Talk:Left anarchism/Archive 1

message: A majority governmental vote is sought to determine whether the article should stay? That's not a very anarchistic thing to do. RJII 04:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, RJ, you must really be getting desperate to have your voice unilaterally carried on wikipedia to resort to this kind of specious argument.  Kev 05:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for deletion

message: Most of the current anarchism page should be moved to this page, w the disambig page being placed @ Anarchism. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 15:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Kev has been deleting the following external links, apparently because they don't coincide with his POV:
* Anarchist Theory FAQ lists and compares both anti- and pro-capitalist forms of anarchism	 	
* Anarchism: Two Kinds by Wendy McElroy, a self-described individualist anarchist who favors capitalism.
:  First, your description of both links implies that they are neutral, which is anything but the case given that they are both anarcho-capitalists.  Second, both of these individuals are already linked to several times throughout the anarchy related articles, and these specific urls are themselves linked to more than once.  You are simply trying to flood wikipedia with propaganda by putting McElroy's links on every page that you can, which is unacceptable given that she is a barely notable figure who already has plenty of coverage.  Kev 00:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And the anarchist FAQ that you leave in there is neutral? It's written by "traditional" anarchists. Both FAQ's are POV. And since they are, there should be external links for both POV's --the POV that there are only socialist anarchisms and the POV that there are left anarchisms as well as other anarchisms. Stop trying to censor what conflicts with your POV. I, and others are perfectly willing to let both FAQ's stand. Why are you the only one that's not? It's because your POV is overwhelming your ability to be objective. RJII 00:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'm not the only one who objects to your POV mongering, but you already know that.  Anarcho-capitalism is at best a fringe within anarchism, NPOV requires that wikipedia spend time on anarcho-capitalism because it is notable, it does not require that it spend the same amount of time on anarcho-capitalism.  As such, one link to the highly biased Faq of brian caplan is enough, attempts to link it to several articles is just grandstanding.  The same is true of McElroy.  Kev 01:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I will stop deleting links the moment RJ stops spamming the same ones all over the anarchism articles.  Kev 09:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So that's how you think? Wow. Unbelievable. This article has nothing to do with what I or anyone else does in other articles. Don't screw up an article as a petty attempt to getting back at how an individual has edited other articles. Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right?" Don't be a baby. RJII 15:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   It has nothing to do with "getting back" at anyone.  It has to do with not allowing you to flood wikipedia with links of a fringe-fringe movement in an attempt to over-emphasize it.  Of course, I explained this explicitly above, but like Sam you seem at this point to only be interested in smug sniping, rather than doing something productive.  Kev 20:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kev deleting external links

message: I don't think the recent changes to the intro are an improvement. I didn't see the need for condensing, but now I see the need to explain it again in a way that is easy to understand for people who are not familiar with the subject. Rl 17:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not say in one sentence and less words what was taking two sentences and more words? It makes for more efficient reading and saves hard drive space. RJII 17:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Saves hard drive space?  lol.  Not that a few ascii chars take that much memory.  Everytime someone changes the page, the old copy is stored; so I would think the act of saving a new version would take more hard drive space. millerc 02:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You must love the latest changes by Kevehs then, because it's even shorter now. — Anyhow, efficient reading is about how long it takes a reader to understand what's being said, and that is not measured by the number of characters in the leading paragraph. Rl 07:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro changes

message: This page should be deleted. In fact i am going to post it up as such. Left anarchism dosen't exist - it is an invented term by anarcho-capitalists. -max rspct 09:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea. This page just recently came back alive from a VfD. Rl 10:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's probably no point in VfD'ing it again right away. Someday, in the far-flung, future, this page should be merged with most of what is at anarchism now. The thing that's disputed is mostly just where that merged article will be located. - Nat Krause 16:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: deletion

message: You continue to refuse to educate yourself on this and expect others to do with work for you.  But the evidence is right out there for you to grab at any time.  Still, I will make you a deal RJ.  If you agree to actually apologise for making edits out of ignorance, I will HAPPILY supply you with evidence that the collectivist and communist anarchists were once at odds over various issues.  Agreed?  Kev 05:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! You've got to be kidding if you think I'm going to bow down to you. And, you know I won't. And you're happy that I won't. Because, you have no such evidence. As usual, you're very predictable and transparent. RJII 05:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: "Collectivist anarchism" is just another term for "communist anarchism." Where an Earth would you get the idea that they're two different schools of anarchism?  RJII 05:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   Its not bowing down to someone to admit a mistake.  You are making a mistake, and you are only digging yourself deeper into it now.  But I know that once I provide the evidence demonstrating your mistake you will bluster about and more on, and I will have spent the time educating you in vain once again.  Still, it seems honorable enough to me for you to agree to apologise for making edits out of ignorance once I present evidence to demonstrate that there is a difference between collectivists and communists.  Why do you refuse to do so?  Is your ego that fragile?  I'll make you another deal then.  Refuse to apologise once more and I will post it anyway, just cause I like making you look like an ass.  Kev 05:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It must suck to be you. RJII 05:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collectivist vs Communist anarchists 

message: Ulrike Heider has bee severly criticised by Murray Bookchin A Meditation on Anarchist Ethics and amongst others 
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/error.htm Brian Caplan]
Another, non-academic review -
Exceprt from that -
several authors have criticized Heider's scholarship, claiming that her footnotes and citations are often incorrect and she occasionally misspells important names that she should know perfectly if she has done any research whatsoever. I have not checked her citations myself, but have little reason to doubt these accusations.
--max rspct leave a message  14:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ulrike Heider]] controversy