User talk:La goutte de pluie/archive 4

We want structures that serve people, not people serving structures. — Anonyme, mai '68

la goutte

la pluie

la note

la mémoire

la parole (a)

Email me

Appeals

Does this mean that the unfair blocks on User:Marsden and User:Poetlister get to appeal as well? I am pretty confident that they went through all reasonable steps for MONTHS to try to get it undone, but yet nothing happened. I even made a sub page to talk about how unfair the block on User:Zordrac/Poetlister was. Indeed, it was protesting their blocks that got User:Mistress Selina Kyle banned. Constructive? Uh, yes, that is extraordinarily constructive. What we should be doing is de-sysopping Kelly Martin and SlimVirgin over this. We shouldn't be banning MSK. I am sure that MSK would agree that getting rid of those 2 rogues is far more important than getting rid of MSK's ban. If MSK's ban is lifted, what is to stop these people from doing the same things to others? Getting rid of the problem is much more important. Of course, that being said, MSK should be unbanned as a matter of urgency. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Status: replied at Zordrac's talk page. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking User:70.89.208.242

Hello Elle, thanks for blocking User:70.89.208.242. Hope he/she tries to behave next time. Husky 11:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Sista, ta for the manufacturing stubs move -- max rspct leave a message 14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"vandalism"

While I saw the initial edit that was reverted as "vandalism," is removing the content (on another user's page) really the right thing to do? Initially I was going to comment it out and contact the user. Avriette 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Which page, exactly? I blocked User:65.189.128.228 as a sockpuppet reincarnation of a previously blocked user. He had threatened to switch IP's constantly, so I was up for it. It's all good anyway, we can just continue blocking proxies. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the user I was referring to. Just wondered whether that was the right approach. I agree it was offensive. Avriette 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I had previously blocked User:70.89.208.242, and he had threatened to run mass vandalism scripts, or implied to wreak havoc. Such bad faith behaviour warrants blocking on sight. Was previously warned dozens of times on the talk page. Ie. it's not a clueless newbie. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

ah, the life of a janitor. :) Avriette 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sig

I see you've switched your sig... I struggled (with the aid of my wife, who does speak french) to translate the old one; she thought the grammar was off. But I didn't say cos I assumed you knew... there's a motto in there somewhere. A jamais yours, William M. Connolley 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

Well, I only just started my fourth year of French. Submarine (a French user who both edits here and on fr:) thought the old one was technically correct but sounded awkward (although as a second-language I thought it sounded poetic and fine), and suggested alternatives, which I didn't implement because the tone was different. Rama suggested this as an alternative. It keeps the fairy-tale tone, so I preferred it. Thanks for all the fuss over my signature anyway. It helps me improve! ;-) Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Happily ever after

Elle vécut à jamais heureuse ?

Elle vécut longtemps heureuse. Elle vécut heureuse très très longtemps. Sa vie fut un long fleuve tranquille. On n'entendit plus jamais parler d'elle ... Sorry, none offer a satisfactory french equivalent. --Harvestman 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I need to start reading French fairy tales. Or maybe French literature tends to end on such a metaphysical, vaguely defined, non-conclusive note (Les Miserables, The Count of Monte Cristo, anyone?) so I can't seem to encounter an equivalent that often. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Notepad comment

Left a comment on your notepad talkpage. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I see you stood up to (ex-)User:GMB back in late Dec 2005 (26-27), regarding his editing practices which were certainly non-wikipedian, and I would like to thank you for your tenacity. I thought you deserved some recognition for that and so I awarded you the Barnstar. I put it on the top of your userpage so you would notice it. --Censorwolf 17:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you! I'm in the process of reorganising my userspace though, so I eventually will move a lot of my awards to a separate page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby RfAr

I saw it. You finally gave up, eh? NSLE _(T+C) 10:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW I'll probably post something tomorrow morning. NSLE _(T+C) 10:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm yes, unfortunately I gave up. This has probably disappointed BostonMA somewhat. But I really hope Gibby's behaviour is an exception, not a recurring syndrome we will have to deal with. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that User:KDRGibby is currently blocked, and will be unable to respond until later today. See here for details. Quadell 13:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It might be worth mentioning that he has sent abusive emails to several users [1] and [2], which behaviour very much needs to be reigned in. I wonder though, whether there is an editor out there with a similar political perspective to Gibby who might be able to mentor him. I'm not sure that would work, but it could be worth a go. Mattley ^(Chattley) 14:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User:193.164.112.20

Thanks for blocking, nice and swift after my posting on WP:AIV. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure no problem. Decided to take care of it since it popped up on my watchlist. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Elle vecut heureusement

sounds a bit... sad, or something. I don't know. Who did, and why is she in the past tense? Or am I asking a question you've been asked many times before? Palmiro | Talk 00:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am trying to firstly, do an equivalent of "she lived happily ever after"...(and passé simple looks better than passé composé): it is indeed supposed to be happy. The English line in addition to being a common fairy tale cliché, happens to be a line in a pop song. It's past tense, because fairy tales end this way. Since you've asked, it does refer to a second meaning...a friend died not too long ago; "lived" reflects this - yet a life that transcends the death of which ended it. (Since I'm a believer of heaven et al.). And just to preempt replies, there's no need for apologies, as I am aware this might become awkward to discuss. My signature was meant to be joyful and fairy-tale'ish but it yes, it is also a memorium. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it works extremely well, in that case - and I'm sorry if I made you go into more detail than you might have wanted to or my question was unconsciously indelicate (which in the context of your reply, seems very much the case). Palmiro | Talk 01:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the sad background to this. I had in mind a line which, though not exactly a substitute, I thought you might like to hear. It is from a song called 'Quand on n'a que l'amour' [3] by Jacques Brel and the full verse says "Alors, sans avoir rien que la force d'aimer, nous aurons dans nos mans, amis, le monde entier." It is a bit long, and it doesn't mean exactly what you were aiming at, but the sentiment is similar, I think. It is a very beautiful song - I don't know if you know Brel at all, but I think you'd really enjoy his work, if not. Mattley ^(Chattley) 02:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to find French music here. But thanks for the tip. I'll be on the lookout. Again, no need to apologise, I thought it was rather sensitive at how Palmiro sensed the personal sentiment of my signature. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

bandity

I'm interested in the criteria you employ in deleting an entry with the note "bandity." I noticed you deleted an article on the Seattle band Headphones today. The only criteria I found for such deletion was the user Friday's band page.

Headphones, as a band that is signed to a legitimate record label (Suicide Squeeze), has played a national and international tour, and is recognized by the All Music Guide, seems to be legitimate enough to warrant an entry.

As a wiki-newbie, I'm curious as to your thought process there.

It does not assert too much notability, or its importance - it is thus a candidate for speedy deletion. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If the band truly is notable, I am sorry, it didn't seem to assert its importance too much (nor did I see a link to other websites other than itself). This page can be easily restored: I would be able to do that, but then I would nominate it for deletion, and I'm not sure it would still matter. I'll ask other admins about the issue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Which page is it, by the way? I deleted two yesterday. One seemed more notable than the other, but it wasn't referred to that much other than lists (in "what links here") so I didn't think it was much of a qualifier. However, it can be by mistake. Anyhow, when I restore it, I would like its importance to be asserted, or I'll nominate it for deletion (where the community offers their thoughts on it). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The page was Headphones (Band). As to its legitimacy, I can't say exactly. But, I did look for the band on Wikipedia because I had seen them in concert last year and wanted to know more about the project. I'm interested in primarily electronic indie-rock as a genre. (The_Postal_Service would be a good example.) Headphones is a similar project, and I thought that page would be a good place to start. I checked the deletion log and saw that you had deleted the page. That was what prompted my question yesterday. brothermatt 14:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the entire thing posted is a copyvio, taken directly off from their main website. Can you write a new article about them, as I can't restore it - since I would violate copyright policy. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

CVU

What is the quickest way to inform admins of persistant vandals, especially when you are trying to revert there edits AND inform the admins. Thanks in advanceEagle (talk) (desk) 04:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)(please post on my page in response)

Post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Surefire way. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

How do I get on to IRC? Thanks agianEagle (talk) (desk) 04:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think i posted back, but if not...What is an IRC client, and what programs qulify. Please point me in the right direction.Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Is one or the other program free? Its just that I am really getting annoyed with juggling two pages and trying to keep up with some of these vandals. Geeze they are really acting up lately....They can stop any time now!!Eagle (talk) (desk) 04:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Is there a location on wikipedia that can elaborate more on this subject (IRC)

P.S.S have a look at this, what am I to do?? [Wwegsb], its bad.

