User talk:DTC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
Also, avoid making personal attacks.
And, assume good faith.
Following these policies will help make your time on Wikipedia enjoyable. DTC 07:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome back
Let's see how long you can stick around for this time. --AaronS 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Who are you? DTC 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please stop removing tag
Please stop removing the suspected sock puppet tag from your user page. That tag is there for the benefit of others. If you're not a sock puppet, then you've nothing to worry about. The tag is simply a means of allowing other editors to proceed with caution. As your account is very new, began picking up where banned users known for sock puppetry left off, and has edits with similar style and substance, this suspicion is not unfounded. I'm taking the "wait and see" approach, and hope that no offense is taken. --AaronS 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm within my rights to remove that tag. How would you like if I slapped a false tag on your user page? Even if I was a sockpuppet what does it matter? The tag doesn't benefit anybody. DTC 16:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- It matters because RJII is banned from editing here on wikipedia (and I'm guessing you already knew that). Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- So? I'm not RJII. Do some kind of technical test or something. Compare the ISP's we come from. If I come from the same ISP and location then ban me. I'm willing to take the one in a million shot that I am not coming from the same location as RJII. Otherwise you can't put a permanent tag on someone alleging that they may be someone else. DTC 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Checkuser is not pixie dust. It's just supplementary evidence. It isn't necessary. --AaronS 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- You know, I put a sockpuppet tag on your page. You claim it was in retaliation but I sincerely think you are user Blockader. "He" shows up when you want to revert things and works on the same articles/edits as you. Why do you try to keep me from removing the tag you put on my page but keep taking the tag off I put on your page? That's nothing but hypocrisy. Are you willing to be subject to a "Checkuser" to compare your ISP to Blockader's? DTC 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure thing, I would be very interested to know whether or not I am in two places at once, perhaps a thousand miles apart. That would be cool. --AaronS 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then what's the difference? We both are willing to have a checkuser test on us, and I think you're a sockpuppet and you think I'm a sockpuppet. I put a tag on your page, and you put a tag on mine. You remove yours but insist that mine stay up. How do you justify that? It's hypocrisy. Either agree to have tags on both or take them off of both. DTC 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nah, you don't really think I'm a sock puppet, hence the comment above: How would you like if I slapped a false tag on your user page? Gee, your concern is quite genuine. --AaronS 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I do think you're a sockpuppet. I didn't suspect it at first but started watching you, and now I suspect it. I think you're Blockader. And if so you're violating policy by using a sockpuppet to avoid breaking the 3 Revert Rule. DTC 19:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- LOL. Yes, Blockader and I are very similar. Our writing style is almost exactly the same. Unlike our mutual friend RJII, I've never felt the need to use sock puppets, because Wikipedia is about having fun for me, not about starting a pimply-faced revolution. The fun for me is in the content, in the pursuit of useless knowledge. You don't need sock puppets for that. --AaronS 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I do think you're a sockpuppet. I didn't suspect it at first but started watching you, and now I suspect it. I think you're Blockader. And if so you're violating policy by using a sockpuppet to avoid breaking the 3 Revert Rule. DTC 19:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nah, you don't really think I'm a sock puppet, hence the comment above: How would you like if I slapped a false tag on your user page? Gee, your concern is quite genuine. --AaronS 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then what's the difference? We both are willing to have a checkuser test on us, and I think you're a sockpuppet and you think I'm a sockpuppet. I put a tag on your page, and you put a tag on mine. You remove yours but insist that mine stay up. How do you justify that? It's hypocrisy. Either agree to have tags on both or take them off of both. DTC 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure thing, I would be very interested to know whether or not I am in two places at once, perhaps a thousand miles apart. That would be cool. --AaronS 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- You know, I put a sockpuppet tag on your page. You claim it was in retaliation but I sincerely think you are user Blockader. "He" shows up when you want to revert things and works on the same articles/edits as you. Why do you try to keep me from removing the tag you put on my page but keep taking the tag off I put on your page? That's nothing but hypocrisy. Are you willing to be subject to a "Checkuser" to compare your ISP to Blockader's? DTC 18:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Checkuser is not pixie dust. It's just supplementary evidence. It isn't necessary. --AaronS 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- So? I'm not RJII. Do some kind of technical test or something. Compare the ISP's we come from. If I come from the same ISP and location then ban me. I'm willing to take the one in a million shot that I am not coming from the same location as RJII. Otherwise you can't put a permanent tag on someone alleging that they may be someone else. DTC 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- It matters because RJII is banned from editing here on wikipedia (and I'm guessing you already knew that). Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please stop making undiscussed and controversial edits to anarchism
