits in objectivism referred to Ayn_Rand#Legacy here, but if that is the case these people should be restored to the category, as there is no consensus that they are not objectivists and that they (and others) clearly consider them to be as well. Could you please leave some explanations or citations on the relevant articles' discussion pages when making such changes? Otherwise we will be forced to change the articles back without further review, and you will be blocked from editing the site if you persist.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I am the one who originally added Kelley to the category. I re-added him today. Noting that the anon refers to Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger as "two leading Objectivists" (which they are not, though they claim to be), it appears that he is an adherent of the dogmatic Anti-Reason Institute.
I'm not so sure that Greenspan belongs in that category, though. To be sure, he was an Objectivist during the time of the Collective, but I'm not sure he is one today (nor do I know if he still considers himself to be one). I raised this issue on Category talk:Objectivists a few days ago...is the category for people who CLAIM to be Objectivists or for those who actually ARE Objectivists? As a devoted opponent of the ARI, perhaps I'm not the best person to judge this distinction (I know of a few Objectivists who are in fact blissfully ignorant of the schism or at least think it's all bullshit), but this is something that needs to be decided. Kurt Weber 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess this is as good a place for the discussion as any. I'm not an objectivist and don't claim to be an expert on them (the best I can do is having read Atlas Shrugged as a teenager). So, as a relatively objective outsider, I think that it's reasonable to include people who call themselves an Foobarist in [[Category:Foobarist]]. In the case of someone who clearly lies outside of the real of possibility I can see exclusion, e.g. if George Bush claimed to be a pacifist because the wars he fights will result in peace, but this should be an exception that is almost universally agreed upon. In the case of Objectivism, it seems that there are a number of sets of people who feel that they are carrying on the true legacy of Ayn Rand's work and that the others are not -- which is why I characterized it as a sectarian dispute. So, FWIW, I say leave them all in -- if Greenspan has a long history as an objectivist, but some who call themselves objectivists feel he has "left the fold", leave him in the category and explain in the article that it's disputed by some. That would inform me, as a casual reader, far more than simply removing him from the category. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff

I see you've added Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff to Category:Atheist thinkers and activists. I removed them from this category yesterday because they had been added to a more specific category, namely Category:Atheist philosophers.

Thanks, --zenohockey 03:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This message is regarding the page Talk:Ayn Rand. Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Ichiro 05:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

From your previous contribs, I'm going to assume that was an accident :) --Ichiro 05:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

consider joining us Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 68.7.212.152). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia.

Please note these points:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

from Wikipedian: Kukini 05:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: I disagree with your vandalism claim.

Were you referring to this edit[1]? I was referring to that edit, and it's probably made by mistake, so don't worry about it. - Ichiro 06:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning:WP:3RR

You may not revert any page more than three times. This policy is designed to protect articles from edit wars. If youviolate this rule, you may be blocked by an adminstrator.--Tznkai 08:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:LGBT rights opposition

Hi, I'm wondering why you removed a certain sentence from the above category. Could you please explain why on the talk page? Thanks, {{User:Vacuum/sig}} 16:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)