User talk:CABlankenship: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hello, CABlankenship, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would be more accurate to say that Pinker continues to disagree with Chomsky on this fundamental point -- rather than his "clarification"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynablaster (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, can we not just say that "Chomsky's ideas on the evolution of language and the language faculty has been contested by Pinker and linguist Ray Jackendoff"? Peer review is perfectly normal. Saying Pinker [et al.] contests Chomsky's clarification makes it seem as though there is something unusual about the manner of his reply. If you see my point? Dynablaster (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. Dynablaster (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are doing great work on the Rand article. However, the introduction has been damaged a lot, mainly because the continuous reversions since my rewrite yesterday have left footnotes in the wrong place, sentences removed because apparently out of context after poor edits and so on. I have not attempted a reconstruction, but I have left some notes on the talk page. There is one person there (I am sure you know who I mean) who tends to insert poorly-thought and poorly-worded edits without regard for overall meaning or flow. Best Peter Damian (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[1]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is one thing I have learned dealing with Objectivists, it's that the meaning of the word "nuance" is totally lost on them (and also that they are COMPLETELY Eurocentric). Thus if someone supports relativism in any case, clearly the logical conclusion is that to them things like the Holocaust or Rwanda are also relative. It is, as you say, bonkers. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure of that; I think Rand and her followers' failure to understand science and extreme skepticism towards, for example, quantum mechanics and even evolution stems from a deeper problem, one that I believe can be summed up in one word: Arrogance. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I'm an objectivist and I accept quantum mechanics, evolution, and understand science quite well. Keep generalizing though, it's so much fun! Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [2]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please make note of the message posted on the evidence talk page regarding the need for supporting evidence. This is a general courtesy note being left for all editors who have submitted evidence in the case. Be well, --Vassyana (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is not a matter for debate.

The terms Randist, Randite, Randroid, cult, cultist and so forth are simply uncivil name calling, and are considered personal attacks. No matter what anyone thinks, people who identify themselves as Objectivists or Rand supporters should be referred to respectfully by their own self identification, and not some alteration of Rand's name. Any further comment will be reported to administration.Kjaer (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Ayn Rand, has frequently become the subject of controversies and criticisms regarding her and her philosophy. While suggestions to improve the content of this article are welcomed, please refrain from posting your personal opinions on Ayn Rand or Objectivism. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

The talk page is not a forum for debate about Rand or her admirers whether they are editors or not. Further off-topic discussions of your personal opinions 12 rather than work on edits to the Ayn Rand page is vandalism and will be reported to admin as VANDALISM. Kjaer (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Cease your personal attacks immediately. Please read WP:NPA. The terms cult, cultist, randite, randist and so forth are offensive. Refer to followers of Rand's philosophy as Objectivists, the published self identified term. This is not a matter for debate and it is unacceptible to continue this talk in the guise of debate, and such debate does not belong on the article talk page as you have been warned above. Any further comments whatsoever will be formally reported to admin that you be blocked. Kjaer (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]