Replying on talk page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What kind of vandalism was that!!! That was wierd...[Wwegsb]

I usually don't call that vandalism. I call that nonsense to speedy delete. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I added that vandal because they had a template at the top saying they may be blocked without further warning. That was before I gave my warning, so I figured they were fair game to block. Is that template inaccurate? VegaDark 04:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Replied on talk page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I knew that was the case for regular users but I hadn't seen an account with that template before, so I figured I would follow what it says. Perhaps it should be edited to avoid further confusion. VegaDark 04:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My usual perception is that test5's last only a few hours to at most, a few days. After two months, I consider the previous history cleared (ie. test1's last for that long), ie. the severity of the warning is indirectly proportionate to the time it stays relevant for anonymous IP's. It's not a hard and fast rule - just applying discernment, and taking the safer side if there's a difference in opinion. Frequent blocks can of course, make it acceptable to skip some of the template steps, and to block for increasingly longer periods of time. Sockpuppets are a different matter - usually I will consider them separate the first time they pop up, but then I will consider collective warnings and treat them as a warning for all should they reoccur increasingly. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Natalinasmpf

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Natalina! I appreciate your trust, and will attempt to be eudaemonic. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Hi Natalina. Thanks for nominating me, but also for your help during the voting. William M. Connolley 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Seth Ravin

An AfD you participated in is now at deletion review. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair Tax

Have you bothered reading the Fair Tax article? Or do you just follow me around whereever I post? If you did read it, what do you think? Isnt it great? Much better than what is available now and far less punishing toward the poor. (Gibby 06:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

I haven't seen any problems with FairTax so I'm probably on the approving side, and they improve the article (if I'm looking at your three edits there). Whether it improves it a whole lot is probable but I haven't read the whole thing so I can't say. Ideally, tax should be replaced by a totally different economic system anyway. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I'd love to stick around and chat more about the merits and failures of our respective economic prefrences but, even as one of America's poorest citizens (and without healthcare too) I must regretfully leave this computer to go to the bank to discuss investment options and interest earned on capital owned...and unfortunatly to discuss and fill out the forms required for government taxation of what little wealth I have created and saved...and so unfortunate too because taxing investments is highly regressive for us poor as it provides very little incentive for us to save and pull our own selves out of poverty. My economically unfree government keeps me down...not free market capitalism which my country will not adopt. It is the very policies designed to help me, that end up hurting me. Adios for now. (Gibby 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Comment on Gibby's talk page

Hi Natalinasmpf: You recently left this comment on Gibby's talk page with the subject line "We don't want you to leave".

If your intent was to offer an olive branch, you may want to imagine yourself in Gibby's position for a moment. First, the "we" is questionable. That may be your position, but to whom does "we" refer. It sounds as though it refers to everyone who has had a conflict with Gibby. It may be true that all of those editors would like Gibby to stay. But it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that one or more of those editors would like Gibby to leave.

Further, how does your comment "We don't want you to leave" square with filing a request for Arbitration against Gibby? Do not the possible outcomes of arbitration include long term blocks, permanent blocks, banning, etc.? That is something you might want to think about. --BostonMA 16:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR archiving

I hope I didn't screw up your archiving there, but you may want to undo it. In the past, the 3RR page seems to have been archived by copy-paste, not by move (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive8). android79 19:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear; I'm not sure if it's reversible now (without going into deletion)...sorry for this: I was just doing it as per Current events...does it still need to be reversed, or is this current state okay? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it's okay or not. I'd leave a note on the 3RR talk page; unfortunately, I don[t have time at the moment to sort it out either. android79 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you sleep?

Really! --BostonMA 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it a good thing I'm editing all the time? Well, I'll just clear some things up and I'll be on my way. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalking User:KDRGibby

User:KDRGibby began making edits on two articles I contribute to (Wal-Mart and FairTax). Somewhere along the way, I found the RFA against him w.r.t Communism. Since then, I've noticed you popping up on the talk pages of Wal-Mart and FairTax to post rebuttals after anything he posts. Are you watching his user contributions page and following up on every article he posts to? If that's the case, it looks like harassment to me. There are plenty of editors on bigger articles to make sure he doesn't disrupt the content; it's not necessary for you to add fuel to the fire by placing snide rebuttals on talk pages. Feco 01:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

He's the one that is stirring up trouble (in my opinion), and showing an extreme amount of incivility and sheer rudeness. I do not know why you find his behaviour acceptable. Commenting about his use of profanity is not "snide", nor about his "ALLCAPS AND EXCESSIVE USE OF QUESTION MARKS!!!! :P" kind of behavior. I came across his contributions during RC patrol - he doesn't seem to sleep, ever. I'm not stalking - I've watched those two pages. Is it also stalking to look at the Administrator's Noticeboard and realise that a user I had a problem with had problems with other users as wel? I didn't even do much about Wal-Mart until Rhobite started complaining, upon where I became very interested. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts to keep wikipedia clean. Feel free to continue watching pages. Feel free to prevent pollution of article content. I messaged you b/c your posts on the FairTax and Wal-Mart talk pages were close to personal attacks on Gibby. You may perceive him as a troll, in which case the best example is not to feed him. When he piles on to the talk pages, it's relatively harmless. If you do address his behavior in the articletalk space, do it cleanly. Don't dive into personal attacks or insults. Rm items that belong on usertalk... place terse rebuttals on articletalk if necessary. Feco 01:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Noted. I usually tried to remain as Stoic as possible, but I lost a bit of control there, for which I must regret. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Inanna does it again

Just wondering if you noticed 85.101.234.127... --Khoikhoi 01:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed. As you can see, I've reset the block timer for -Inanna-. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No school?

Do you have school? Its quite surprising that you are editing overnight and until 1pm. Just curious. --Terence Ong 10:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, I have way too much access to the computers at times (free period during Chinese lessons + recess + computer classes). And I'm an insomniac. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For me, I have to bring laptops to school everyday. :D --Terence Ong 10:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

User:63.206.182.253

Hi, could you block this IP, thanks. (See contrib history) By the way, is there a page to post vandal IPs to be blocked? --BostonMA 19:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Response to Elle

