Hi Spooner. As you know, myself, the other main editors, and you compromised on the lead. We decided that a generalization of what Reagan advocated is best for the lead; expansion of his advocations should go in the article. Let me show you how we have generalized his advocations and taken care of deregulation and taxation:
"Reagan helped to sharply define the Republican Party's platforms in contrast to those of the Democrats, advocating less government regulation of the economy, [here, it talks about deregulation] although it is debated as to what extent this and other goals were achieved while in office. His economic policies, similar to those of supply-side economics, were dubbed "Reaganomics" and included substantial tax cuts implemented in 1981. [this talks about how he advocated lower taxes] After surviving an assassination attempt and ordering contoversial military actions in Grenada and Libya, Reagan was reelected in a landslide victory in 1984."
Therefore, your edits are not needed, for your edits say he wanted "lower taxation" - already described in the lead, so why say it twice? Also, please discuss any changes you want to make to the lead on the talk page. Thanks, Happyme2202:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm willing to compromise but not to the point of doing a disservice to the reader. Wanting drastically lower income taxes, and a reduction in the size of the welfare state are equally important as to what he advocated. The way you have it above looks like deregulation is the only, or main, thing he advocated. That's a disservice to the reader. Operation Spooner03:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. Those readers seeking more information can follow the links to the many other articles that go into deeper detail about his politics,e tc. The article is goping to be about the man. I strongly suggest you step carefully. - Arcayne(cast a spell)06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I strongly suggest you step carefully." Is that another veiled threat from you? A man IS his philosophy. A person's philosophy is the motivation behind everything that one does. If the article is about the man then it must be about his philosophy, including his economic philosophy. Operation Spooner06:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, okay whatever. If I were to ever threaten you, youwould most certainly know it. Please learn the difference between that and strong warnings. As for a man and his philosophy, that is your opinion. Please keep your opinions out of the article, okay, sport? - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spooner, I made some edits to your user page that you may like. Please take a look.[1] The psychology section is not helpful unless you are actually a licensed psychologist. If you need any more help, please do not hesitate to ask. I would suggest keeping your comments about ownership of articles directed towards that end, rather than at specific editors. Happy editing! —Viriditas | Talk00:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks. That's a good idea to name each strategy. I'll probably change a few of the names though. I wasn't direct my observations at any specific editors. About psychology, I don't think one needs a doctor's license to write I wrote. But thanks for defending my userpage from Arcayne. He's been harrassing me. Operation Spooner19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've got the Rothbard types, and we've got the Vallentyne types. The two don't have much in common. I think the article should reflect that. Thus opening section shouldn't make blanket statements about left-libertarians. Does this sound right to you? Bacchiad21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think left libertarian has a pretty standard definition, which is the one that's referenced in there now and can be found in multiple sources. Konkin (agorism) has an idiosyncratic use of the term. Nobody refers to agorism as left libertarian except agorists. In the interview with Konkin he even mentions in a question about it that one of the reasons he calls it left was to make it marketable to the New Left. Operation Spooner21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard in academic political philosophy. That's why academic political philosophy books say that. The agorist definition is standard among the US libertarian political movement. Look up paleolibertarianism in an academic political theory reference book. I don't think it'll be there. It's still noteable enough to have its own article. You have a personal opinion that the Konkin/Long/neo-Tuckerite thing is phony; that's fine. But can we just have two nice little spaces in the article for each thing and leave it at that? Bacchiad21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not standard in the US libertarian political movement at all. It's very non-standard. Virtually no US libertarians consider themselves to be on the Left. Where are you getting this idea? Operation Spooner21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have two options here:
Keep your version of the introduction. Excise all mention of the neo-mutualists and left-Rothbardians.
Keep my version of the introduction. Leave the sections on the above groups in there.
