User talk:BernardL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Take the time to edit your User page and let us know a little about yourself.

We are always looking for quality images for our articles. If you have any images which you can release freely, please upload them to Wiki Commons.

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (but you don't need to sign articles; the software makes sure you get the credit you deserve).

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! User:Zeimusu


Participatory economics is just an updated version of communism and any generalized critique of market alternatives is acceptable as participator economics does nothing to adjust for criticisms of any form of communism or economic arrangements that eliminate prices, wages, private property etc. The complaints are, and will always be the same...no matter what you call it. (Gibby 17:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

You are using "communism" as nothing more than a club. Neither you or friedman can know- a priori - that parecon is subject to the same objections as other socialist models. You show no evidence of having read parecon related material with any care, as is readily demonstrated by your assertion that parecon has no prices. They do offer reasons why mainstream critiques of central planning do not apply. You cannot legitimately argue against such reasons by the mere assertion that it is "communism." You need to demonstrate that you comprehend parecon's institutional design, otherwise you're just playing at vulgar (and rather imperialistic) politics.BernardL 21:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, your intervention is analogous to me going over to the page on Austrian economics equipped with a marxist critique of neoclassical economics from a writer who had never read Hayek and adding 30% worth of straw man critique to that article. It's patently absurd. BernardL 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do put a marxist critique of liberalism, captialism, the free market etc. I have no problem having my economic prefrences challenged openly because I am confident that their explinations defeat anything you throw at them. Unlike you I am not closdedminded to alternatives and am willing to have both sides explained on any page anywhere. Your constant deletion of material, like most socialists and communists on wikipedia only signifies who really behaves in a dogmatic fashion. (Gibby 01:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] KDRGibby

You may want to see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby and post evidence. Although I am a anarcho-communist myself, it appears that KDRGibby has a vendetta against every alternative to market economies he comes across, and then posts Friedman's generalized critique of them, even though they belong in a higher article and hsi views do not have such an impact that it requires spamming the same paragraphs upon paragraphs on every alternate economy page. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there's an evidence section; just informing you in advance because arbitration is particularly ugly and I did not know most of the mechanics myself until a few months ago. Most of the evidence should go there; the general complaint goes in the statement section. Cheers! Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that part is mainly for adding "diffs", ie. proof that the behaviour complained occurred. Ie. going to "history" and selecting on "last" between versions or clicking "compare selected versions" generally highlights the changes made. This is rather troublesome I know, so I can assist you on this. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby case. Raul654 06:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of capitalism

Hey, thanks for your comments. I replied on the talk page. :) Infinity0 talk 00:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Globalization Quotations

Hello:

FYI

The reason I moved the new quotes from the Meaning & Debate to the anti-globalization section is that the Meaning & Debate section serves as only a brief sumation of the issues. When I wrote this summation I made sure that for every 1 sentence explicating globalization there would 1 sentence explaining its critique. In this manner we would get balance in presenting both sides of the argument presented together as the globalization question to the reader.

However, the person who inserted this paragraphs were huge and were simply dedicated to presenting an argument against globalization. Frankly I had already written about the issues he augmented. By adding these paragraphs which are half the size of original Meaning & Debate section clearly presents an unbalanced point of view.

This is not pride of authorship, or an agenda driven edit. I found the graphs well written, sourced and informative. However, since they dwelve deeper into the issue they should be moved to Anti-Globalization Debate. I found so good that I put them first on the section. Firmitas 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noam Chomsky's Political Views

Hiya BenrardL Having noticed your contributions to the Chomsky pages in the past I thought I would ask you to take a look at a disagreement I'm having on Talk:Politics of Noam Chomsky. Do you have any thoughts here? --Zleitzen 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economics link

Hey, thanks a lot for the link. I am too busy atm to check up on it, but it will be useful for me in the future. Thanks! :) -- infinity0 11:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your concern (Talk page: Criticism of Noam Chomsky)

