User talk:In the Stacks

Stalin and Mao

The biographical pages for Stalin and Mao seem to be edited almost totally by fascist-lunatics. Please help to edit these pages and include correct information.Srijon 17:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just which critics are citable

I notice you removed a rather well-known critique of ANSWER on the basis that it is unsigned. Question (and I promise this is not rhetorical): do you think Criticism of Wikipedia should leave out Wikitruth on the same basis? - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think any critic is citable – this is a "universal" encyclopedia by nature of its open editing functions. The issue with the links to these particular pieces on Infoshop.org (regarding not just ANSWER, but WWP, RCP, WCW, and the ISO) is that they are unsigned and unsourced... and are literally riddled with gross factual errors.

As they are unsigned, no one takes responsibility for their content. Beyond the obvious lack of intellectual integrity, original research, etc. – it is cowardly. Wikipedia is used to define a Wikiality, or what you call here a "well-known critique."

Regarding your very specific question, I do not have time to engage the myriald disputes on Wikipedia beyond those with which I have particular expertise. Insofar as there are consensed norms, I am interested. But I looked into that one enough to know it appears well-stocked with able partisans on the various sides.[[In the Stacks 01:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)]]

Fine. Your prerogative. But given your refusal to say whether this would apply to what appears to me a similar case, I don't understand the only slightly articulated principle behind your edit. - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what you are talking about.In the Stacks 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I really don't care a lot about the one case. What I'm concerned with is the principles under which Wikipedia operates. (Excuse me if that sounds a bit Kantian.) We need principles as to what are and what are not acceptable sources: we cannot simply make case-by-case decisions without rules. I'm trying to understand if you are saying that you believe unsigned criticisms should never be citable, or if there is a different principle (or combination of principles) behind your removal of this link. The remark about anonymity sits oddly with your apparent assertion that you know exactly who wrote the piece. - Jmabel | Talk 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for categorical imperatives in the case of something Wikipedia, and now I'm getting your point a bit more. I was warned that you pull one thread on Wikipedia and you get pulled into the shag... It's been fascinating to me that, in the case I am involved, various folks have said they literally don't care if it contains truth or falsehood. That to me is stunningly irresponsible. That such a piece has no stated authors means liability for claims would not exist. Aside from its unverifiability in this case, there is no intellectual integrity to it. I suspect the author is involved in this dispute, but there the piece is unsigned – and what I suspect is, of course, just that. Are the links you placed above where the discussion of these general principles has taken place?

I haven't thought through the full implications of a universal rule along these lines, and would be interested to read thoughtful discussion of it. As an editor in my private life, I think the degree to which "truth" as a principle is sacrificed in "open" forums of various kinds surrenders to a relativist philosophy of narratives to such a degree that it fundamentally compromises the encyclopia. I try to imagine Voltaire working those years back and including nuggets like "some claim" or "it is widely known" to describe definite human collectivities. What it IS becomes irrelevant. What is CLAIMED becomes equally valid whether true or false. Weasel words become the common currency. All that said, Wikipedia is a fact – and insofar as it includes entries on living people and active organizations – I am interested in keeping those entries I have knowledge of as free from disinformation and unattributed (generally false) claims as possible.In the Stacks 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Man. I could write three or four essays in response (partly in agreement, partly not). I'll try to keep it short & to the point.

1. No, the discussion at Criticism of Wikipedia hasn't been particularly general or comprehesive on this matter. The exhaustive and exhausting discussion has been mainly at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, but I think it has mostly been too abstract: Wikipedia seems to have developed a cadre of policy wonks who think we can do far too much by formal rules and who do not grapple often enough with concrete cases. I picked the case of Wikitruth and Criticism of Wikipedia because it seems like a good test case, because it is reasonably parallel but presumably on an issue you are not as heavily invested in.
2. Yes, I think that many Wikipedians (especially said policy wonks) are a bit too unconcerned with facts. Wikipedia seems to have developed its own breed of scholasticism, with the Times, the Guardian, the New York Times and, God help us, World Net News standing in for Arisototle. While, of course, in many things we cannot know the truth, we can often know that something is a lie, and that should be a reason to steer clear of it, if not to refute it outright. I personally think "No original research" has been carried much too far. You might find Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle4#"Pillars", POV, and Power of more than passing interest.
3. Weasel words: actually, I think the proportion of weasel words has gone down over the three years I've been involved. Recently, I've actually had problems with over-citation in some articles (do we really need three citations for a particular neighborhood having numerous bars? I think not).

- Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You deleted my adjustment on ANSWER. ANSWER is definiltly Anti-American when have they ever said anything posiative on all the good the U.S does. They only attack western capalist nations, never terrorist or socialists.Reapor 10:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

IMC article

Thanks for you comments, re: my "good faith" towards the POV guy. I agree with you about his agenda, but the issue he is promoting is so highly emotionally charged that it requires extra tender loving care... :) Peace! --Bhuston 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a very charitable way of looking at it.In the Stacks 21:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the link to the criticism of Indymedia which In the Stacks, an unscrupulous squatter of communist articles and a reviser and deleter of talk page commentary has deleted in bad faith. It is not his business to decide whether criticisms of Indymedia are poorly articulated. I encourage him to disclose his interests in Indymedia as well. --Flipside —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.48.71.50 (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would add before a cheeky rebuttal ensues, that Chuck Munson, a person I have no particular love for has documented that In the Stacks does squat articles to erase criticism of groups he is interested in: "After a year of you deleting critical links posted to entries on the RCP, ANSWER, the ISO and similar pages,." QED. Please stop erasing criticism and criticism links of Indymedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.48.71.50 (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi

could you have a look at Naxalite as well as the ongoing debate at Template_talk:Communism. --Soman 17:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello =

Would you please discuss my edits before automaticly reverting them.Reapor 15:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you stop reverting my edits you are breaking the rules of conduct.Reapor 10:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of talk page content

Hi there, it appears that you have removed some content from talk pages (here and here. Unlike the article page, the talk page is an open forum for discussion, where free speech is the common law. Removing content from a talk page is generally frowned upon, and will be reverted. I have done so in these instances. Please do not remove content from talk pages. However, you are free to refute them openly, on the talk page, while signing your name with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Vert et Noir^talk 08:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Question, then. If someone posts something that contains literally nothing save the accusation, then what is the protocol? e.g. the claim that "x eats babies, or so I heard". In these cases, it appears to be little more than vandalism attached to the talk page to circumvent even rudimentary "verifiability" rules put in place for the main entries. I'm honestly confused. Anonymous posts to, say, Indymedia are not sources – and where there are clear patterns of disinformation (outrageous, libelous), and the "talk" is done with – in those cases it is my understanding the "talk" sections can be archived. I've only been editing on Wikipedia for a short time, learning some of the rules as I go. Please advise how "x eats babies" should be dealt with.In the Stacks 14:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, please do not remove talk page content, as you have done here. On-topic comments or questions regarding the content of Wikipedia should not be modified; Wikipedia is not censored. Mike Doughney (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

CrimethInc. book reviews

Yo, I removed the book reviews from the CrimethInc. article because they concern the books in question and not the publisher. Skomorokh ^incite 11:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I simply cannot understand what you are trying to do with the Crimethinc. article. You wanted the book reviews in the external links section, I disagreed. So as a compromise I removed them from the external links section and embedded them as footnotes. You inexplicably added back in the external links, without removing the footnotes, thereby duplicating the links. When I attempted to restore the article to the original state you wanted it in (book reviews in the external links), you reverted my edit.