Using your version of the introduction and keeping that section doesn't make any sense. Which would you prefer to do? Bacchiad22:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with both of those alternatives. I suggest using the mainstream definition for the introduction, then going on to say late in the introduction that there are a few individuals that define it in another way, and then mention that Konkin chose to call his doctrines left libertarianism for the reasons he explain in his interview. This definition he uses is heterodox, so it really shouldn't be highlighted too much. That philosophy, including all anarcho-capitalism, would be considered right libertarianism by virtually all scholars. There are no secondary sources that call it left libertarianism. I think the main thing is to not put anything in that's not referenced. Operation Spooner23:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Kevin Carson uses the term, but it I believe it's a neologism he came up with that he hoped would catch on. I don't think it has any real meaning. A Rothbardian is a Rothbardian.
So in practical terms, if we were to reverse the order of the sections in both the introduction and the body, you'd be fine with it? Bacchiad00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, and to stop this claim of "academic" left libertarianism. There is no such understanding that there is a seperate "academic" left libertarianism. There is left libertarianism, and then there is an obscure philosopy that has no secondary references that calls itself left libertarian for idiosyncratic reasons. Operation Spooner00:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in previous versions of the article, the title of that section was "Left-libertarianism in political philosophy". If it were changed back to something like that and moved to the top, would that be satisfactory? Bacchiad01:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better, thanks, but I think needs a few minor changes in the introduction. Let me see what I can do. Operation Spooner
You seem to have a personal POV that Kevin Carson, Roderick Long, the Movement of the Libertarian Left, SEK3, Charles Johnson, Chris Sciabarra and everyone else who calls themselves left-libertarian but does not conform to the definition found in your college textbook has no legitimate right to the title. Your edits to the introduction have consistently pushed that POV. If we can't agree on neutral wording I'm seriously considering taking this to arbitration. Bacchiad17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Operation Spooner. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.
Hey Spooner. It's a great image you added to Ronald Reagan, but not completely correctly licensed. Per Wiki policy, all fair use images must have a detailed fair use rationale for it to be legally used on Wikipedia. Plus, I'm still not sure if fair use images can be used on FA's; there were two under "Post-presidential years" and they were removed once the article hit FA. Anyway, the pic can't be used until then. Thanks for understanding; contact me if you need help. Happyme2204:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:ReaganSocializedMedicineAlbum.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:ReaganSocializedMedicineAlbum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Paul 1996 campaign controversy
Thank you for your help improving the Ron Paul article. I would greatly appreciate your opinion as to the recent edits made by Vidor and Terjen under "1996 campaign controversy". I am unable to characterize them neutrally right now and, if formal WP complaint procedures are applicable, I would rather not be the one to initiate them unless I am sure I have the right forum. For now your immediate comments and helpful edits would be highly valuable. Disclosure: I am sending this message to exactly 5 editors. John J. Bulten16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Invite to the Anarchism Task Force
Yo Spooner, if you're still actively editing, Cast, Murderbike, myself and a few others have started an Anarchism taskforce to collaborate on anarchism-related articles; get a few up to GA status, create needed articles a la Dyer Lum, save worthy articles from deletion, and hopefully to have it serve as a central point to discuss what to do with all the splits from Anarchism over the years, to keep the clusterfuck of pov-warring in check, and to keep Talk:Anarchism free from all the usual meta-argumentation. We could use your particular pov to balance out the others! Look forward to seeing you around, regards, Skomorokhincite00:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Market anarchism
Yo Spooner, great work on rescuing that mess of a market anarchism article. The info on Julius Faucher is especially interesting; I had always had the notion that Molinari was the first to advocate the private production of security. скоморохъ21:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, I'm wondering if it would be a better idea to rename Category:Free-market anarchists to Category:Market anarchists - firstly "free-market anarchism" seems a neologism, and a lesser used term; secondly, while "free market" is a distinct concept from "market" (in that the latter could be in a statist context), the "free" in "free market anarchism" is redundant - a market anarchy could not be anarchy if the market was anything less than free, correct? What are your thoughts? скоморохъ04:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm think "free-market anarchism" was the original term. The newer term "market anarchism" is shorthand. If you search with google for "market anarchism" and subtract "free-market anarchism" (to make sure the occurances of "market anarchism" that are found are not actually the portion of "free-market anarchism") and subtract mention of "Wikipedia" you get 1600 hits. If you search for "free-market anarchism" you get 6880 hits. I don't know if I explained that well. See what I'm saying? Operation Spooner (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A market is not necessarily free, by the way. An unfree market is called a "controlled market." For instance, the government orders production of a particular commodity. Then it trades in a market. It's a market but not a free market because the government is regulating supply. In terms of anarchy, if it was a communist anarchy, if the collective ordered an individual to produce more than he wanted to produce ("from each according to his ability"), then sold the commodity on the market to another commune it would not be a free market. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just came across your ownership strategies and I love them. Would you mind if I blatantly plagiarized them and used them on my page (modified, but effectively the same)? With credit of course! CreepyCrawly (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but since you didn't respond in the negative, I took your silence as an affirmative. I hope you don't mind! :-) CreepyCrawly (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly remove the text from my page if that's what you want, but have you taken a look at it yet? You'll find that I've edited your original quite heavily, and expanded each of the tactics. I tried to personalize them, so as to not be ripping you off too blatantly. I've also changed the tone to read more like an editor's guide. If you have read it and still object, I'll remove it ASAP, with apologies, and no offense intended. :-) CreepyCrawly (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been keeping up with the changes going on in this article? We are in need of a serious discussion about the future of the article, because one editor has made a large number of sweeping changes in the last 24 hours, and I have been almost alone in telling him to knock it off. Carol Moore is now involved, and I have stepped back because of 3RR concerns. Can you take a look and tell me what you think? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'23:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of this debate/discussion? It seems to have been going on for quite some time but with no conclusion having been reached. Where do you stand on the matter? I am ambivalent, to be honest. My main concern at this point are the wide-ranging changes being made by Singwaste, who has merged content from Anarcho-capitalism into the Free-market anarchism article without consent, in addition to changing the merge template in a manner that makes no sense. We need to establish consensus and get this matter settled before one or both articles ends up mangled. What are your thoughts on the matter? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've been gone for awhile. I see that someone moved "market anarchism" to "free-market anarchismm." I think "free-market anarchism" is best. Not only does it come up the most in searches, but it's more encyclopedic. Reference works nearly always call it "free-market anarchism." "Market anarchism" is just informal shorthand or neologism that some people on the internet are using. On the other issue, I don't oppose just redirecting "free-market anarchism" to "anarcho-capitalism," because it's pretty rare that "free-market anarchism" is ever used to refer to anything to anarcho-capitalism. So far only one source has been found that refers to Tucker as a free-market anarchist. But I don't oppose it being it's own article either. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalism lead
Lo there,
I'm happy with the changes over at capitalism relatively, I think the free market article is actually awful, but that's a discussion for a different day, but I treasure stability for the lead over agreeing with it (as an advocate of the theory of state capitalism I'm never going to be happy with the current formulation, but hey...) Cheers for good work.--Red Deathy (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wasn't trying to spark argument (but, by way of passing, (adjective) capitalism is still capitalism...so I'd be happier if the lead reflected that, but I realise my view is heterodox and so prefer to try and keep it as near as I can get to being right whilst keeping it stable.)--Red Deathy (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Spooner, in light of all the disputes over referencing claims in anarchism-related articles, as well as other concerns, the Anarchism Task Force has started a reliable source guideline at WP:ANCITE. Your interest in, and experience of, referencing anarchism-related content to reliable sources would be most appreciated in developing the guideline.
Secondly, on the matter of market anarchism vs. free-market anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism, I think we've been talking past each other. I propose two articles; one specifically on the anarchist capitalism of Friedman, Rothbard et al., and another, a split of Anarchist schools of thought, on the full range of market-friendly forms of anarchism. The naming and terminology is a secondary issue, but how do you feel about this idea generally?
Thirdly, I'm hoping to bring our individualist anarchism article up to Good and Featured status in the next month or two. As you are one of the main contributors, and the major immediate problem with the article is the improperly-formatted (e.g. non-{{cite journal}}/{{cite web}} etc.) references, a forte of yours, I would really appreciate your help with this.
Finally, User:Radical Mallard seems to be going around accusing you of being a sockpuppet of a banned user (see their contributions). Just thought you might like to now.
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This edit of yours [2] carries verbatim wording from the source, without quotation marks and without making it clear in any other way that it's a quotation. Yakushima (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Anti-capitalism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-capitalism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}