Hello. My point is that there is no system that has been proven to be faultless. Communism is a tyrannical fallacy (sorry), Socialism is inefficient and un-progressive, Capitalism is no longer "Free-Enterprise" (nor has it been for decades...), and Fascism is irrational tyranny. The fact is, all nations exist to varying degrees in a Mixed-Economy - tinkering with the mix to correct abuses, and improve efficiencies. Always it has been, so it shall always be. TrulyTory 21:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Centrally planned economies and command economies indeed are tyrannical fallacies. Communist economies, a stateless, classless societies are on the other hand, not tyrannical (ie. anarchist communism). People associate Stalinism with communism too much. And Communists are often distinguished from communists (note the difference in capital letters). Ah, the complexities of political language. Tinkering again I feel is merely a compromise, just as science currently compromises between the two schools of relativistic and quantum mechanical thought, with no unifying model. I was thinking more of the lines of a pure gift economy, (which all mixed economies have elements of), under a commune system similar to a kibbutz, under a larger, more progressive (and ambitious) system. It is my perception that gift economics provides suitable pressure and incentive for work and production, yet guaranteeing rights, while being freely able to correct abuses such as when hoarding, price-fixing, or cartels arise, or plutocracies due to the culture of such an economy (the cultural element is the key). Communists have had a schism in the school of thought since 1886, so it really depends on which type of communist you mean. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with socialism is that Marx' entire thesis is based on his concept of "species-being," which cannot be proven, a priori. Thus any Socialist theory that is based on Marx' dialectical materialism cannot be justified on the basis of logic. TrulyTory 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Marx just represents one school of thought; it's almost like taking Islam and assuming that all Muslims are Sunni, or that non-Sunni's are insignificant. This is far from the case. Perhaps McCarthyism, Bolshevik and Stalinist repression heavily diverted the focus of socialism from previous theories to only Marx. I'm quite tired of the Marx-centrism, actually; I can only agree with half the things he says. I am not a student of dialectical materialism. I never really adhered to dialectical materialism; if anything I'm a student of Nicomachean Ethics and eudaimonia, and I must admit, religious communism. There are all these influences on communism that people keep forget, and it's just not Hegel: there's Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard. I also a proponent of Peter Kropotkin's anarchist communist theory, which makes a much better theory than Marx. Kropotkin declares that mutual benefit is better than mutual strife. This should be contrasted to from each according to his ability, to each according to his need of Marx, which has some egalitarian aspects to it, but there is a problem in resolution. "Mutual benefit" is therefore the superior underlying reason for communism, and is the key. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, Aristotle. I'm a Platonist to be fair, but Aristotle has the same problem as the others who advocate some radical form of egalitarianism: How is it justified, and how can it be maintained without encroaching on Liberty? Aristotle falls back on a form of universal virtue, but unfortunately, one cannot make all citizens subscribe to the same virtue(s) without resorting to coercion, and thereby endagering individual liberty. TrulyTory 23:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle doesn't fall back on univeral virtue IIRC. In fact, he clearly states each individual has his or her own personal eudaimonia. Eudaimonic ideals have common similarities, but they differ from person to person. However, all eudaimonic ideals are likely to accomodate a gift economy. Oh, I scoff at Plato, that authoritarian. ;-) There is no coercion against dissident individuals with different ideals...depending on the nature of the divide, it might be shrugged off (or if say, the person is a Neo-Nazi, ostracism could ensue). Given that individual rights can be exercised in a gift economy, and that everyone has a right to withdraw or with-hold their fruits of their labour, or give it away as they wish, then ostracism in this case is justified (merely withdrawing gifts). There must be a balance between civic duty and individual freedom; and note individual freedom is different from individual liberty or individual rights, excuse the semantics; ie. one has the right to be lazy, but one wouldn't have the freedom to be lazy without facing mass pressure or disapproval from the community, etc. Civic duty and individual freedom represent the extremes and deficiencies of obligation, as does universality and subjectivity; there is a golden mean in all of these which eudaimonia espouses. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your ersatz communism is indeed a strange brew. By relying on religious principles (which?), Aristotle, Kant, Kierkegaard, and Kropotkin you are going to be wallowing in a melange of internal contradictions that cannot be resolved - nor be welded into any kind of practical system. The communalism of Aristotle, the liberal humanism of Kant, the existentialism of Kierkegaard, and the anarchism of Kropotkin will all cancel out the very virtues you are attempting to "cherry-pick" from them. They come from radically different perspectives, a priori. I am very impressed with your familiarity with some of the great thinkers of Western civilisation (for someone so young), but I must say that, as you get older, you will realise that such "grocery-style" approaches to ideas will not enable you to formulate a coherent & unified theory. Additionally, theory is just that - theory. Ideology is the last refuge of the close-minded, in my opinion; reason & religion, tradition, prescription, culture, particularism, moderate reform, and a sense of common civic value are the best guarantors of justice in the temporal world. Scoff at Plato if you must, but he presented us with ideas of government, virtue, conduct, and reason that continue to influence Western societies to this day. As well, he got it right, in that there is always a need for an elite to govern the masses. But Plato would have the Philosopher-King rule with a clear sense of virtue and justice - as opposed to ruling by the "barrel of a gun," which has been the only way that collectivists and radical egalitarians have ruled thus far in human history. You cannot force people to be virtuous or equalitarian if they do not want to be, unless you use force and coercion to do so - and then, you have debased, and perhaps even nullified, individual Liberty. Nice try on the Gift Economy, but this does not square with the acquisitive nature of mankind. TrulyTory 02:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my views. I am not merely being a "melting pot". The ideology I fully agree on is Christianity, which forms the basis for the rest of my views. I accept some acts of Muslim culture provided it does not conflict. Eudaimonia ties in very strongly with the concept of a "highest good". I highly liked Critique of Pure Reason, so that put Kant in my good books. I like Kierkegaard because of his understanding of certain issues I struggled with, especially the use of pseudo-authors (which is bound to conflict sometime or later). These are merely supplementary to my central tenets. Why does communalism conflict with anarchism, or conflict with liberal humanism? Similarly, why would Christianity conflict with either of these three values, (ie. Christian anarchism?) Furthermore, It is precisely because they come from such radically different perspectives (there are Chinese philosophers I have yet to even mention) but yet support what I see as a common running strand for humanitarian ideals, is that I consider myself part of some of their schools of thought. It does not mean I totally accept each one. The existentialism of Kierkegaard does not conflict with my anarchist values, nor does it conflict with my eudaimonic values.

Ideology is part of the grand philosophical search for a true theory of everything, and that compromise is unsatisfactory, because there must be an underlying, unified theory that explains why an action must be taken in this scenario, and taken in that scenario (as I explain with the dissatisfaction at the current schism in the sciences concerning quantum mechanics and relativity). Ideology is not something to be fanatically attained to, or to be fundamentalistically championed, but rather, a model that individuals choose because it appears to be the one that works best for all hypothetical situations or problems that may arise. A gift economy therefore I feel flexibly fulfils these needs. Tradition yes, but constant revision of the sacred cows must always be necessary. Why nationality? What purpose does it serve? Can problems be removed while continuing some of its functions? This forms the basis of being a world citizen, that nationality is superficial, and that rather, other social forces can replace the ties of loyalty for it. And, why accept Plato, but reject Aristotle and Socrates? Gift economies are not enforced at the barrel of a gun, by the way. I advocate revolution as a last resort, but I highly champion progressive change of course. If it takes 500 years to implement a pure gift economy without too much turmoil, so be it, rather than gamble it away with needless violence. That is the basis for social change - change of mindset, breaking the catch-22 and the vicious cycle that capitalism imposes, slowly, bit by bit (reminds me of a particular line from 1984 about the proles not being able to revolt until they awaken, but not being able to awaken until they revolt. This is a constant problem, but of course, revolt can be substituted with other things.) Why would I have to use coercive force? Would not peer pressure (which is legitimate) and advocation qualify? Why would I want a gift economy composed of the unwilling? (In fact, the unwilling are free to leave, that is better for both the economy the unwilling leaves and the unwilling.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

He favors statist capitalist economic status quo, he's not going to agree with you. And did you ever bother reading my information on market competition? I didnt see any response on my page. (Gibby 07:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but I am simply making my justification that it's not frivolous. Anyhow, I didn't respond because I think I already proved my point; you can keep using circular arguments and logical fallacy if you like and all the far-fetched claims on competition but you ignore the truth. The idea was the contest you publicly. Since you've basically demonstrated my goal when you go around using allcaps and logical fallacy in a rebuttal I figured my point had been proven, Patrick Gibbons. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I do not favour the State Capitalist Status Quo, and I find it amazing how Gibby thinks he knows what everyone is "really" thinking. Anyway ... While I admire your zeal and idealism, and quite agree with you that we all learn something from the great thinkers of history, the fact remains that the contractualism of Kant would be at great odds with anarchism of Kropotkin, and that Christ would likely take issue with existentialist concepts of "being" as contravening his directions on faith and destination. These are major conflicts of logic. If you disregard the Author's a priori foundations, you will see they cannot stand on their own. Kant accepted contractualism and individual liberty but was concerned as to how to create a moral society withnin that framework. The problem arises in the very notion of liberty itself, for if I am free (and have free will) to make my own choices and decisions, I am free to make negative ones just as much as I am to make positive ones. If I do not believe in social or economic equality, then no one can make me believe in such things. Peer pressure me all you want in this example, but the only way that you could make be comply would be with the threat of violence, or by removing me from society, by placing me in gaol - thus depriving me of my liberty (in both cases). This is merely one example of the underlying contradictions in your melange ideology. As to an evolutionary form of communism, well that is not a new idea, but I would suggest that it would take a calamity of grave proportions (such as nuclear war) to bring us to the point where we could rely on a gift mechanism. We would have to be sufficiently reduced in technological means, and human needs and wants, in order to facilitate such a system. The genie is already out of the bottle. You still have not addressed my main concern however: How do you make me accept egalitarianism as a civic virtue without taking away, or drastically limiting, my individual liberty? This has been the central conflict within Western thinking for over 2000 years. It has yet to be resolved without resorting to coercion. Why Plato over Socrates or Aristotle? Well, we don't really know what Socrates thought as he was brought to life only by Xenophon and Plato, and as for Aristotle, his teleology led him to draw very many erroneous conclusions about a myriad of issues and concepts. It is hard for me to rely on a man whose logic leads to fallacy so much of the time. TrulyTory 14:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would Christ take issue? It is our nature to inquire; to explore our faith, and eventually justify it. The path to transcendence is a route of personal development; he would not object to critical analysis of defining ourselves, and issues concerning the philosophical nature of being. Though Kantian thought is no doubt different from Descartian thought (which I also endorse, but that does not naturally mean conflict either), I do not think is it in opposition. Throughout history, society has established certain institutions to accomplish certain functions; some of them bringing their own problems or faults in the process. The solution then, is to search for a social theory that encompasses all situations, since a schismatic set of policy-making means there exists a fault somewhere else. My endorsement of Kant is mainly theological, not social. It has been in no way, a "mixing bowl" or "grocery shopping". (Besides, grocery shopping in this case would violate the very all-encompassing model I strive to search for.)