The fact is if the standards reflected here were applied consistently across wikipedia it would be a total mess. We could, for example, on the Hayek page, insert the reasonably well-known accusation that Hayek vocally advocated totalitarianism in Chile, without any supporting evidence. It's so easy to smear, which is why it is the last refuge of the reactionary (scoundrel). BernardL 00:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the Wikipedian policy, WP:NOTE helps keep everything and the kitchen sink from being added.
Secondly, what I am essentially speaking out against is the *smearing* that easily happens when criticisms of a subject are submitted, minus an accurate rendering of what is actually being criticized. It slants the content when we submit the criticism, absent it's own context (i.e., the very subject of the criticism).
I'm not saying add everything and the kitchen sink. I'm saying add it right and accurately.
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
But the page that you linked to refers to the Notability of subjects for articles rather than specific guidelines for content.
Touche'.  :)
I agree with you and I feel (like you, I presume) that the Chomsky criticisms page does not measure up to these standards....
Most of it does not appear to. Though it would take little work for it to.
And of course, contra Huntington et al, Chomsky's analysis of Vietnam has been praised and cited by notable authors, for example by Ben Kiernan, director of The Cambodia Genocide Project in a recent book (perhaps such a counterracting fact is notable too?)
The only problem being that it would fall under Original Research, if you put it on the criticism page. It would belong in the praise section. That said, I think it would make sense for the "Criticism" and "praise" sections to be together in a "Commentary" type of page.
--Antelope In Search Of Truth 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Communism.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Chomsky

Hey I saw your request for comment on Criticism of Noam Chomsky. Unfortunately Wikipedia has a strict policy on original research, so that paragraph of yours is out. But I'll be looking at the rest of that section and see if I can help with anything else. You can comment here if you think there's anything else I should pay attention to. ==Taxico 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khmer Rouge

Thanks for adding that excellent para on the US bombing. I'd been working out how to work that in (with the expanded bombing data) when you beat me to it - Great job! Paxse 16:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your positive feedback- it's very rewarding. regards-BL BernardL 22:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading this by chance I went to check out the addition out of curiosity. Thumbs up :)--Jersey Devil 15:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 3RR

Better self Rv on Ben Kiernan, or its a 3RR for you. Cheers. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry it is not the case when you are in flagrant violations of wikipedia policies for WP:BLP BernardL 02:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Have it your way. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 3RR report

TDC filed a 3RR report regarding your recent edits to the page Ben Kiernan. If you reverted edits to that page four or more times within a period of 24 hours then you have violated Wikipedia's three revert rule. The best course of action to take in this case is to self-revert to the previous version of the page and discuss the editing dispute on the article talkpage. If you feel you did not violate the 3RR rule then you may post here. If you have any questions you can contact me on my talkpage. Perspicacite 05:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for third opinion

Having a discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Noam_Chomsky#An_Analysis_of_the_page_starting_from_the_top and would appreciate your opinion. Thank you. q 22:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism RFC

Feel free to join in the discussion on the talkpage. I am arguing that the globalization section is a POV construction complete with 'bad'/unconnected referencing. -- maxrspct ping me 09:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

There has been a big debate over this policy. I think you have valuable experience that makes you an important interlocutor on this matter. I suggest you first go here for a very concise account, and then depending on how much time you have read over the WP:NOR policy and the edit conflicts that led to its being protected, or the last talk to be archived ... or just go straight to the talk page. If you have time Slrubenstein | Talk 16:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

