User talk:Chuck0

Content removed by subject.

Your Wikipedia Entry is gone

It appears that your wiki bio has been deleted and now redirects to Infoshop.org's entry Chuck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.216.94 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I know. I don't have a problem with that. Chuck0 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Blog is Possible

Hey Chuck, what happend to your blog? It now says that the blog isn't there. Did it get deleted? 71.10.43.203 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The blog is now at [1] where it has been for several months. Chuck0 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

RJ11 Sock Puppet is Back

The RJII sock-puppet is back. His account he's using now is: Operation_Spooner -Radical Mallard, July 20, 2008, 2:16 PM

Request

Chuck, could you start the article on Iain McKay? Or does he not wish it? -- infinity0 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 12:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bob Avakian

Hey Chuck, I'm having some trouble at the Bob Avakian page regarding the two sentences of criticism, which some anon supporter of the RCP wants deleted since they are merely "opinion" and not "fact". Of course this info is sourcable (and I sourced to your site in fact) and their reasons are fairly illogical. If you could provide some support, especially some more citations that would be great. The main discussion is here under "anti-RCP propaganda". Thanks in advance. The Ungovernable Force 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

C'mon

Hey, please chill out, ok. I'm not out to attack you or your project, I'm just think the criticism should be put it, but please don't turn a content dipute into a personal one. I hope you can see that this is merely a content dispute. I have nothing against you, and I hope you have nothing against me. See my talk page for a more detailed response. The Ungovernable Force 07:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Infoshop

It's not a matter of what I think but what the source says. Alexa does not list Infoshop as the number one anarchist site, so the wiki should not claim it does. --Sloane 19:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you run Infoshop? No. Are you a webmaster who understands anything about Alexa? It doesn't sound like it. You selected one way Alexa categorizes websites, which is one way of looking at popularity, but obviously a bad one because it erroneously lists UK Indymedia as the top anarchist website. UK Indymedia is not an anarchist website. The original statement is factual because when you look at actual anarchist websites that are listed on Alexa, Infoshop is the most popular. Chuck0 19:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great that you think that. But Alexa doesn't seem to do so. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Sloane 19:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Then leave it out. Alexa isn't all that accurate anyway. But by any measure of popularity, Infoshop is the most popular on the Internet. Chuck0 20:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise? The Ungovernable Force 21:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just leave out the stuff about popularity. It's obviously pointless to explain the fine points of website traffic, popularity, and how Alexa works to people who aren't webmasters. It's widely known that Alexa isn't that accurate. It relies on people installing spyware into their Internet Explorer browsers in order for it to function. Alexa doesn't have any access to any website's traffic logs. Alexa undercounts Infoshop traffic compared to other political websites. Infoshop has a much younger demographic, which is hostile to spyware and which generally doesn't use IE. In fact, around half of our users use Firefox or non-IE browsers. Alexa doesn't have a plug-in for Firefox, or at least didn't when lots of people started using the service.

Alexa is useful as a rough approximation of website popularity, especially in relation to other websites. According to Alexa, Infoshop has been the most popular anarchist website for several years. That citation which uses a link to Alexa's categories page is NOT a verifiable or accurate citation! As a librarian I can safely say that Alexa's categorization system is not very accurate. Chuck0 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Will Beback 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, then do something about what this person is doing to the entry on me. What am is suppsoed to do if somebody keeps using Wikipedia to post defamatory information about me? (removed defamatory accusation) Chuck0 21:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable material, even if derogatory, is permitted so long as it is presented in an NPOV manner. Your own blog contains some of this informaiton, so it is hard to argue that it is utterly false. If you don't want your own blog used as a source then you have the power to delete the blog entries. In ancy case, don't revert war. -Will Beback 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

As the subject of an article, you may have an expectation that unsourced derogatory information will be removed. However, possibly derogatory information which is properly sourced can and may be included in the article if it is presented in a neutral manner. This banning matter appears to be properly referenced to a primary source. You have commented on it on your own blog. We need to reflect all points of view without favoring any. And we need to come to agreement. Some other editor has written a different take on the incident. You haven't written yours.