It also depends on what you exactly mean by liberty. Clearly, freedom to do anything would violate the freedoms of others. You are free to make bad decisions for yourself of course (though your "later" self might regret it, I'll expound on this later), but not of these decisions affect the rest of society. Ostracism is hardly an infringement of liberty in this case, since I have the right to stop giving the fruits of my labour, with my own discernment to you (or someone I disapprove of). But just like a revert in Wikipedia is an act of hostility (pardon the analogy, I am only using the sociological effect, not the rights effect) similarly such an act is hostile, something to be reserved for vandalism, and almost never against another well-established user. We have the rights to our own property, but it is not a right to the fruits of other people's labour; when this is cut off, it is not an infringement of liberty. The distinction of gift economics from modern society is primarily cultural, as well as because this could replace all existing state insitutions (taxes, etc.), this could abolish such institutions. If someone was my friend, and then I removed them from my existing circle of friends, that is not an infringement of liberty. If someone's actions are so disapproved of, they lose all their friends, (hence all gifts), that is still not an infringement of liberty. That is a pressure on freedom, but freedom to commit an action is different from Liberty (pardon the semantics, this is just how I use the terms). My subscription to the evolutionary theory of communism is different from that of Marx; when we started accumulating property that could be stored for long-term viable use (ie. Neolithic Revolution, then the Urban Revolution, and finally the Industrial Revolution, we needed any system of efficiently tracking things in order to implement such changes. However, society didn't have time to catch up to reform its institutions to fit with the problems and injustices that would eventually arise. How do I make you accept egalitarianism as a civic virtue? I don't. If you're not egalitarian, I can simply exclude you from my circle of friends, and move on, choosing to commune with friends that do. That is not an infringement of liberty - that is a personal choice - formation of a society of the willing. It is effectively, an economy of empathy, goodwill and friendship, in its most abstract sense.

It is also the only system that allows for intellectual products (property, perhaps) to be shared freely, because it is not consumed when it is distributed, only the cost of production. It is the only economy so far that provides incentive to create intellectual works and distribute them for the benefit of everyone, without encouraging parasitism. In a free market, horrifici institutions like copyright, patents, trade secrets and industrial design rights (and all the other forms of intellectual property) is required to protect the incentive of creating those intellectual products in the first place, with the horrible side effect that the entire economy could have benefitted during the time that access was restricted, slowing growth. In a gift economy this does not happen, because the concept of mutual benefit over strife, while providing a social obligation to support the producer of intellectual works, without crippling those who need those in the first place in order to break out of a vicious cycle. Software patents are one of my greatest peeves. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Question forom Janusz Karpinski

Hi, this is Janusz Karpinski. I am writing to you because you voted "keep" in AfD for aetherometry entry. The present situation is that by Wikipedia standards there is no reputable secondary literature at all about aetherometry. The minority view is contained only in primary sources, which do not even fulfill Wikipedia standards for scientific references, and there are no other publications, so there is no majority view. "Majority view" here does not mean view of majority of Wikipedia administrators, it means published and generally accepted view of outside scientific community. There is nothing like this for aetherometry. As result, nothing in entry can be properly verified or referenced. This is not how encyclopedia should work, and is against Wikipedia policy. Since you said that entry should be kept, you must have idea how entry can start to provide verifiable encyclopedic information when there are no existing secondary sources. How can this problem be solved? I think you cannot just say "keep" and leave to others dealing with this problem, which to me seems completely not solvable. Please, describe what your solution is, and how you will personally help make aetherometry entry honest, reputable and verifiable. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You edited the links in Internet Pornography.

I know that wikipedia is not a link-collection, but I don't think that any link should be considered link-spam, so I added the link to TGP-Shark - Porn Search Engine as i think that a page about internet pornography can't be complete without links to biggest search-engines and catalogs. I propose to leave the link and add at least one catalog and one rating site.

I think you are really wrong trying to clean-up any appearing link. Let's discuss it in Talk:Internet_pornography Elmagnon 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please help

Inanna has violated the 3RR on Turkish people using sockpuppets - please help. --Khoikhoi 02:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Aetherometry AfD

I have placed a kind word under your vote in the Aetherometry AfD. Please have a look. TTLightningRod 06:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment

Why don't you delve more into theology first before delving more into communism/annarcocommunism/-communism. =) I find it disturbing that Ammon Hennacy don't believe in a Hell when he professed to be a Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.177.46 (talk • contribs)

Ah, but they are complementary fields, so they can be investigated at the same time. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not?

We do have the authority to act against GFDL violations, as well as copyright violations of Wikimedia logos. Why isn't the class action site taken down yet? It clearly infringes on Wikipedia's trademark and copyright. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Most admins left no means of contact and the e-mail address left on the WHOIS leads to nowhere. When asking the host to shut it down, it requires DMCA, which is hard for many users like me to produce. -- WB 03:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Replying on Jimbo's page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I just replied here because his page is way too crowded and that question is somewhat already covered. Thanks. -- WB 03:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I would like to add this picture to the Battle of Adre, but I lack the knowledge on who to ask for permission, how to upload, and how to format. If possible, could you try and add this, or pass on the info to someone who could go through the process? Thanks, KI 21:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. These can be used under fair use provided a strong rationale is given, which I believe I have done so. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I recently started Alliance of Revolutionary Forces of West Sudan. Please improve it in any way you see fit. Thanks. KI 01:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As requested

As per your request for me to sound the alarm bells first before allowing an edit war to erupt, please do take a look at a page as innocent as Ang Mo Kio, where our best friend has decided to insist on adding languages into the info box when none existed before (just as it does not exist in other place name pages). I hereby request for your assistance and neccesary action. Thanks! (a request has also been posted at Wikipedia_talk:SGpedians'_notice_board#Edit_warring)--Huaiwei 18:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Internet pornography

Hello there! I'm writing to you as you've already been implicated in the editing of the article. Please check the history, then please check this user's contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.122.128.141 Thanks! --Vlad 18:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again & thanks for blocking that one. I've got a new candidate for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=65.57.106.37

Thanks --Vlad 18:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/70.182.219.158

I see you certified this RFC. This user's continuing to raise trouble, and it seems like you're familiar with his history. Could you keep an eye on him, and maybe raise the issue at WP:AN/I if necessary? Thanks, FreplySpang (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Licensing

Thanks for cleaning up my talk page. And concering Gnu stuff, no, I didn't follow up on it. Must have slipped off my mind. Thanks for sending the license violator a msg. __earth ^(Talk) 10:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Userpage box

Hey Nat. I'm FD2, and you probably know me from HG. The box on your homepage, the one located on at user:natalinasmpf/top, could I use parts of the coding for that on a page at Age of Wiki, the AOE3H scenario design Wiki? --68.161.113.61 13:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course. All of this, including my userspace edits are under the GNU Free Documentation License. It's not as if a software patent had been placed on them. Credits are actually to User:Mailer diablo anyway, I borrowed the original concept. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Defamation

I don't think you quite realise the hot water the Wikimedia foundation is in over defamation. I'm not saying much more, only that {{defamation-start}} and {{defamation-end}} are absolutely needed so we can flag sentences and paragraphs that have defamation. I'm afraid that {{totallydisputed}} just doesn't cut the mustard. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

about Categorizing Go images

Hi, thank you so much for your great contributions to Go templates and images. They are extremely useful! And you may consider to put the future go images into the category of "Go images". The reasons may be found at the Talk page for the Category of Go. Many thanks. --Neo-Jay 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! I also must credit User:Dalf and User:Gkhan, they've helped greatly too. Sorry I haven't got around to uploading the rest of the updated images for the new set, I see there were some Go problems being played out in a talk page, and I realised that when the extra numbers touched the sides it didn't match because those are a lot of images to maintain! I'm trying to reduce the amount of work now. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

I, COA, award the Barnstar of Diligence to Natalina for having "a harmonic combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service" (ok I admit it, I'm on a RAoK rush =P). Have a nice day! --COA 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Why thank you! I'll cherish your barnstar. :-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation on Turkish people

Hello, Tombseye has violated the 3RR on Turkish people - please help.

-Inanna-

I understand that you've been known to violate 3RR too. Do not expect a favourable reaction. I will nevertheless take a look. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

When they do,nothing will change.Are there diffrent standards for everyone? I have been blocked at once due to i have been provoked but i promise it wont be again.My all target is getting rich wikipedia as cultural and clear informations.Unfortunatley, two people try to change everything about my nation.They cant know better than me.Even they confessed that they are anti-Turkist.So how can we expect neutrality of them? I am always showing resources with information.I try to find best pictures to make here more enjoyable.But they are changing all the time and call me ultranationalist.I only work for the best.I believe you are a logical person and work for the best of wikipedia as i read.So let's dont give any chance to propagandists...