In regard to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States my understanding of policy is:
  • That every editor is free to edit the articles so long as they comply with policy.
  • That any other editor is free to challenge such edits if they seem to not comply with policy.
  • That the WP consensus policy requires all editors to work together in good-faith sincere effort to reach consensus. It does not (to my recollection) formally require that edits be pre-approved, but apparently there is an informal consensus for this? Now that my edits have been challenged, I am required by policy to work to resolve any issues (which I would do anyway). Don't worry about an edit war. I view these as pointless and even counterproductive, and in addition they violate policy.
  • That the Five Pillars require me to BE BOLD.
  • I am obliged to delete SYN and OR errors, even without consensus. I should however seek consensus whenever possible.
  • That your deletion of relevant material supported by reliable sources violated WP policy for supported material, and was done without first discussing your concerns or attaining consensus.
  • That you were obliged to review each and every edit for merit before deleting it, and that each and every revert was a good-faith decision that it did not comply with policy? It requires consensus to delete material UNLESS the material denies some policy?
  • That you were required to address your policy concerns for every reversion in TALK.
Do we agree about policy? There is much to learn at WP, and I may misunderstand policy. What part of the above might you believe that I misunderstand?
Do we agree on policy?
Why not make a list (on talk) of the three issues you wish to address first?
  • The covert 1848 and 1851 US invasions of Cuba are possible examples of State terrorism by the United States.
  • The new text offers the Reader a necessary context: The begining of a chain of events that led to the Cold War issues that are raised in the section. Still missing is the fact that Cuba articulated a well known threat to deploy and use weapons of mass destruction against the US. The article does not offer the context that the US was then under a real threat of nuclear destruction.
  • One of my primary prior criticisms is that the Cuban material lacks even one reliable source connecting the US to Cuba following the Bay of Pigs. I now have done the research to resolve this, have now offered the FIRST reliable source linking the CIA and the Miami refugees. By deleting this reference, you reverted the entire Cuban section back a synthesis policy violation again. We had sources that there was terrorism by Cuban refugees. None of these sources are relevant to THIS article without a reliable source linking them to the US. Now we have this source - but you deleted it. Why?
These are all issues we can work on and resolve. I look forward to doing this. Raggz (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 05:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barn Star

Long overdue.

The Socratic Barnstar
Is awarded to BernardL for his consistent display of skilled, eloquent, and erudite arguments over many complex and contentious articles. Thanks for all your hard work and keeping things in focus, clear, to the point, and logical.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
hey thanks! It is especially an honor to receive this award from you.BernardL (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mass deletion

Please explain your mass deletion of sourced material. Some of which had been added today and never objected to on the talk page.Ultramarine (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not personally delete anything. I agreed with an anonymous editor who objected to your major changes without consensus while disagreeing with editors who suddenly appeared although totally unassocaited with the article. All sides have had to work through consensus process for over a year. BernardL (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The IP edtor has been blocked for vandalism. Please explain you deletions on the talk page of the article where I have several questions for you.Ultramarine (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I asked and this anon editor was NOT blocked for vandalism, but instead a false 3RR report by Ultramarine against him/her. See here:[1]It was false because he listed as one revert the undoing of a bots false positive for vandalism, which of course, does not count. He anon ip's edits were valid, and in no way could be construed as vandalism. In fact you saying that is considered uncivil, as its untrue.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it was altogether legitimate to block she/him for vandalism. One cannot rule out that she/he was a lurker who decided to pipe in anonymously. What she/he said about your disregard of the consensus process was valid. Now discuss issues - with the whole community of editors- raising your issues clearly on the talk page, and give it time before you surge ahead with major changes. Wikipedia is not supposed to be the dictatorship of those who have the most free time. BernardL (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I want to discuss the issues. You have deleted much sourced material never objected to. Please respond on the talk page of the article.Ultramarine (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "There is no such thing as a consensus version". Or WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. It is an encyclopedia that must be NPOV, follow NOR, and be V.Ultramarine (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On a lighter note I think you might find this rather amusing. TDC, was one of those reactionary editors who did vandalize the US terrorism page with blanking attacks, besides attacks on myself and others, saying I should be indef. block, etc. See here: [2] In a twist of irony, I guess he must have been talking about himself: [3] Its good to see that indef. block he kept pushing for was finally granted.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 3RR

Please read WP:3RR. If you continue to revert you may be reported and blocked.Ultramarine (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See ANI report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_abusing_his_powers_in_content_dispute Please comment. Thank you.Supergreenred (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultramarine

I've been attempting to work on criticisms of capitalism but have run into the same headache with User:Ultramarine. In the meantime I've started an early conflict resolution. I know you also have experience with this editor, so your input would be much appreciated. Uwmad (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long time no talk, mind looking over an article for me?

Libertarianism could use your assistance. I'm a Libertarian Socialist as well, and am trying to get representation on there. Thanks! q (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&diff=214312317&oldid=214274802

The edits I made that will likely be reverted by Anarcho Capitalists who refuse to allow anyone else to use the word. q (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made further edits. I would indeed like your assistance, or assistance of anyone you know that may help. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notque (talk • contribs) 00:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

I suggest you consider refactoring [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)