As a general principle, vague statements are more accurate than precise ones. The sources, even yourself, are borderline. I think that we should say as little as possible. Such as, "Munson is an active and controversial member of the online Anarchist community, and has been banned from at leat one newsgroup". Would that be incorrect, or non-NPOV? If not, how would you change it? We can't leave the article protected for long. -Will Beback 10:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: Avoid making any personal attacks, including those in edit summaries. Please treat your fellow editors with collegial respect. There's no excuse for incivility. -Will Beback 10:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to be civil to other folks if they stop using the entry on me for their personal crusades. It's good to see that Wikipedia has developed some more sensible guidelines for biographies on living persons. As a librarian, I don't feel comfortable editing the entry on me, but I should have a right to correct or delete false and misleading information. If other editors such as Will Beback can make these changes instead of me, I'm all for that. Chuck0 23:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What info was false or misleading? What is the correct version of events? I don't know. I only know what I read. I suggest that you draft what seems to be a correct version in your view, one supported by your previous blog entries, and then we can present that to the other editors of the article. I suggested some text, above, can you please build on that? I'm sure we can arrive at something that we all agree on, but only if we discuss rather than revert war. -Will Beback 00:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Will, it's not just a matter of what is correct and what is misleading, most of these edits should never have been made in the first place. The people who make these edits are using this entry to conduct personal attacks against me. Now is this kind of behavior acceptable on other biographical entries? Can you find similar content in other biographical entries? Does the Howard Zinn entry include criticism about some minor email list dispute? E-mail lists shouldn't even be seen as credible sources, not to mention "primary" sources for a biographical entry in an encyclopedia. I would also point out that the entry on me is way too long for somebody who is not as famous as other people who don't even have Wikipedia entries. Chuck0 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So the issue isn't that the info is false or misleading, but that it is irrelevant? That's a whole different set of issues, some of which are harder to deal with. WP:NPOV includes reference to the need for "balance". In that light, any mention of this incident should be proportional. The draft that I proposed treats the matter as an aside. As for the sourcing, your own blog is considered an adequate primary source for your own opinions. You have expressed opinions on this matter, so your blog can serve as a source. If you delete the info from your blog then there is no longer a reliable source. As for our article, saying that the material may not be included does not get us anywhere. You, as an engaged editor, need to come up with an acceptable alternative. In a few more days I'll unblock the page, and if you haven't come to an agreement withthe other editors then it'll go back to the earlier rever war and no one will be satisfied. -Will Beback 00:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The info is false, misleading, one-sided and unsourced. There is nothing on my blog about this info. My alternative as an editor is that people shouldn't use Wikipedia articles as part of their off-Wikipedia disputes. If there is serious published criticism about me, then perhaps some of that should be included. The main problem here is that the information added cannot be WP:NPOV. Chuck0 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(If another side were presented then it wouldn't be one-sided.) All I know is what I've read. One of the sources was a forum: not really an acceptable source. Then some links to your blog were posted that mentioned the matter, which is an acceptable source for uncontroversial information about yourself. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints. Virtually every notable person has detractors. Even Mother Theresa. You may recall that some time ago a link to a critical site was posted, and you complained (as I recall) that it wasn't a valid criticism, or that the critic was crazy. I replied that if you had a better critic then that could suffice. But I never heard back. In this situation, I've asked you repeatedly to provide some text to cover the situation but you're not working with me, or the other editors. Now then, as I mentioned before, the only usable sources we've had are your own blog. If there's no mention there then we have to wait until Salon, the NYT, or some other reputable source describes the events. I agree that it makes no sense to record the purported forum actions against an individual absent verifiable sources or relevence. -Will Beback 07:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, even Mother Theresa had her critics, including a book by Christopher Hitchens. I did complain about the link to the article by Kirsten Anderberg, but I also decided to live with that link. Kirsten is crazy like a loon and her article about me is totally false, but at least she put her thoughts into a semi-coherent rant and posted it to her website. If you look at the history of my entry, you will see that In The Stacks removed that link in order to put in even more outlandish and poorly sourced wording. Frankly, I can settle for a revert that brings back Kirsten's article instead of these unsourced allegations. How does that sound? Chuck0 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection. I suggest you propose it on the talk page. -Will Beback 08:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I do. Munson would prefer an insane, ungrounded rant against him to sourced discussion of his contentious history. I removed the Anderberg piece because it was a general rant, and had no real bearing on the subject. I agree with additions related to Munson's difficulties with Indymedia and Wikipedia as they bear directly on what makes him "notable." Observing a history of fighting online, which is what Munson is "known" for, is neither derogatory or libelous. These are sourced notes, with Munson as the primary author. These are not flattering facts, but that is not the criteria. Considering his extensive history of carrying fights around with him, his contention that he is some kind of victim is laughable. I agree that unsourced, general, or inappropriate personal information should have no place herre -- but a refusal to note his long history (including here on Wikipedia) as a kind of contentious provocateur is wrong. -- so the links should go up. Munson makes no argument that they are false. In the Stacks