Yes I am willing to block for any 3RR violation, but that doesn't mean you would go unscathed too...as I see it the 3RR wasn't violated by them in this case. And assume good faith please, if they truly dislike your nation you can eventually bring this up to arbitration but the attitude that non-Turkish users can't know more about Turkey than you is not the way to go. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Can i report Khoikhoi please? He is insulting all the time.The last one was "hasta la vista, baby".Can you make a warning to him.I am sorry for that kinda events...

Sincerely

-Inanna-

Please help me Natalinasmpf. I have never insulted Inanna, and I find this comment especially disturbing. --Khoikhoi 05:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Both sides have legitimate content issues they want to bring up, but bring it up inappropriately. Khoikhoi, if you think you have been wronged, please don't take things into your own hands. Just contact another administrator without violating the 3RR rule yourself. I can hardly do a thing against just one of you because both sides have done wrong. I find -Inanna- more incivil but I also find her case more pressing. Both sides have their merits. I can perhaps, try to help you two come to an agreement, or take action against both of you, but I cannot do it for one alone. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Singapore Collaboration of the Fortnight

Hi Natalinasmpf, I wonder if you are interested to vote for or nominate articles for the Singapore Collaboration of the Fortnight. I'm hoping to get something started before the long weekend, thanks. --Vsion 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq

Thank you for attempt tpo compromise. I am however not willing to accept that factual information is blocked from this encyclopedia just because it is dominated by users who do not like their country to be presented as what it is, an aggressor. There are sources provided, and everyone knows it: Most legal experts agree that the invasion violated the UN Charter. Please use the talk page, too. 84.59.102.68 11:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As I am aware, those sources just present the fact that there many legal experts, rather than "most" perceive the invasion as a breach of international law. So hence the compromise. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

E. Résumé - To conclude, the decision of the BVerwG is in line with the predominant opinion on the legality of the war in Iraq amongst legal scholars not only from Germany, but also from the rest of the world. The author presents an overview of what legal experts throughout the world say. 84.59.102.68 12:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Military Conflict

Out of curiosity, what do you have in mind for the notes section? —Kirill Lokshin 01:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There are too many comments in the infobox at times concerning disputed figures and special circumstances. A notes section helps resolve this, so numbers can stay numbers. (I was trying to resolve Battle of Thermopylae). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Might it be possible to use regular footnotes instead? I'm a little worried that having this available will lead people to add paragraphs of commentary to an already large infobox ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It might work for many situations, but in Thermopylae itself I think it would break the flow somewhat. We would want to discourage wanton use, of course. I intend for it to be used in exceptional circumstances. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what everyone else says, then. Incidentally, I've fixed the template so the notes section doesn't break things. —Kirill Lokshin 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's the solution I was looking for. Thanks! Won't mind discussion. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've asked the rest of the project to comment here. —Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

4-Quadrant Coordinate System for Go Board

Hi, I create a 4-Quadrant Coordinate System for the Go board and just modified the template for Game of Go position. I think that it is much better than the current system. You may go to the Talk Page to discuss this. You opinions are very imporant since you are the main contributor to this template. Thank you very much. --Neo-Jay 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Orbit Eccentricity

Please note: the new exoplanet does not have a known eccentricity! The +/- is measurement and calculation uncertainty, not how much the orbit varies - Beowulf314159 01:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I initially thought it was average distance, then was confused at the wide range. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep - it makes sense to read it that way. It's how I would have read it coming into the article cold. Not your fault, those of us editing over the day should have realized it could be interpreted that way. - Beowulf314159 01:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Block this IP

Hi, just to bring it to your attention. This anon IP, 24.30.107.95 has been vandalising Barney & Friends by removing information from the article. Also, the anon has vandalised other Barney & Friends related articles. You may like to take a look at the anon's contributions page. Please block this IP address as it has been vandalising repeatedly. Thanks. --TerEnce Ong 05:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

your talk page

So I'm curious as to something on your user page. Also let me note I mean this in an inquisitive, not confrontational manner. Why do you view yourself as a communist, anarchist, and radical, at the young age of 15? It's very rare, very very rare, for people that age to not only have indepth, accurate knowledge of the government type, its histories and implementations around the world, and comparative governmental types of other countries around the world. Lets face it, 15 year olds are largely susceptible to influence from those around them, whether it be their parents (due to living under their roof), the government (due to not being able to leave, or not being fully citzens of majority age), or the media, friends, and other influences. You seem to be intelligent based off your user page, so I'll take a presumption that you're not one of those types who claims to be a communist or anarchist because it's "cool to fight the system" or such. That said, how did your choice come about? You can respond either here or on my talk, either way. Swatjester 10:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I object to the use of stereotypes. As ironic as it may seem, it is derived from my Christian faith, which encourages me to be compassionate and to be altruistic, and to seek socioeconomic justice. I am a Christian anarchist because the current human political institutions are unsatisfactory and promote injustice; a Christian communist dedicated to fulfilling individual's full potential. Then anarchist communism to unite the two.

Although to grasp these concepts seems a bit premature for my age, I think that is just a stereotype perpetuated due to the common assumption that ignorance is natural; it is my opinion that human authorities encourage such apathy and ignorance among the masses in order to maintain their power, and that everyone is capable of similar intellectual thought, albeit in different fields and interests. There are problems within society, and there are institutions to achieve certain functions. The key is to reform human organisation such that problems are resolved while still achieving functions.

For example, though natural rights are declared to be derived from natural order, it is also because it is a natural mutualistic agreement among individuals not to kill each other, not to steal frm each other, not to hurt each other, not to suppress each other's speech because it's so integral to the individual that it cannot be gambled away no matter what. That is how egalitarianism can be derived, or why even the most self-interested would be willing to respect natural rights. That is my justification. People consent to a government because it initially achieved a certain function, and tolerated its founding. A government with overeaching power can however use their existing power to continue to remain in power without having to serve its functions, and to alter or force consent, or sometimes operate without consent at all. An anarchist society forms a self-regulatory system which operates on consent with dedication to never elevate one individual's political power more than the other in order to prevent agglomeration of political power and therefore abuse (thereby principles of direct democracy are preferred to representative ones; but this may form a tyranny in itself, and therefore there are other ways, such as the continued derivation of natural rights, in order to prevent majoritarianism).

My choice came about through my analysis of government and my search for one that would help every individual reach his or her potential, which also means of course, as much liberty as possible without infringing the liberty of others, while at the same time, recognising that a culture of private property encourages those with existing power to agglomerate economic power, translate it into political power and use it against others to sustain a positive feedback loop to suppress others. Thereby, while rights of private property are in place, a culture of gift economics discourages hoarding and private property. I compare it to the right to quit your job; it must be there in order to prevent abuse; but it's not something you would necessarily want to exercise regularly. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your statement ". An anarchist society forms a self-regulatory system which operates on consent with dedication to never elevate one individual's political power more than the other in order to prevent agglomeration of political power and therefore abuse (thereby principles of direct democracy are preferred to representative ones; but this may form a tyranny in itself, and therefore there are other ways, such as the continued derivation of natural rights, in order to prevent majoritarianism)." confuses me. How does an anarchistic society form ANY system without losing its status as a true anarchy? The same question applies to a dedication to never elevate one's individual political power over someone.....By doing this, enforcing an artificial limitation on one's personal advancement for any reason is intrinsicly anathema to a true anarchistic system, which is why an anarchistic system does not work. I understand anarchy means without government in it's etymological sense, but the fact is without some sort of organization between peoples, (which automatically creates government by the consent of the governed), people will take advantage of one another, thus destroying the system. People are not all good. The concept of the id lies in all people, and it makes many of us greedy, powerhungry, materialistic, etc, all things that an organized system of government can counter through rule of law and jurisprudence. Anarachism's look good on paper, just like most forms of extreme socialism (to the point of communism), but in practice have ended up horribly both on the large scale (Soviets) and the small scale (kibbutzim). People take pride in success, and having artificial limits emplaced on their future should disgust most people (I say should because there are artificial limits such as ignorance and apathy that should disgust people but don't.) Furthermore, people want to better themselves, which is part of that which makes us human. And, most people want reassurance that the fruit of their labors won't be taken from them by a coercive force: be it another person, or a government.

