User talk:Graft
THERE IS NO NEED TO SAY LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST ON THE ANARCHIST PAGE EXCEPT TO SPECIFICALLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TWO OR TO LINK TO LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST.
There are a lot of changes you aren't even addressing. The original page is still about several different types of anarchism. Have you actually read my changes? Its not about more than several different types of anarchism. Apparently the objectionable thing I have done is replace most of the spots where it once said, "libertarian socialist" with "anarchist" afterall it IS the anarchist page, No?
Somebody said I added, 'Anarchists loathe capitalism'...IT WAS ALREADY THERE-Why are you people criticizing me for improving this document that they aren't even familiar with?
A lot would be accomplished if you would explain what is wrong with my changes? I have done nothing that I could see as being in the least bit controversial. All that has been said to me is that Im not allowed to change the anarchist page to being about anarchism rather than libertarian socialism.
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, some other biologists have been working together on WikiProject Tree of Life. The content on that page is a bit dated because we have switch to creating tables with taxonomic info. Examples: Sainfoin, Hominid, Arthropod, and Monera (there are different colors for each kingdom. For more info visit Talk:Hominid. Cheers! --maveric149
thanks for catching my mistakes/sloppiness! Slrubenstein
No sir-you are being to quick to revert changes-my version of the anarchist page states quite clearly in the first few paragraphs that libretarian socialism is a synonym of anarchism and to make things clear it lists numerous other synonyms-however
And i do mean
However
The page is called anarchism
There is a difference between anarchism and libretarian socialism (although a slight one). There is a seperate page for libreatarian socialism.
My edits were not only clearing that issue up but discussing the geographic locations of anarchism, the historical contexts, spelling, and like edits
You need to take a little bit of time and discuss before deleting changes
Above was from Lir. I lowered the volume a bit, but I basically agree, Graft. Be a little nicer, okay? --Ed Poor
On second thought, with the chaos I saw on the anarchy page, I can understand your frustration. But reverts which don't satisfy others just lead to re-reverts, which lead to re-re-reverts, and then we would have total anarchy. The irony would be delicious, if we all weren't so frustrated! --Ed Poor
Might I suggest you read the page (the version I reverted) and then get back to me.
- Sure, I'm what the Washington Post calls an "easily led" Christian. ;-) --Ed Poor
I put the reference you were asking for over on Talk:PNA, hope Scientific American is enough to at least provide a lead to a real paper. :) Bryan
Re: Kotoku Shusui
Thanks -- I plan to do a lot more on anarchists from Japan and Cuba, for a start. Writing it as a wikipedia article is a great way to learn. I hope to start articles on the anarchist movement in various countries, especially ones where its not so well known. -- Sam
I've heard that's good, but I've never seen it either. I actually kinda liked The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air when I was about ten or eleven. At least he didn't pretend to be serious or an artist or anything. Tokerboy 18:55 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)
Re: fascism on Wikipedia. Having been involved in a couple of edit wars myself, I've seen how the free-wheeling openness of Wikipedia can degenerate into some bitter feuds. I've found that one way to deal with this is not to focus my time here solely on a few ultra-serious, controversial subjects. For me, it's a lot of fun to go around looking at more light-hearted topics that I like to write about (movies, music, comic books, etc.) and touching up on those entries, in between the occasional writing about more serious topics (the Holocaust revisionism stuff, for instance). It helps lighteen up my time here. -- Modemac
Graft, there has been some talk about making it impossible for non-logged-in users to flag large edits as "minor edits" -- in fact, not letting them use the "minor edit" flag at all. --Ed Poor
Hi, I sorta tried to answer one of your old comment on Talk:Biological cell. I may have entangled myself though :-) user:anthere
No problem about Dresden,Graft. I never though you were interested in anything but a more accurate article. The others really insulted me (rather than disputing with me in a generally civilzed manner), but I'm sure they are lining up to apologize right now. Tom Parmenter, aka Ortolan88
When you include negative info on Kissinger, please remember to do so in a neutral way. That is, do it so that the Wikipedia doesn't seem to be endorsing or opposing any view about Kissinger. Sure, I know you think he's the biggest war criminal and nogoodnik since Hitler (or maybe worse), but try not to come right and say that in the article.
Instead, say that X doesn't regard Henry as gifted, and Y called him a war criminal. --Ed Poor
Hi, thanks for the encouraging comments. Sequence alignment is my main thing, so I'll probably edit it some more, extend it etc. -MockAE
Dropped you an e-mail before I realized I was responding to you. Ortolan88
Hi Graft, it seems that 168 has been deleting huge quantities of talk from the Gene page. My understanding is that old material should be archived, not deleted. I'd like to give 168 the benefit of the doubt and think that he is not a vandal, but just did not know policy. I have restored all the deleted talk. But I recognize that the page may be getting too long for some servers to handle easily. This seems to be the problem for 168; I did a preliminary archive. But would you mind reviewing the page and archiving what you believe is appropriate? There continues to be some debate of the dogma, and I wouldn't want to archive too much; I'd trust your judgement, Slrubenstein