User talk:Ethan a dawe/Archive 1

Rand

Admittedly, my edits do show that I dislike Rand, but nonetheless the fact that I try hard to add criticism to the article is not because of mere bias. What I am trying to accomplish is a npov balance. When I first came to the article, it was a sparkling pro-Rand junkpiece, devoid of any criticism. Rand's fans were trying to push it as feature-article-ready, and I had to stop them from getting such a glaringly biased article to that status. Since then, I've been trying to balance the articles out, which is difficult to do with bias pro-Rand editors (not you; Laszlo and a few others who have been banned at various times) deleting and warping things to put it back to the way it was before. This does cause me to focus more on criticism than anything else (as I'm one of the few people who adds any), but I assure you it isn't an attempt to make the article biased.

As for the use of the term "lay," it is because I see a need to distinguish her from a trained professional. Her skills, as I've pointed out before, are far from professional (both in a lack of skill and a lack of scholarship), and to not point this out would be both underinformative and misleading. The term "lay" is not biased, but simply points out that she was not professionally trained nor professional in the academic sense (i.e. never got academically published). -- LGagnon 22:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To defend myself from the misleading claims of LGagnon, my "bans" were for reverting the edits of a well known vandal in league with LGagnon, the User:Alienus who is blocked for a year, but uses anon sockpuppets to evade. LaszloWalrus 19:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point Laszlo. I've been trying to convince people to stop the silly edit war. I'm all for balance and having criticism included, but it's gotten really petty on the Rand article. I looked up some of the editors favorite people and they often lack any criticism despite being often criticized. Rather than editing to the point of stupidity I wish some clear consensus could be reached. Otherwise I'd be sorely tempted to start doing unto others favorites. :-) Ethan a dawe 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan Dawe

you'll want to be aware of wp:point since you stated that you are going to act this way to get your way and to make a point. It is one thing to argue vociferously and to make appropriate changes to an article in order to bring it closer to verifiable truth. it is a whole other thing to do what you've proposed on talk:ayn rand. --Buridan 14:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Buridan, you've all convinced me that this is the proper thing to do. All Bios should be carefully checked for npov and proper citing of controversy and criticism. I'm starting with the favorites of several editors to the Rand threads, as they listed them on their pages and it seemed like a good place to start. I assume you agree that this is the proper way to proceed right? You do think all Bios should be treated equally and be strictly npov right?~~Ethan Dawe~~

Warning

With regards to your comments on Talk:Ayn Rand: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. -- LGagnon 02:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no personal attack that I've made. Please cite it or remove this.Ethan a daweEthan DaweEthan a dawe 03:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at your last comment on that page. -- LGagnon 11:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not an insult, it's an opinion of your action based on what you have said or done. I didn't call you a name, I simply pointed out what I see as your reason for taking your actions. Please remove the warningEthan a daweEthan DaweEthan a dawe

Ayn Rand

Hello Ethan! I unprotected Ayn Rand because it's been protected for quite a while (since last October). I figured it was time to give unprotection a try. We are, after all, trying to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Also, in case you didn't know, the {{sprotect}} tag doesn't actually protect the page, it's just to notify users of the protection. Cheers! --Fang Aili ^talk 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lancombz I've asked the puppeteer to apologize and for the puppets to disengage from the same articles and article topics. --Otheus 17:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

come on man lets do it together

When silly children get caught playing their silly split personality sock-puppet games they have no recourse but to resort to babyish vandalism. To bad I don't have a rattle for you. Ethan a dawe 01:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal says

hey how come you keep chnaging my quote its' not far

The unsigned post above is from the anonymous user 128.122.253.229 (probably Freddy)Begone child. go mess with another's user pageEthan a dawe 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

what iwant to have this page too canot we share? Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia is for sharing,

The unsigned post above is from the anonymous user 128.122.253.229 (probably Freddy)Begone child.

objectivism sprotect

hey Ethan,

I added the sprotect template on objectivism to see if it did what i thought, but it did not. I also was the 70.something that removed it, which you reverted:) heh. sorry for the confusion --Buridan 15:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

why cant we work togeher dont be selfish lets share

Vandalism?

I can't do much about vandalism or blocking IPs, anymore than you can. I'm taking a (real) wikibreak at the moment. Try reporting it to AN/I. WP:ANI Otheus 13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lancombz again?

I suspect ThAtSo is another Lancombz sockpuppet. He uses the same type of snippy insults and is editing the same group of articles. What do you think? Endlessmike 888 22:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how we got it checked last time. It just sorta happened. I'll look into, but if you can figure it out first be my guest. Endlessmike 888 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Rand's influence on LaVey

I understand why you didn't want to let LaVey's oversimplification stand alone, but I think the right answer is to add a cited clarification, like the essay from the church's web site, instead of just removing the whole thing. I don't want the entry on LaVey to grow excessively, but I think we can keep it objective without going over a self-imposted two or three sentence limit. If you want to talk about this this more, let's move this talk to the article's talk page, ok? ThAtSo 11:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Elric edits

Since you haven't edited here a lot, you might not be aware that instructional sarcasm is not really an effective tool of persuasive argumentation,Ethan. Your statedintention was to use irony to illustrate your point. However, it came across as unnecessarily rude and inappropriately unfriendly to your fellow editors. I can understand how it can be difficult to hold both your temper and your tongue (believe me, I really, really do), but the effort has to be made. As it wasn't a helpful remark, and seemed more malicious than playful, I yanked it as likely trolling. Perhaps in the future, you could strive to either communicate your irony more pithily, or simply do away with it altogether. I hope that explains matters better. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Ethan. I was distracted for a few days, but I'm keeping a closereye on it now. Again, thanks for the heads-up. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand edits

You keep telling me in your edit summaries to use the talk page. I have used the talk page, but only see your little blurb that you agree with DAGwyn from yesterday. That's not good enough. Because, if claims are not backed up by sources then they can be removed, no consensus needed. So, I thought I'd compromise. But no, not even a compromise.

That influence section is orignal research and is led with peacock terms, which I pointed out on the talk page. It's misleading and dishonest. Also, there are others on the talk page who feel the same way. It's further up on the talk page, if you bothered to look. But only DAGwyn, and now you, disagree. I've even tried to compromise, but I'm not even given that much. Talk about being "irked". Yes, I'm irked too. ←Gee♥Alice 05:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the quote at issue is indeed a quote and I have no problem with its reliablity. My problem is with WP:NPOV and WP:Undue Weight Please discuss this issue further on the talk page. Idag (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

???

Why are you vandalizing new questions as regards Ayn Rand's standing as a philosopher?

Why are you putting POV material in the article and not responding in talk? Assume good faith please.Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Anons

I know you've tried this before, but is there any way that we can semi-protect this page given the current level of disruptive anonymous participation? I have a feeling that the IP we're having the trouble with is either Nilges or one of his friends and if we don't nip this in the bud, we're going to be wasting all our time rehashing old debates. Idag (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

They won't protect it. It's not Nilges though, his IP's are in Hong Kong. This guy(?) has been around before though I'm fairy sure. Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:Ayn Rand has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)