I'm going to look and see if I can't find my lecture notes from my Public Policy Decisions in Political Economics class, they'd help explain my point a lot better, and they'd be a hell of a lot better research source for a 15 year old than the crap they give you in high school (in america, or whatever your last tier of mandatory education is there in singapore.) Oh, and I wasn't trying to stereotype you either, that's why I approached this with an open mind rather than ridiculing you for your beliefs. I had beliefs when I was 15 that socialism was an ideal form of government. By the time I was 18, I grew apathetic towards goverment. By the time I turned 20 I became a believer in free-market-based capitalistic democracy. At 23, I still believe in it, though with an edge back towards regulation as a governmental policy tool to control market surges both good and bad. My point is, each of these shifts in ideology was gained from a marked growth in personal maturity and life experience. At 15, I lived with my parents, read a lot, studied things. I was smarter than most of my classmates and friends, but I was incredibly naive about the world. At 18, I moved out of the house. By then I'd traveled much of Europe, Russia, Canada, and the americanized tourism spots in Central America. By the time I turned 23, I'd enlisted into the US Army, been sent to Iraq and fought in the war, taken 5 years of college courses, served 4 years in the military, and gained a much deeper and better level of thinking. I thought I was mature at 15, and perhaps I was, for my age. But comparing myself, hell, even my classmates now to how I was back then and it's a million years of difference. That's where I come from with my question, and sorry for making you think you were stereotyped. Swatjester 11:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is culture, as opposed to guaranteed rights. Preventing majoritarianism is a conscious decision by each individual; they will consider minority interests because they have minority interests in other issues as well. The artificial limitation isn't enforced so much as very wary for....agglomeration of power that will probably be used for suppression is likely to attract ostracism (which is again a right of each individual to stop associating with another, even if done in concert). It's not a limitation on personal advancement - it just means there are no permanaent political leaders, nor do we choose representatives; citizens are politically equal to each other as much as possible. For example, in today's society, today's citizens can't vote whether to accept Alito; it's up to their representatives.

I have dealt with many of these arguments before (in fact, I outlined some of the rebuttals above to Gibby, as naturally I encountered them when I first brought them up to my peers). Again, a distinction is made between culture, and right. I support property rights, but I sanction a culture which is highly hostile towards private property and citizens which keep to themselves, and are highly suspicious of those that do not cooperate, and those who agglomerate power ... as their fruits of their labour support those that they approve of, in a gift economy they can withdraw their fruits of their labour to certain people, in a concerted effort in an act of ostracism - the effect is more pronounced in a gift economy. I've lived in the United States for six years so I can ascertain the different systems and it has affected my way of thinking. At this moment I'm drafting a petition for the redress of grievances to my government. I don't expect it to be seriously considered, but I intend to use it as a rallying cry. My form of socialism is cultural, utilising a gift economy; and it is the culture of collective property formed on the basis of the guaranteed natural rights to one's fruit of labour that makes all the difference, and ensures a golden mean between the two issues. This applies for majoritarianism as well. I'm a eudaimonist, so... Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes but at what age did you live in the US? I lived there when I was 8, but I didn't know crap about the governmental form as a comparative organization. Swatjester 13:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

From ages 5-11. My mother was a political science graduate, anyway, so yes, a lot of it came from my parents but my mother is left-leaning centrist, not libertarian socialist. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahem... sorry for the intrusion. I shudder to think what a political science graduate does in Singapore... Churn out propaganda? :D Sorry for the bad joke, happy CNY! -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Software glitch

I found out that the citation problem was a software bug, which has being resolved, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Cite.php_bug. For quite a while, I tot my pc kena virus or something. Thanks for your help trying to overcome it. Oh ... and Happy New Year! 万事如意! --Vsion 10:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy CNY

Happy Chinese New Year, Natalina! 祝你新年快乐，万事如意！Happy New Year again, have a wonderful Year of the Dog! NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财 everyone! 11:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy Chinese New Year

Hi, 新年快乐，万事如意。身体健康，学业进步. Have a prosperous and a great new year.

Cheers! --TerEnce Ong (恭喜发财) 13:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why thanks! Gong Xi Fa Cai to both of you too! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year, and a problem report for the Template of Game of Go position

Happy New Year! I like to take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation for your great contributions to Go templates! By using the template of Game of Go position, it will be very easy and convenient for us to record a Kifu (棋谱). However, I found a problem for it when adding number bigger than 10. If you can take some time to have a look at it at the talk page: 3.5 Number and Kifu Problem , that would be great. Thank you so much again. --Neo-Jay 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Known limit - I've elaborated on talk page. Sin Yen Kwai Le! Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Links in formulas

Hi. Thank you for your fixes at Fourier series. I have only one comment. I, and a few other mathematicians, believe that it is not good style to embed links in formulas, like this:

e^{i x}

If those numbers e and i are indeed crucial to the formula, and not referenced anywhere, I think a better thing to do would be to just say

e^ix (see e (mathematical constant) and complex number for the definitions of e and i).

I understand that it is longer, but I would argue that it is preferable, as in formulas, links are hard to see, and somewhat distracting. Just my two cents. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tried an alternative means similar to what you proposed. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstars

We award this Barnstar Cluster to Natalinasmpf for an amazing body of work that serves as an example for us all. – Guettarda, RoyBoy, Samsara, KillerChihuahua 07:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

We just wanted to present you with this award in recognition of the great work you are doing here. Your work is appreciated.

Wow, thanks! :D Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on these topics

Hi, if you have not noticed that Singapore Airlines flight numbers and Singapore Airlines fleet have been nominated for WP:AFD and merging respectively. Please do take a look at the following discussions (Singapore Airlines flight numbers AFD page and the talkpage of Singapore Airlines to have your opinion. Thanks. --TerEnce Ong (恭喜发财) 15:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I voted keep on both. Thanks for the notice. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your intent

I am still learning wiki. I will be glad to glance at the history here though. You might fill me in a little on your intent so I can cooperate with you.

128.111.95.210 04:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My intent is to allow room for article development. In time, we will have more articles on animal societies, or view of incest by other cultures. In time, many other cultures will read Wikipedia; therefore I am just dealing with this clash as early as possible, citing this is a Western (often majority) view. I like to specifically define things, so all forms and all views of incest have to be accomodated, otherwise it would be simply "incest in Western cultures" or "incest in humans", which would be unsatisfactory. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I can easily cooperate with you on this. I notice you are from Singapore. I am currently at a West Coast Univ that brings in a lot of speakers from South East Asia. One female survivor, from India I believe, gave a long talk here about incest which is common there. I also notice some male authors (Mike Lew) going around the world and connecting incest stories in many western and non-western cultures. I was struck by how common many of these stories are although I know you have a sound point that each culture sees things differntly and that we in the West have no right to impose our ideas on others. How can I cooperate with you here? I do intend to and try to define things with simple dictionary definitions but sometimes this is impossible. For example, it is known now (by sex researchers) that women can and do rape men but no sign of that shows up in most dictionaries so sometimes I struggle with defining such 'new' ideas. As for animals I am all for learning from them and showing animal behavior here. I do however get very disgusted by edit wars on this article's talk page that seem to ignore the real human issues here. I am a subject of Mother-Son covert incest and it has been hell to overcome her loathsome 'love' and to be heard as a human being in the Stalinist Gender Feminist falsehood cloud that is only now being broken in the US. May I suggest a glance at the new links I have added at the top of the External links to see why incest is so serious to me and others who know this subject much, much, much to well? Again I will do what I can to meet your goals above as well. I value assistance with editing and new ideas. I ask for patience and careful thoughtful dialogue to capture what I mean in words that make sense to you and that fit well here. 128.111.95.240 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As for ('social/emotional' rape), here is my intent. I intended to show the outcome of incest first and then HOW it is accomplished by force or by coercion. The outcome is rape of the persons physical and or psychological being. It is an act of despoiling a country in warfare, the CRIME of forcing a woman to have sex against her will, the act of forcing to have sex, and to destroy and strip of it's possession 'The soldiers raped the beautiful country" (syn despoil, violate, and plunder. Parental incest is rape by a parent using force or deception usually deception because children trust so much. The end result is to destroy and strip the child of his or her internal possessions. I want to show this outcome here in tight, specific words that reflect the horror of parental incest.

Men usually rape physical sexuality. Women usually rape psychological sexuality and this is barely known outside research circles. I hope to hold mothers who incest no less accountable than fathers who incest by using the same word for both which is rape. To those who suffer such crimes the consequences are similar. I did 10,000 plus hours plus of trauma transformation to be able to write this here with some sense of clarity. I intend to show that mothers can be vicious perpetrators here too so that young sons can protect themselves and so that we can begin to call these crimes...crimes too.

Please glance at the External links and suggest how I can handle this in a way the feels good to you and is potent and specific too.

