Welcome!

Hello, Sarsaparilla, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Technically there is no WikiProject namespace; WikiProjects are in the Wikipedia namespace. Therefore, I've moved your page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not taunt other users. Picaroon (t) 01:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done this user any favors by reverting my changes to his userspace. You've just made it more likely that he will have to have all of his userspace deleted, and have to rebuild it all from nothing. The material you're defending isn't going to stay in his userspace; it's a blatant violation of WP:USERPAGE, and the only reason it hadn't been already removed is that the admins were respecting the MfD process which had already begun. But there is no chance of it staying; the only choice is whether the pages will be edited, or deleted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that you are trying to make a WP:POINT by adding the following text to the above policy: "Example: "Mzoli's Meats is a butcher shop and restaurant located in Guguletu township near Cape Town, South Africa." Please stop. KnightLago (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He/she/it (I hate sex-neutral usernames) is trying to make a point, sure. But since nothing is being disrupted in the process, there's nothing wrong with making that point in that manner. So don't worry about it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting a controversial quote into a policy to prove a point and then re-adding it after it has been removed is disruption. KnightLago (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one or two people don't like it does not make doing it disruptive. I would submit that removing something added in good faith without evidence of any sort of consensus that it does not belong is much more disruptive. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your reasoning is that consensus has already been established as CSD is policy. Therefore, adding a controversial quote to prove a point, and then re-adding it is disruption and against consensus. If this editor truly believes the quote belongs there I encourage them to go to CSD's talk page and suggest its inclusion. KnightLago (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your post here: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Prester_John_(2nd_nomination)

The page was deleted, even though I fail to see any consensus on that.

Hence I have asked for a review.

Please share your thoughts here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_6#User:Prester_John

Sincerely, --Law Lord (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a wikipage on RTI.So your page on Right_of_Information has been proposed for deletion. Please make sure that you aren't adding recurring information. Instead add redirects to the existing page. --Ankithreya! 11:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Tattling, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Tattling is an article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (or Miscellany for deletion), where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded (CSD A5).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Tattling, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Uno unpalogo.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Just don't give a fuck requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Travis^talk 04:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Anders B. Johnsson, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ipu.org/strct-e/sg.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.fd.uc.pt/CI/CEE/OI/OCDE/OCDE-Convencao_EN.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Anders B. Johnsson, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders B. Johnsson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. — Coren ^(talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took your suggestion and tried this out. Would this work for you? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Busy day; I lost track of where you posted about that new page on the current talk page. Can you start a new, more prominent thread at the bottom of the talk page so it won't be missed? Since it's the holidays, a lot of editors aren't keeping up. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better; I had lost track of it, and assume others will also fall behind over the holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Frorority, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Frorority. Justinm1978 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like me to create that barn star i can, it would be no problem. Sirkad_talk 23:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to tell them this. We did however create a wikia, its still under construction but im going to put an article on there about how to make a barnstar. Heres the link if you want it. http://codesnippets.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page (i'll get the barnstar to you later, its time to do christmasy things. Cheers and merry christmas.) Sirkad_talk 23:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images cannot be used in signatures per WP:SIG, especially animated or potentially controversial ones. Please tone it down. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 03:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Eric Motley, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Eric Motley. Mbisanz (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:

What the fuck?