There already is a great deal of discussion going on at Talk:Anarchism and related article discussion pages. Your undiscussed and contentious edits are taking focus away from necessary and productive discussion, and are therefore disruptive. I will revert you one more time, and invite you to join in on the discussion. If you continue to ignore the opportunity to work with other editors, and instead decide to edit war, I will no longer to be able to assume good faith regarding your intentions. --AaronS 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss an edit, then fine. Don't delete edits that are clearly cited. You should not removed cited information out of an article. It is disruptive. You are the one not working with other editors. You also have another editor upset with you (Intangible) for changing the information that is sourced. That is unethical. You need to shape up your behavior. DTC 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You're going around in circles. There already is discussion occurring. You jumped into the article, from out of nowhere, and began making controversial changes that contradict many past agreements. You're derailing compromise and negotiation in favor of edit warring. --AaronS 17:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll re-iterate AaronS's concerns, basically word for word. --Marinus 03:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anarcho-capitalism on template
Regarding your recent change to Template:Anarchism regarding the anarcho-capitalism link, that has actually been a rather contentious issue. Please consider joining in the discussion at Template talk:Anarchism to share your view on things. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] From your message to me
The message and reply. I'd appreciate it if you signed your messages. --Marinus 03:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- You knew who it was from. DTC 03:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No personal attacks
You called me a "twit" in the Anarchism discussion page. [1] Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.
- No, I said you would be a twit if you forwarded a particular view. I did question your ability to evaluate sources and implicitely questioned how carefully you read things, as I continue to do. --Marinus 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I also accused you of having shown a skewed POV (as when you mocked myself and others for not falling in line with the "global trend to world capitalism"). I neglected to comment on or attack you for that statement, merely note it. --Marinus 03:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- That wasn't a personal attack at all. It was a message to a departing editor which was said in jest. I said something like "Good luck turning around the trend toward complete global capitalism." Anyway, now you know that there is a policy against personal attacks. Please be careful what you say. DTC 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I also accused you of having shown a skewed POV (as when you mocked myself and others for not falling in line with the "global trend to world capitalism"). I neglected to comment on or attack you for that statement, merely note it. --Marinus 03:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bad faith edits
You must understand that making an edit while we are discussing in real-time can only be seen as bad faith. Please, work towards agreement. --Marinus 04:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a policy. Assume Good Faith: [[2]]. I assure you I have no bad faith. I have no interest other than presenting the consensus of scholarly opinion (which I happen to agree with). DTC 04:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, I can make an edit whenever I wish to make an edit. If you want to assume bad faith, that's not my problem. You've been editing the whole time, and more than I have: [3] What gives you the right to edit and not me? Nothing at all. I'll continue to edit whenever I want to. DTC 04:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would interested in learning what, exactly, this consensus of scholarly opinion you agree with is. It is my understanding that there is no consensus, which is why many editors are troubled by your controversial changes to the article, which, in the beginning, ignored all previous discussion and compromise on the talk page. With that in consideration, it should be no surprise that some editors might feel that you have stretched WP:AGF as far as it can go. --AaronS 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't have anything specific in mind. I'm just saying in general I will go what the consensus of scholarly opinion is. DTC 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- What if there is no consensus? What if scholars disagree? Should we not then present the issue as being, well, an issue that is debated? My problem with your recent edits is that I feel as if they portray the issue as being agreed-upon and uncontroversial. --AaronS 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- If there is not a consensus then you don't assert one way or the other. As far an anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchism the conensus of scholarly opinion is that it is. You may be able to find a couple sources out there that say it's not, but if that's all you can find then we have to conclude that the claim that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism is a fringe view. DTC 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's not necessarily true. A lot of sources on anarchism do not even mention anarcho-capitalism, or simply brush it off with a side note. A source does not need to explicitly deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism in order to count against the positive claim that it is. It simply needs to be silent on the matter. If there is no consensus, and if there is disagreement, and especially if there is heated debate, then the issue needs to be treated as such. --AaronS 17:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- If anarcho-capitalism is not mentioned in a scholarly text summarizing the types of anarchism then it's in all probability simply an old text. Anarcho-capitalism is was not really known about until the late 1970's. Your wrong to say there is heated debate on the issue. There is not. The only heated debate