128.111.95.240 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging here. I don't know the answer either. I like the second sentence now but i want to tighten up that first sentence. I need to show a distinction between physical rape of a child which is illegal incest (not statutory rape) and psychological/emotional/social rape which is as far as I know legal. The basic intent here is right but the legal terms confuse things. What do you suggest?

128.111.95.210 05:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus Middle Education School????

Never heard of the name before. I rather we just call it CHIJMES, sounds very long. Easier to remember too. :) --TerEnce Ong (恭喜发财) 09:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

United States Congressmen RFC

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. At first, I didn't realize I was dealing with a government IP address, and simply placed a standard {{3RR}} warning for disruptive behavior. I might not be able to watch this dispute closely (clerking is taking up most of my Wiki-time these days) but I wish you all the best in getting it sorted out. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha I clicked your link, that's just despicable. KI 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Coxey's Army

Could you add the image from [4] to Coxey's Army? If not, a quick yahoo! image search yields many applicable pictures for the page. Thanks. KI 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It's a pretty old image, so I think it's copyright expired. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me get images! If it's possible (legally) could you upload the picture from here for Organization for Community Supported Sustainable Agriculture in Chad or any of the three pictures here for the Toupta Bougena page? I hope to one day get pictures for all pages related to the Chadian-Sudanese conflict. KI 02:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I noticed there's no picture for the capital city N'Djamena. Perhaps here? The only problem with this picture is the resolution sucks. KI 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Missed this. Replying on talk page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

L'Internationale, sera la genre humain...

Hey Nata, how much do you know about The Internationale? I'm thinking of massively working on bringing my favourite song of all time to FAC, so I'd be needing help... Think you might be able to? Oh and if you happen to have any outlandish, weird or rare renditions of the Internationale... I want it. :D (I think you mentioned a Somalian version once, funny considering Somalia is in anarcho-capitalist heaven (or hell depending on your POV) right now...) :p -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood

I would just like it to go on the record, that User:Instantnood appears to be igniting an old debate and continuing to do revert edits in [5], fresh out of a 7-day ban.--Huaiwei 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wrong Tree

You are barking up the wrong tree. Your fight should not be with capitalism, but with how capitalism has been implemented thus far. So far it has been under the strong arm of big centralized authority...aka heavy regulation and interference. It is this interference that creates regressive costs that hurt the poor and make things like property ownership difficult for them...and subsequently makes it very difficult to build wealth and remove oneself from poverty.

The answer is not communism, it is free market limited government reform of capitalism. This allows you to eliminate poverty not by shuffling existing wealth but by generating new wealth...you do it by making all members of society capitalists. This is achieved, and can only be achieved, by reducing governments ability to pick winners and losers in society…aka the elimination of its current heavy interferences and regulations.

I suggest you pick up Hernando De Soto's book "The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Works in the West and Fails Everywhere Else" It should be an eye opener for you.

Your fight is not with capitalism...its with big government.

Free markets and limited government are the only way to generate enough wealth for society to effectively combat poverty. Please take time to read this book and others on these theories, you should find them to be very compelling...and hopefully you will, like I once did, abandon the old backward thoughts and beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs)

I have seen how government intervention and regulation makes it harder to acquire property, as well I've seen that it makes it at many times, easier, although not always. But that is not my complaint, I am not a fan of government regulation, although it serves a function, so I have proposed mechanisms (or Kropotkin has, rather) which serves to replace them without its authoritarian problems.

However, that is not the main issue with the problems with wealth creation. Even without government regulation, it would still be hard to acquire property. "Limited capitalism" is an oxymoron, because in order to limit the extent of the capitalists using their existing wealth to start coercing others to create their own government system, then government regulation has to take place.

It's the nature of capitalism itself, to use existing wealth to create more wealth (investment), but a small minority already controls most of the wealth (as seen by wealth distribution in the United States), thus controlling the means of wealth creation. I tend to follow the libertarian school of thought in terms of government, but I'm a collectivist, that is, voluntary collectivism and thus I don't want to participate in a capitalist society, I do want to participate in a society with property rights, but in a culture of cooperation and collectivism, and where money isn't necessary for participation. Gift economics. The rights in fact do not differ from the "limited capitalist society" you say, but the culture is totally different. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your "nature" of capitalism is completly wrong.

Wealth "concentrated" in the hands of a few people, may not be bad. If you operate in, at the very least, a semi free economic system where transactions are voluntary then someone can increase their wealth by 1000% while the vast majority only increase by 1% and no one is worse off, exploited, or hurt by the process.

Your system is complete fantasy, property is a must. Wages, money, and prices are a must. Without them there is only altruisitc faith than only you and a few others share. No one will have any incentives to produce anything.

Ask any NORMAL person. Ask them if given free goods for all needs, would they work?

THEY WILL NOT.

Your system defies rational behavior. (Gibby 01:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Christians will, if they want to make a difference. Those altruistically ambitious will. If the vast majority only increase by 1%, but they age a 100 years, then yes, they are worse off, because they have wasted their lives. While they increase by 1% they lose 2% of their life. Besides, they may not even increase by 1% - they just remain at subsistence and never increase, for generations. Property rights are a must, but a culture of private property is not. I do not argue against property rights, I chide a culture of private property and transactions based on petty pieces of coloured, signed and government approved paper. Property rights may be a must, but my use of wages, money or prices are not. You can't force people to use money if they do not want to. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you bother to hear yourself speak or watch yourself type? Serious... Altruism will not bring everyone together to produce. Your system is seriously flawed at very basic economic levels.

No incentives, denial of supply and demand....

I would be more than happy to create a social experiment where you could govern your own altruistic city state and I could get my own free market city state. You would quickly learn that your society would become backward and backwater. Real live social experimination is the only way you'll believe because rational arguements have not converted you from your faith. You have also yet not proven that you are willing to read the work of authors in disagreement with your and possibly your parents own beliefs. (Gibby 08:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Oh please. I would be glad to contest you on that. Give me that social experiment. And stop saying "I govern"; obviously this would happen only with an anarchist communist society. Gathering a bunch of anarchist communists is exactly what I intend to do. My parents are centrist; please stop implicating them in this discussion. You keep generalising altruistic economies; and in fact you just stare in disbelief, but don't actually read the argument. There exists an incentive in a gift economy (did you read?), and supply and demand takes the form of catering to other individual's needs and requests and using discernment; the problem is economy of scale (you should google "monkeysphere"), not incentive. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is economy of scale a problem? Again, there is no incentive beyond altruisim and coercision. There will be no supply in your community unless its filled with altruists or coersion. As no one will produce. There will be a great deal of demand, initially, as everyone moves to grab what they can...unless of course they are altruists or you shot the hoarders. The incentive structure for a gift economy is arranged in such a way as to encourage as little production and as much consumption as possible.

The only way it can survive is by coercion and altruism with barter trade with the outside world. No go read that free book I gave you a link for (Gibby 17:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Also take a look at your "shining" examples of gift economies....native peoples of the north american continent. People who never developed iron tools, the wheel, the arch, (all developed in Asia, Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East more than 2 millenia before) and only accomplished a written language in the last two centuries...the fact that they exchange gifts and engaged in barter and never developed a money system, market exchange, or delt with economic competition of any kind may be a very important variable in explaining why they were so technologically backward.

Your going to end up just as backward as the native peoples of the American continent. (Gibby 20:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

What? I think you're being the blind one here. The whole principle is reciprocal altruism; which is _not_ as intangible or abstract as you are led to believe. Altruism is a virtue; although the extent of course has a golden mean. I appreciate your modernist, western attacks against other civilizations (I especially liked how you called Malay kampungs poor thank you very much!) They never developed the wheel because they never had the need for a pack animal, the horse went extinct in North America - at the very most you ignore the early Christian collectives. My shining example of a gift economy? Linux.

Consumption also fuels production; much so than in a market economy, because the incentive is there to maximise the existing inflow as much as possible (or people would not have bothered anyway!). The other thing is that you are also very rude - do you know, you're better off using the Socratic method, but your lack of civility is why you antagonise everybody, I guess. Have you seen Wikipedia:Assume bad faith yet? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A whole society of people who pursue amenity values...no that is not workable. Try reading some material counter to your own beliefs for once...its called intellectual competition.

Consumption only fuels production because there is a reward for production, your system provides no reward but an amenity value. That just isnt good enough for a large society.