End quote

This is what you said on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Vintei/shop Please be polite. And uh, please don't take out your USA ans start showing-off.-- Vintei  Talk  15:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, my bad.-- Vintei  Talk  15:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for keeping your cool here with this response (to the above): [1]. And kudos for this imaginative comment: [2]. Hope you had a nice Christmas! Have an excellent New Year's too! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel. Mbisanz (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel. Thank you. Mbisanz (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thomas Carl Rustici, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Carl Rustici. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Lucio Levi, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucio Levi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Keilana^talk_(recall) 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are your interests? I have a few articles I've been wanting to get to Featured Article status. For instance, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, free market environmentalism, instant-runoff voting, and private highway. I also would like to see workplace conflict get to good article status. The latter would be worth a cookie or kitten if nothing else, and the others would be worth a barnstar I'm sure, or at least a userbox that says you've contributed to x number of featured articles. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly politics and economics. Any articles you mentioned would be fine, although Free-market environmentalism may have some POV issues (it looks good, ATM) and in Private highway the "support" and "oppose" sections are just silly. There's no need for political commentary in such an article. Zenwhat (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some minor changes to the UDHR page and overhauled the template at the bottom. Zenwhat (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Checkpoint Strikeforce requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mhking (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Ruylong (especially by linking to WP:GIANTDICK and taunting him) and you'll be blocked. Please do something more constructive. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you're going to start an admin conduct RfC over Ryulong's warning (which would be a waste of valuable electrons, IMHO) then you should just do it and be done. If you are going to do an RfC about WP:MYSPACE, then do it and be done. No sense militating all over about how people are wrong and the policies are terrible if you aren't going to do anything - see WP:SOFIXIT. ^Avruchtalk 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted you to know that your comments here made me want to stand up and wave a flag. --Kizor 06:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess it's finally going to serve its purpose, then. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We only need one shop, we don't all 4. Instead of using Vintei's shop outline, could we create a new one? And um... I don't think this is such a great idea. It might get deleted in a short amount of time. But I appreciate your efforts. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 21:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed a few of your posts regarding a "wikicommunity". I would like to add that I would also like to see the creation of one, but I am very sure that it will not ever be created. Wikipedia used to have a wikicommunity, but it got deleted. You can see Wikipedia:Esperanza for further details. Oh and as an unrelated side note, I see you love playing risk! I suggest you play these games as they are wonderful as well dice wars, and kdice <-online multiplayer version of dicewars. Cheers! -- penubag  01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have already made a wikia, see here. Codesnippets|http://codesnippets.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Cheers! Sirkad_talk 03:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask me not to linkspam - look at the history of that site and you'll see I have been reverting the linkspam that has been put in by 70.59.228.117. Furthermore, if you look at their activity log then you'll see they have been doing this on a number of pages! --hydeblake (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs! 70.59.228.117 is being a bit of a pain at the moment - I'm having to revert a fair few entries a few times a day!--hydeblake (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you do that - I'm not an admin! Cheers! --hydeblake (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted that page because it meets speedy deletion criterion G4, recreation of previously deleted material. The page was an exact replica of User:Vintei/shop, deleted in its MfD debate last month. Please don't create it or any other previously deleted page again. Thanks, Spebi 04:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a moment, I think I've missed something here. Ignore the message above for the time being until I found out what's going on. Spebi 04:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bye Bye Boris, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Bye Bye Boris. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: if it was in fact an important game (as stated in the article), than there should be some information out there. Perhaps the title is in error? -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 22:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that you're a Libertarian, I think you would enjoy this essay in my sandbox at the moment. It lays out an alternative to mainstream Wikipedianism and argues based upon Liberalism.

Right now, it's just an outline of my main points (please don't make any changes yet). However, if you can think of any good main points to add, please let me know. I've fleshed it out a lot, so that it's a rough-draft in the works. Please don't make any major changes just yet. The red text is where I need to add stuff. Zenwhat (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to throw the idea out there, though, to an experienced editor who might be sympathetic and see what you thought.

I think it makes far more sense overall than just Wikipedia:Laissez-faire which is rather simplistic. Although I agree with your essay in principle and will definitely link to it when I finish and publish mine.

Also, just in case you happen to come across this stupidity. I'm sorry!! I know: I'm a damned idiot. I hope you don't lose any respect for me because of that diff. I thought I'd mention it until you saw it first and were suddenly shocked, and said, "So that's why he hasn't done anything on UDHR recently! The nerve of that guy!" Zenwhat (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's out of the sandbox and been fleshed out. You there? Wikipedia:Wikiliberalism.

Also, I was wondering: When you asked specifically about the bulleted lists, do you mean UDHR#See_also? I don't know how I could expand those all without making the article too long. I suppose expanding the "history" section would be a good idea. Zenwhat (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend (if you haven't already) reading Larry Sanger's accounts and the other behind-the-scenes information about how we ended up with our current policies. It makes a lot more sense how we ended up where we are, in light of those things – much like reading the Federalist Papers or accounts of the debates at the Constitutional Convention explain how certain things ended up in the U.S. Constitution (e.g. the 3/5ths provision would make little sense without an understanding of the debates that went on). Or reading the legislative history of the Controlled Substances Act explains why cannabis is in Schedule I. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am steadily reading any and all essays on the matter and am citing the many historical controversies as proof. Thank you for providing me with more. I am doubtful about your claims based on a number of my experiences. Please note in the essay that I cite specific examples of problems surrounding my editing and the editing of others.

As a particular contentious example: Essjay wasn't necessarily a particularly bad editor, which is likely why he was allowed to stay. Now, you tell me: Why would a good editor who genuinely cares about Wikipedia falsify his credentials, hmmm? Is it perhaps because the average Wikipedian is stupid enough that they'll only listen to a man when he invokes false credentials, and not when he has genuine arguments? See my frustration over the proposal to merge Eastern philosophy with Eastern religion based on Idiot's Guide to Eastern Philosophy and Idiot's Guide to Buddhism. I own both, have read 'em both cover-to-cover, and can snap a photo to prove it. Of course, unless I claim to be the Dalai Lama on my userpage, no one's going to listen to me.

In similar past proposals, dozens of people said over and over, "oppose i tink philosfy is not teh sam as religion."

I wanted to avoid a similar fate by:

• Enumerating my points
• Invoking the fact that I have experience in the matter
• Pointing out that the distinction is currently made because of Indian nationalists (see the Indian religions that aren't Indian) and ignorant western perceptions (because Western philosophy is so secular)
• Backing up every claim with a credible citation in a clearly reliable, easily verifiable secondary source that everybody's heard of
• Explaining in bold that nobody ought to invoke the claim, "Philosophy is not religion," without backing up the claim that Eastern philosophy is distinct from Eastern religion with a citation.