is among anarchists, and not scholars that just happen to be anarchist but non-scholar anarchists on the internet and Wikipedia. That's about it. The great majority of scholarly opinion regard ancap as anarchism. There is always going to be infighting among anarchists. That is not the issue. The issue is whether ancap is anarchism, and you have to defer to the scholars on that. DTC 17:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am. In deferring, I see that there is debate amongst scholars. --AaronS 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- If there are 20 or 30 scholarly sources saying anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism and only 2 or 3 saying it's not, then it's a minor inconsequential debate. Those who say it is not anarchism would constitute a fringe opinion. It it were closer to 50/50 or 40/60 then it would be something to take into account, but it's not. So the opinion that some scholars think it's not anarchism is a fringe opinion and should be presented as such. DTC 18:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's not 30-2, and you know that. Further, you keep ignoring the fact that a no-mention counts against it. --AaronS 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- No I don't know that. If you know that, then prove me wrong. Do some work and find some sources instead of just moaning and groaning. DTC 17:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure you do, because those numbers are a silly exaggeration. Further, the Blackwell source is tenuous at best. --AaronS 20:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- No I don't know that. If you know that, then prove me wrong. Do some work and find some sources instead of just moaning and groaning. DTC 17:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's not 30-2, and you know that. Further, you keep ignoring the fact that a no-mention counts against it. --AaronS 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- If there are 20 or 30 scholarly sources saying anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism and only 2 or 3 saying it's not, then it's a minor inconsequential debate. Those who say it is not anarchism would constitute a fringe opinion. It it were closer to 50/50 or 40/60 then it would be something to take into account, but it's not. So the opinion that some scholars think it's not anarchism is a fringe opinion and should be presented as such. DTC 18:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am. In deferring, I see that there is debate amongst scholars. --AaronS 17:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- If anarcho-capitalism is not mentioned in a scholarly text summarizing the types of anarchism then it's in all probability simply an old text. Anarcho-capitalism is was not really known about until the late 1970's. Your wrong to say there is heated debate on the issue. There is not. The only heated debate is among anarchists, and not scholars that just happen to be anarchist but non-scholar anarchists on the internet and Wikipedia. That's about it. The great majority of scholarly opinion regard ancap as anarchism. There is always going to be infighting among anarchists. That is not the issue. The issue is whether ancap is anarchism, and you have to defer to the scholars on that. DTC 17:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's not necessarily true. A lot of sources on anarchism do not even mention anarcho-capitalism, or simply brush it off with a side note. A source does not need to explicitly deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism in order to count against the positive claim that it is. It simply needs to be silent on the matter. If there is no consensus, and if there is disagreement, and especially if there is heated debate, then the issue needs to be treated as such. --AaronS 17:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- If there is not a consensus then you don't assert one way or the other. As far an anarcho-capitalism being a form of anarchism the conensus of scholarly opinion is that it is. You may be able to find a couple sources out there that say it's not, but if that's all you can find then we have to conclude that the claim that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism is a fringe view. DTC 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- What if there is no consensus? What if scholars disagree? Should we not then present the issue as being, well, an issue that is debated? My problem with your recent edits is that I feel as if they portray the issue as being agreed-upon and uncontroversial. --AaronS 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't have anything specific in mind. I'm just saying in general I will go what the consensus of scholarly opinion is. DTC 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would interested in learning what, exactly, this consensus of scholarly opinion you agree with is. It is my understanding that there is no consensus, which is why many editors are troubled by your controversial changes to the article, which, in the beginning, ignored all previous discussion and compromise on the talk page. With that in consideration, it should be no surprise that some editors might feel that you have stretched WP:AGF as far as it can go. --AaronS 13:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
What riled me about DTC's edits (at that particular moment) was that while the two of us were in real-time discussing the suitedness of certain sources (his denying the obvious one's opposing his views of the scholarly consensus) he edited on regardless - without a doubt bad form and quite possibly bad faith. --Marinus 11:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever. DTC 17:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Email
Ok I set up email. It is GimmeHot@hotmail.com. hot 01:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your issues with another user
from the other user's talk page:
:::I'm on the Mediation Cabal, and although, I c/wouldn't be involved, there are many happy MedCab mediator's that could take your case :) Perhaps that's a good idea? --Deon555talkReview 06:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, please. DTC 06:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- From what I can see you may be able to talk him into Mediation. He is a mediator himself, but apparently feels that the situation is past the point of mediation, and mediation would serve no purpose. If you have IRC feel free to join #wikipedia-medcab freenode, and ask one of the mediators. They may be able to offer some alternatives. Thanks! --Deon555talkReview 07:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe it is past the point of mediation. That's up to him. I'm willing to mediate. I don't have IRC, but if he's not willing to mediate I guess there's nothing I can do except try to reason with him again. DTC 07:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- From what I can see you may be able to talk him into Mediation. He is a mediator himself, but apparently feels that the situation is past the point of mediation, and mediation would serve no purpose. If you have IRC feel free to join #wikipedia-medcab freenode, and ask one of the mediators. They may be able to offer some alternatives. Thanks! --Deon555talkReview 07:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] That article
Sure. I'm glad you said what you did on my page and I agree wholeheartedly. Anarchists have, I believe, that criminal ethic. You just don't rat out others to the state. (Or the teacher, or your local police force...) I'm glad I have you and That's Hot to back me up and stand up for me, too. That article actually mentions mostly anarchists that are hands-down opposed to communism. I've been studying up on it. One thing that bothers me deeply is the anti-Americanism that goes on over there. America does some terrible things. But so do all the rest. Russia, China and the European Union are bastards who pretend to be so wonderful but they're Uber Dicks. Whiskey Rebellion 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alcohol comment
How can you possibly be serious? --AaronS 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- People that drink tend not to realize how much of a burden they put on other people. It is not pleasant to be around a drunk person. Anyone that edits Wikipedia while drunk is showing a lot of disrespect for other editors. Alcoholics (I'm not saying you are one) don't realize the seriousness of what they're doing until they've really screwed up their lives or screwed up someone else's. Alcohol may appear to be fun and games, but in reality it is no joke. DTC 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty funny. But in all seriousness, it's rather audacious for you and Lingeron to accuse other editors of being drunkards. --AaronS 20:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't accuse anyone of being a drunkard. You're the only one that said: "it's rather hard to maintain any substantial level sobriety most of the time." I just cautioned you and others not to Wikipedia while drunk. DTC 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then I caution you not to edit Wikipedia with a stick up your ass, because it might cause you to take things too seriously and to fail to comprehend things like humor. I'm not saying that you do have a stick up your ass, I'm just saying that people who have sticks up their asses tend not to realize how much of a burden they put on other people. They're not pleasant to be around, and tend to screw everything up. --AaronS 20:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I never said I've ever had a stick up my ass. I've never had a stick up my ass. You're the one that said it's hard to stay sober. DTC 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- When someone fails to comprehend jocular banter, and instead takes it at face value and reacts to it seriously, they are often said to have a stick up their ass. Now, I would never accuse you with such a thing, as you seem to have a clear grasp of the seriousness and gravity of the conversation between me and Blockader, but I warn you that some people might have actually thought we were joking, in which case they might, however unjustly, consider you to be a bit of a frumpy ninny. --AaronS 20:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well let me make it loud and clear then. I'M NOT JOKING. DO NOT EDIT OR DISCUSS ON WIKIPEDIA WHEN DRUNK. DTC 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure thing, although I'm not sure what got you so worried. You should not edit Wikipedia while molesting farm animals, either, DTC. I think you should know that. Because I'm concerned. --AaronS 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I never gave you reason to suspect I might do that. You're the one that said "it's rather hard to maintain any substantial level sobriety most of the time." DTC 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please see my comments regarding how people who fail to recognize jocular humor and mistake it for serious discussion are often considered to have sticks up their asses. At this point, there is more evidence that you have a stick up your ass than there is that I edit while drunk. --AaronS 20:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then I seriously question your judgement ability. DTC 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to seriously do a lot of things. I let this conversation now stand for the amusement of the rest of the fully-socialized portion of the human population. --AaronS 23:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't need alcohol to socialize. DTC 23:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, of course not. But the ability to recognize humor, even if you don't think it's funny, is usually considered requisite. --AaronS 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't humor. I was serious. DTC 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, an overly serious to a very light-hearted situation, hence all of my previous comments (which are also light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek, but which you have, in the greatest irony, humorously taken seriousy). Thanks for entertaining me today. --AaronS 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I want a stick up my ass. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure you can find someone to accomodate that, but not me. DTC 23:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I want a stick up my ass. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 23:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, an overly serious to a very light-hearted situation, hence all of my previous comments (which are also light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek, but which you have, in the greatest irony, humorously taken seriousy). Thanks for entertaining me today. --AaronS 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't humor. I was serious. DTC 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, of course not. But the ability to recognize humor, even if you don't think it's funny, is usually considered requisite. --AaronS 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't need alcohol to socialize. DTC 23:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to seriously do a lot of things. I let this conversation now stand for the amusement of the rest of the fully-socialized portion of the human population. --AaronS 23:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then I seriously question your judgement ability. DTC 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please see my comments regarding how people who fail to recognize jocular humor and mistake it for serious discussion are often considered to have sticks up their asses. At this point, there is more evidence that you have a stick up your ass than there is that I edit while drunk. --AaronS 20:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I never gave you reason to suspect I might do that. You're the one that said "it's rather hard to maintain any substantial level sobriety most of the time." DTC 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure thing, although I'm not sure what got you so worried. You should not edit Wikipedia while molesting farm animals, either, DTC. I think you should know that. Because I'm concerned. --AaronS 20:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well let me make it loud and clear then. I'M NOT JOKING. DO NOT EDIT OR DISCUSS ON WIKIPEDIA WHEN DRUNK. DTC 20:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- When someone fails to comprehend jocular banter, and instead takes it at face value and reacts to it seriously, they are often said to have a stick up their ass. Now, I would never accuse you with such a thing, as you seem to have a clear grasp of the seriousness and gravity of the conversation between me and Blockader, but I warn you that some people might have actually thought we were joking, in which case they might, however unjustly, consider you to be a bit of a frumpy ninny. --AaronS 20:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I never said I've ever had a stick up my ass. I've never had a stick up my ass. You're the one that said it's hard to stay sober. DTC 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then I caution you not to edit Wikipedia with a stick up your ass, because it might cause you to take things too seriously and to fail to comprehend things like humor. I'm not saying that you do have a stick up your ass, I'm just saying that people who have sticks up their asses tend not to realize how much of a burden they put on other people. They're not pleasant to be around, and tend to screw everything up. --AaronS 20:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't accuse anyone of being a drunkard. You're the only one that said: "it's rather hard to maintain any substantial level sobriety most of the time." I just cautioned you and others not to Wikipedia while drunk. DTC 20:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty funny. But in all seriousness, it's rather audacious for you and Lingeron to accuse other editors of being drunkards. --AaronS 20:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 5 LOLs
This conversation is hilarious. I suggest, AaronS, and multiple sockpuppets, that you have a large rod not only lodged up your ass, but running through your brain. Anyone that defends communism (of any sort) over libertarianism obviously does. Whiskey Rebellion 20:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And does so while drunk...Whiskey Rebellion 20:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
Hello, DTC. I am interested in talking to you off the wiki. Do you have an email that I can reach you at? Thank you kindly. Whiskey Rebellion 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lol
How was that a personal attack? I'm sorry to have offended you. --128.103.218.32 18:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- What's your point? You were trying to say I'm immature or something? DTC 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPA
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Rather than making personal attacks, you should think it wise to assume good faith. Good night. --GoodIntentionstalk 06:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't made a personal attack. I said you've been putting bogus sources in the article. That's true. They don't say what you say they say. DTC 06:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly what I was going to say on talk:anarchism. What personal attack? and again, Marinus that's some statement coming from someone who calls people "twits". User talk:The Ungovernable Force Whiskey Rebellion 07:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] twits and email
Sure, if you could set up an email that'd be cool. Yeah. That attack thing and then accuse the attackee must be a common tactic used by most modern anarchists, that I missed somewhere in my studying of anarchism. And the whole coercion thing, too, of fellow anarchists. I guess we're to old fashioned and out-of-date, or something in our understanding of anarchism..you know the whole f the state thing that anarchists used to have? Oh well, it's hard to keep up with 21st century anarchism. How I long for the good old days. Whiskey Rebellion 14:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you set that email up now and let me know it? I really need to talk to you. Or just send me one. It's <javanik@mail.com> Thanks. Whiskey Rebellion 04:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] over at Anarchism
An editor called MSTCrow has made some good neutral suggestions and has offered to overlook the article. What do you think about his ideas and of his sort of watching over it for us? I really think it could be helpful. Disquietude 06:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Off topic
There's someone at my school who has been tagging "DTC" all over the place. Just thought it was funny. Carry on. Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 06:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