Read the free book I gave you the website for and start learning some real facts. (Gibby 04:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

Try to actually be civil for once. As for the free book, it's more like a pamphlet. One that uses ALLCAPS. Mutual benefit provides a greater incentive than mutual strife, which does encourage people to do the best in their ability but in the process of strife some of the potential is destroyed. Goodwill can bring out the incentive to do the best without destroying the potential. Market economies necessitate things like the use of software patents, which are abohrrent, and destroy innovation. I've read Ayn Rand, Coulter, et al. They bring better arguments than what has been brought up so far, (although I think there are social institutions can replace the aforementioned drive in capitalism). You make all these generalisations. It isn't just an amenity value - giving gifts to the community increases the ability of the community to give back to you, just as freely, on the principle of implicit reciprocity. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Its an actual book, its published, but now its free on the web because Dr. Reed is pursuing an amenity value of teaching people about economics...likely teaching them things they didnt even know.

You have so many economic fallacies you really need to read this book...and then read a few others I can make a list. Your engaging in these economic fallacies because you only have been exposed to one side of the story and have never really bothered to learn all the facts.

1. The free market capitalist structure provides great incentives for cooperation...again take the pencil example. All these strangers come together to make a pencil for each others mutual benefit...and they never have to meet. Profit is a powerful motivator to get people to cooperate for one anothers benefit, producer, laborer, capital owner, and consumer.

Pencils aren't exactly a booming industry, but anyway. Competition discourages competitors from sharing their ideas, and the initial cost becomes a hindrance. Generally, initial cooperation without requiring the use of price will encourage more economic growth in the long run, because products can be taken to be invested without the initial requirement to compensate for cost (which will eventually be reciprocated), rather than the slight transaction of minimal cooperation. Of course, we have to quantify the actual example if you want to prove anything. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

no pencils are something that are relativily simple and the loss of them wouldnt be all that major to society, aka they are insignificant, and as such your society couldnt even produce them.

Your society will have no economic growth because there is no incentive for production, effeciency, or innovation.

2. Patents and intellectual property law protect the incentive to innovate not destroy it. Without protecting peoples inventions they cannot make profit off the invention. If they cannot make profit they are not really likely to invent anything...THERE IS NO REWARD FOR THE HARD WORK AND CREATIVITY

Really, patenting scrollbars, then charging open source programmers every time they use it in their programs, help protect innovation? Copyrights are tolerable (it just is being uncooperative, but doesn't restrict the ability of others to come up with concepts themselves), but software patents are especially worse. I can think up of a concept independently (mind you, much of programming is mathematics), but I cannot use it because someone apparently has patented it, never mind the lack of cooperation. Furthermore large businesses usually do not care about granting open source projects (being involved in several myself) permission even with royalties paid.

yes copywriting and patenting protect intellectual property and provide the necessary incentive for innovation by protecting information. Learn that and you may stop some of your economic fallacies.

3. Ayn Rand is fiction and Ann Coulter is a loudmouth journalist...read something else like Brink Lindsey, Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek or this freaking free book I gave you.

4. Believing that giving gifts to the community makes it more likely to community can give back to you requires nothing more than faith. It is not economics its religion. It requires other true believers or lots of guns, there is no way of getting around that. You will not accept that because you are a stubborn true believer yourself. You will only believe it once your own society falls flat on its face. Gift economies are nothing more than delayed barter, and as such it is a highly innefcient and very risky economic arrangement. One with little to no incentives to produce, no incentives toward innovation, and a great deal of incentives toward hoarding.

Faith? Like this project? Assuming good faith is a virtue, and one can deal with those who abuse it later. I'm not particularly paranoid about it; like this project, it can be dealt with the way one deals with vandals. Gift economies are not "delayed barter" because the reciprocity required is not explicit, but implicit. There generally are accepted incentives for production; that is altruistic reciprocation, in addition to abstract goodwill. The incentive for innovation has also been shown through open source projects like Mozilla and Linux. Why would people want to hoard when it absolutely does them no good whatsoever, and it is not within their immediate need? You assume it's a capitalist or someone who is trying to take advantage who joins - however, they would not be interested to join the initial project in the first place, which is why a base culture can be set up. As the society grows people may want to take advantage of it, and hence mechanisms like ostracism can arise later. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No i'm not talking about good faith. I'm talking about religious faith, thats what you have when it comes to gift economies. In religion you believe in something that cannot be proven, that is faith. With economics you believe in something which is proven to not work and you are even unable to prove it actually does, this is also faith. Faith is generally a logical disconnect between facts and fiction, where you fill fiction where facts do not meet up.

5. There is nothing left but generalizations to argue with a true believer you wont accept anything anyway. Besides its all based in rational choice theory and you cant even skate around the logical failures of how your system does not provide incentives for rational beings beyond altruism (for example...HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE EVERYONE AN ALTRUISTIC TRUE BELIEVER LIKE YOURSELF?) (Gibby 04:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

Because we need to quantify something. I'm not skating about the issue: the incentives are provided in the article itself. I don't think you have read it if you think "there is no incentive other than sth sth". You may contest whether the incentive is effective, but I have yet to see you bring it up. On the long run, altruism benefits more people in the long run - and thus people will join based on this concept, and those who are dedicated towards doing away with market economics. It will firstly attract other anarchists, or other Christians, then the masses once they see how it works on a small scale. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no, altruisim only benefits those who have it. 90% of the people are motivated by self interest this is best served through a price system in a system of free market economics where the self interest acts in segments of voluntary transactions. Profits are thus motivations to do what society wants while still serving your own self interest.

I would love to see you get your little economic arrangement so you can finally realize what a failure it is and, more importantly how you will have to engage in barter trade to get any product worthwhile into your community.

Thanks!

Natalina, that Effects of incest section is very cool now. Thanks for showing me how to wikify. Thanks for the rewording and rephrasing too. I am beginning to see the power of this wiki process. Anacapa 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Read this please

You said you only read free books. Here is a free book. This is not spam. Stop being a stubborn closed minded true believer. Please read this.

http://www.ou.edu/class/econ3003/area1b.htm

Yes, but why do I have to read a university lecture of stuff I already know from existing articles on Wikipedia? I don't have to do deal with the systemically biased Western slant either. Well, less so anyway. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop the closed minded bullshit. You are so closed minded its unbelievable. You know nothing, and you dont bother trying to even learn anything. Read the book and stop giving this bullshit about western slants that does not fly in real debates. Read the book.

The author types in ALLCAPS, uses clichéd, sarcastic language. I hope you don't expect me to treat the book with high praise and call it "insightful". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The book was written for non economic people like yourself...to be nice...its dumbed down....yet remains insightful because it is easy to understand. Read the book, even though its not academic like Capitalism and Freedom (which you will never read because you'll have to buy it), it is nevertheless based on the same microeconomic principles and as such will rip anything you have to shreads and destroy all your economic fallacies with a fresh (and correct) way of viewing economics. Just read the book. (Gibby 04:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

I've skimmed through most of the chapters. I am unimpressed. It doesn't give me any insights, new equations or principles (especially that part about job training). For the last time, if there's a better url than "econ 3003" then yes, I will probably be more enthusiastic. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The book takes alittle longer than 20 minutes to read. You havnt even bothered. Its a free book for godsake...but then again I'm not surprised. When somethign is free you have very little incentive to make full use of it. if you had to buy the book you would likey read it and try to understand it to get your full utility out of it. You may not read the book but thanks for helping prove the logical economic failure of free education. (Gibby 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

Rather, I have more things to do with my free time, like going on RC patrol and reverting vandals. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Gift Economy Failures

How do you expect your society to get automobiles? Gasoline? Computers?

Not sure if you saw this...

From the Coxey's Army section above... "Thanks for helping me get images! If it's possible (legally) could you upload the picture from here for Organization for Community Supported Sustainable Agriculture in Chad or any of the three pictures here for the Toupta Bougena page? I hope to one day get pictures for all pages related to the Chadian-Sudanese conflict. KI 02:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)" KI 15:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

edits/loaded words

Both suggestions make sense to me. I will watch the loaded words. I am new to wikipedia. Can you explain what happens when we both edit at the same time? I do often attempt to do a whole edit only to lose it because of simulaneous edits. That is why I learned to do it in smaller pieces.

Anacapa 01:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Years...

Hey! i haven't read everything on your page, but you seem in big trouble girl!!! 15 years old from Singapour, Christian Anarchist, probably a bit too smart, and, beside, lover of classical music, and you still have time to "attempt reasoning" people from the US congress! And I thought being 3 800 years old was a bit too young... Keep it on! Tazmaniacs

Actually, i well may read it all... "Those altruistically ambitious will..." is a jewel! Tazmaniacs

By the way, if you're interested in left-wing politics, have a look at Operation Gladio and Propaganda Due, and consider well the role of people like Licio Gelli, Stefano Delle Chiaie or... Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger. Operation Condor anyone?... I do not know how things have been in Asia, but here as it was in Europe & South America. + read Giorgio Agamben & Louis Althusser ! -- I forgot Clearstream scandal...Tazmaniacs