Talk:Objectivism/Archive 6

message: Check out the new reference to The Altas Society.  A branch of Kelley's sect, it focuses on Rand as author, not philosopher.  Interesting. Al 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, we agree again. You must be becoming an evil collectivist looter. :-) Al 02:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this not a personal attack on GreedyCapitalist ? If not, the I would like an explanation on how calling someone "an evil collectivist looter" is not a personal attack. Oleksandr 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, there is the fact that I ended with a great big smiley.  There's also the fact that, even without that hint, I was very obviously joking.  The joke being that, by agreeing with a non-Objectivist, he's becoming just like them.  Ha.  Ha? I'm sorry if this painfully obvious bit of humor didn't strike you as funny, but I can't imagine how you can miss the fact that this is at least an attempt at humor. I chalk this up to language difficulties, not bad faith. Al 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like he was just joking with him. -- LGagnon 18:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Atlas Society 

message: * Strong disagree  Section should remain.  Skyraider 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: After-comment

message: In the event mediation is requested, and a mediator that is agreeable to both sides is recruited, what are the sticking points?  No names, no finger pointing; just the items that would need to be sorted out (feel free to edit this comment directly to add to the bullet list, just put your name at the end of any you add)
* Cult category
* Defining vandalism?
* Specific POV issues?
* Criticism in article
-- Xinit 20:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gag, I'm on top of that.  I filed a checkuser request to track down the sock puppet. Al 05:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you honestly think that there are sockpuppets in this talk page then you should report your suspicions to the Administrators of Wiki, otherwise keep your insinuations to yourself. The Fading Light 04:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a way of reporting it. -- LGagnon 04:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation points 

message: FYI, if you wish to report vandalism, please do so at Wikipedia:Requests for investigation. --GreedyCapitalist 17:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Alienus has been drawing lines through the survey question in order to end the survey right after it started.   (See here for the visual: ) I'd say that's vandalism. RJII 19:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although it seems like Alienus might be jumping the gun a little bit, most polls are up for at least five days, I don't think it exactally qualifies as vandalism. Crazynas 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not an Objectivist, so your claim is not true. RJII 19:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reporting Vandalism

message: User:OleksandrL
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nick: Oleksandr
Name: Oleksandr Lozitskiy
Productivity Blog: http://urumble.blogspot.com 
Personal Project: http://ox.slug.louisville.edu/urumble2 
Thinking Blog: http://olex-cerebration.blogspot.com 
Interests: programming computer games, books, tennis, DDR
Philosophy: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
I rest my case. Al 18:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already know that the Randists want to hide all the criticism on a child page.  This is not a new data point. Al 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a Randist and it's not about hiding anything for me. It's about getting all this disruption out of here so those who are concerned about improving what should be the meat of the article --the explication of the philosophy itself -- can do it in peace without childish accusals of being a "Randroid" or a "fascist." If there is a criticism of Objectivism article, then anyone who wishes can go there and bicker like little girls to their hearts content. I bet this article will see a great improvement over time. It should be a much better article than it is by now. I think what's holding it back is all this arguing over "cult" and "randroid" stuff. Besides, it's way to large in proportion to the size of the article. RJII 19:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to learn what it is all about, largely because I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. Learning about Objectivism does not make one an Objectivist. One would have to understand it first, and then agree with it. So far, I have seen things I agree with, some things I don't understand, and some that I don't agree with. From what I have read so far, I haven't seen anything evil in it that people should be up in arms about. And, I've seen some things I like --such as her strong advocacy of individual liberty. From some of the attacks I've seen, you'd think Objectivism was a grave danger to civilization and Objectivists must be assaulted at every opportunity. But, I'm not seeing it any justification for such vitriol. RJII 19:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: So, in the spirit of being bold, I created this article in line with the Objectivist ethics Objectivist epistemology et al.   Now it's time to start cutting the section down to a more 
manageable summary. Crazynas 20:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. RJII 01:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And in the spirit of being bolder, I will revert any attempt to remove information from this article, based on the excuse that it's been moved to Responses to Objectivism. Al 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well just be sure not to be so bold as to violate 3RR.  Crazynas 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Now that the AfD is over, we have to start working on balancing this article, and working on making the new article a good one. Crazynas 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Responses to Objectivism]] 

message: I deleted the stuff sourced from some professor named "Parrot." It's not a credible source, according to Wikipedia policy. It's self-published by Professor Parrot himself. WP:V says, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so." Rimric press is the publisher, which is Professor Parrott's own press.  RJII 14:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And so the deletions begin. Soon, every criticism will be gone, and the article will be back to being a pro-Rand shrine. So much for NPOV applying to all Wikipedia articles. -- LGagnon 03:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just find credible sources. And put them in over at Responses to Objectivism. And, what do you mean a pro-Rand shrine? This article is not supposed to be about Ayn Rand. It's about her philosophy called Objectivism. If you want to spend your time denigrating and ridiculing a woman that passed away a long time ago, go do that in the Ayn Rand article. RJII 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted self-published source