This is nonsensical. Please respond to my very explicitly stated arguments on the article talkpage. You have made your WP:POINT. Skomorokh ^incite 12:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's difficult to assume good faith with you when you remove my attempts at communicating with you and revert changes to the article without even reading it (3 of the 5 links you restored were already in the article, as was the template). I've started a new section on the CrimethInc. here where I'd like if you could make your case for including the 2 remaining links. Regards, скоморохъ 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Workers World Party

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Workers World Party, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Wikipedia is not for displaying press releases put out by political parties. Removing information that is unflattering to a political organization may constitute propaganda-by-omission, and is definitely not "neutrality." - Skaraoke 06:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, I know the danger of which you speak. As chance would have it, I have never had intimate relations with that party. I'm a long-time obserer of the left, with a particular interest in groups of their nature. I have written on such matters for a variety of publications and mostly edit on Wikipedia to mind vandalism or the insertion of falsehoods on sensitive entries.In the Stacks 03:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ML

Hi, could you have a look at the ongoing debate at Talk:Marxism-Leninism? --Soman 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Soman, I'm not sure what you want me to look at. I've generally tried to limit my participation on Wikipedia to existing organizations and prominent individuals who have been plagued by NPOV edits. In terms of entering into a debate with the Leon Trotsky historical society, my interest is close to nil. Marxism-Leninism is no single thing. How could a philosophy claimed by individuals as contradictory as Stalin, Trotsky, Gus Hall and Bob Avakian be a simple thing? No doubt the genealogical arguments are of particular importance to scholasticists, but I am not among their number. If there is a particular issue you see in contention, that I could possibly help reference, let me know.In the Stacks 23:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ISO

Thanks for taking an interest, but please take a look at these discussions on the talk page before making further changes. I agree with you in removing the funding section as non-notable and without parallel in similar articles, but we need to establish consensus. Kalkin (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Crimethinc. criticisms

Is there any way you'd be willing to take this to the discussion that has been started? It's a bit disruptive having what's bordering on edit war. Thanks, Murderbike (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that you are ignoring the consensus on the talk page that these critical links do not need to be doubled up? This is a community, you do now own this article. Murderbike (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a disagreement here. There are a cluster of anarchists, allied with Crimethinc, who think that this wikipedia page is an advertising link. The whole entry might as well be copywritten by the @-crowd, except that Crimethinc itself is far more interested in critical commentary than their erstwhile online defenders. I will place the critical links back up, and when I notice a pattern involving Munson, Murderbike and a couple of others who are acting in tandem over several different entries, I can't help but take claims to "consensus" with a boulder of salt.In the Stacks (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, there is not "three anarchists" forming consensus, if you actually look at the discussion, five six people agreed, while you disagree. You have convinced NOONE of your opinion. And accusing people of being "allied with Crimethinc" is a serious breach of good faith. I am not associated with Crimethinc anymore than I am associated with the Yavapai people, which I also helped elevate to GA status. Crimethinc just got GA status, and there was no problem from the reviewer of the neutrality of this article, only yourself. You are CLEARLY a minority of one, trying to make a WP:POINT while standing on a soapbox. Now why is that you think that it is OK to keep putting your links back in, calling for discussion, while you continue to ignore consensus, and refuse to contribute to the discusssion? Murderbike (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo, I've posted a comment about this at the administrator's noticeboard. You might want to weigh in here; let me know if I have misrepresented anything and I'll correct it. Regards, скоморохъ 18:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming to you as an uninvolved administrator, in the future, seek consensus for adding in the external links to various sundries. Items such as this are not acceptable as they are blog entries; others are mere reviews. Calling others "anarchists" because they came to a consensus to not include the links is not assuming good faith. seicer | talk | contribs 14:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Stacks, three reverts in one days is seriously bordering on violation of the 3RR rule. Murderbike (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

February 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to A.N.S.W.E.R., without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. I'm starting to run out of patience with your antics. You come in, delete a large chunk of the article, and then you're reverted. We lock the article, invite you to come in for discussion, and you don't say a thing. We unlock the article, and then the whole process starts over again. This is starting to look very much like disruptive editing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to A.N.S.W.E.R., you will be blocked from editing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The World Can't Wait

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The World Can't Wait. 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/The World Can't Wait. 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) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)