The result? The first person invoked unreliable sources -- one of his sources actually proved my point because it was an article on Eastern religion in a journal on Eastern philosophy. And I again had several people saying "oppose i tink philosfy is not teh sam as religion." And the Indian nationalists aren't interested in discussing the matter, though they'll definitely edit-war. Meanwhile, I can't actually BE BOLD and merge the articles anyway, because WP:IAR is not a Wikipedia policy, despite the misleading existence of that page. You can count the amount of times that WP:IAR has been successfully invoked on one-hand.

So, the nationalists and silly westerners will edit-war, ArbCom will block us both out of a communist, collectivist obsession with WP:CONSENSUS and a false compromise fallacy, and my head will explode when one or more of the admins on ArbCom say, "plz be civil, also i tink philosfy is not teh sam as religion." As a result, I continue to check the page, daily, hoping and praying that the mob disappears. Also, check out this witch-hunt. Can't have admins defending mainstream science, now, can we? Zenwhat (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, referring to Wikipedia philosophy as "evolution" is wiki-darwinism, an anti-liberal, anti-intellectual collectivist philosophy. It's unfalsifiable and based in spurious reasoning: You can't argue with proponents of it, because they defend "correct" as "what is." That is to say, wikidarwinism is correct because currently wikidarwinism is popular. If we think of policies as, "Good ideas put forth by individuals," wikidarwinism just doesn't make any sense. If it is possible to examine both the individual and overall edits on Wikipedia, and see, "Man, this is horrible," we should humbly acknowledge that, because of the high cost of failure:

As noted in the above diagram, the evolution of wikipedia policy doesn't necessarily always work in the direction of improvement. Zenwhat (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wedge sex pillow.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no natural monopolies! Unless you count moons in Solarquest. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to mainstream economics and an abundant array of evidence. It's true that non-economists debate the very existence of monopolies. For actual economists, they certainly have political biases so there's a difference of opinion, but there's little disagreement over the existence of monopolies because of the models of how competition works and why monopolies occur are so basic, that it's impossible to reject anymore on the grounds, "monopolies don't exist." So, any textbook on the matter wouldn't even examine the idea that monopolies might not exist.

Instead, you have two sides.

• Keynesian economists who argue that monopolies are everywhere, harm the economy, and must be heavily regulated.
• Neoclassical economists who argue that private monopolies are rare, if they are not government monopolies they pose little or no threat to the economy, and regulating monopolies does more harm than good.

That is how the article on monopoly should read. And I actually admit that the scholarly view of monopolies goes against the common understanding about them: Even though I'm an American Liberal (see Social liberalism), I oppose strict enforcement of anti-trust because the arguments against it are convincing. In some theoretical abstract world where government is infallible, strict enforcement of anti-trust makes sense. But since governments themselves are subject to government failure, it's somewhat dubious to suggest they be used to address all forms of market failure. One idea I had recently was to make the government a public corporation.

There was a book out a while back and a movie called "Anti-Trust." You might have seen it. I don't agree anti-trust should be abolished, but both make a good argument that it shouldn't be enforced. Zenwhat (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your professor is either a radical Monetarist or one of the handful of Austrians with Ph. D's, the same way there are creationists with biologist degrees and so on (I say that only with reference to Austrian economics -- Monetarism is acceptable -- wrong, but not totally off the wall). I say that because it doesn't seem to reflect New Keynesianism (commonly referred to as mainstream economics, the mainstream consensus). I only have a minimal education in economics, but I'm pretty sure I could utterly destroy your professor's assertion, "There are no monopolies." What was his argument, by the way? Do you remember? I think what he meant when he said "monopoly" was the common usage of the term as a "big, evil corporation with near-limitless power to raise prices." If so, then that makes sense. Zenwhat (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that was the sense in which he meant it. Actually, he basically said that the only monopolies are created by the gov't. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important that this clarification be made. Zenwhat (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion, please: [3] Zenwhat (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to this diff, what's the deal with removing the sourced stuff about Lingamfelter, Potts, etc.? And why "POV" instead of "biased"? Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a mainstream debate over the issue of private highways. You have some radical Libertarians in the United States calling them tyranny, with nearly all Liberals and Conservatives seeing the issue as silly, which makes discussion of the political issue unnecessary. It would be like having a "support" and "oppose" section on public toilets. Sars, overall, you're a good editor but you can't see how this would come across as POV-pushing? This is especially true in Europe and in countries like Asia, South America, and Africa, the debate is non-existent. Perhaps the edit was simply a biased edit made in good faith, but nonetheless, it was unnecessary. Zenwhat (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the private highway debate is raging hotter" as you make it more notable by putting it on Wikipedia when it isn't found in mainstream sources. Zenwhat (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has NPR also discussed the LP's claim [4] that there is a "cult of the omnipotent state"? If so, does the mere mentioning of fringe claims in mainstream sources make them notable or non-fringe? Also, you have currently been included in a request for arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Austrian_economics Also, I have notified the community of your behavior. You may see the posting at Wikipedia:ANI#Admin_User:Sarsaparilla_blatantly_violating_WP:OR.2C_WP:NPOV.2C_and_WP:FRINGE. Zenwhat (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]