I am not a "contentious provocateur"! I am like any other person on the Internet who participates in discussions and who states their opinions. I am an advocate of my politics and a critic of others, but that does not make me a "provocateur" nor is this important enough to note in a biographic entry. My motivation has never been that of a provocateur, although I've been attacked by people who can't separate the person from his ideas. In the Stacks is not a credible source in this matter, because he has engaged in personal attacks against me in different forums for many years. He seriously needs to get a life and stop his obsession with me. Wikipedia is an inappropriate venue for personal attacks, especially ones that you are trying to turn into some kind of NPOV biographical entries. Chuck0 15:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Albert

There's no point in continuing this discussion on the Anarchism talk page, so I'll continue it here. I admit, my knowledge about Michael isn't coloured by history and is based on hearing him speak and talking to him for a long period afterwards. However - "Michael Albert will say anything to get people to like him." - so he talks about anarchism? That's very strange as anarchism isn't generally regarded as an ideology that makes people like you! He's a long-term associate of Noam Chomsky's, so he clearly has some association with the ideas. "If the Z Foundation is being run on anarchist principles, this would be news to the anarcho-syndicalists." - if what he says is true, the Foundation is non-hierarchical, with roles shifted around and everyone is paid the same amount of money. It sounds like anarcho-syndicalism to me. Do you have information about it not being organised like this? "See, Parecon is an appropriation of anarchist economics without the baggage of anarchism's history." - that's a bizarre statement. Firstly, scroll down to the Other Visionary Texts section - quite a lot of history there. Anarchism is an ideology that spends far too much time looking back. While I clearly disagree with the "anarcho"-capitalists' oxymoronic interpretation of anarchism, I see Parecon as being exactly what it's claimed to be - one suggestion of a vision for the movement. It's not the only possible one and Albert has made clear he's challenging others to come up with their own. Anarchist vision can't all be Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow - we're supposed to be non-dogmatic, new ideas are a must. Robert Anton Wilson's attempts to develop non-euclidean politics I see in the same vein. Anarchism needs new theorists and new theories within the tradition if we going to remain relevant. Donnacha 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard

So you say Rothbard never called himself an anarchist? What's this?: "We are anarcho-capitalists. In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." -Murray Rothbard, 1970

Rothbard was not an anarchist and does not qualify as one. Please don't make stuff up or pull shit out of your ass. I've been an anarchist for 20 years, run the biggest anarchist website, and have written extensively on anarchism. I have a large anarchist library. Anarchists do not recognize Rothbard as an anarchist. Chuck0 03:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." -Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)

It seems as though many people--anarchist and otherwise--call them propertarians due to their focus on property rather than liberty.

Brian Doherty, a libertarian, describes Murray Rothbard's form of libertarianism as "propertarian" because he "reduced all human rights to rights of property, beginning with the natural right of self-ownership."

Doherty, Brian (2008). "Rothbard, Murray (1926–1995)". In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. p. 442. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.2606:6000:674D:B900:89D9:8FD0:8D8B:5A74 (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -Will Beback · † · 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC) PS: this is a stock warning. Please don't engage in revert warring as it may lead to your account getting blocked. -Will Beback · † · 02:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

How about you explain to me how I'm supposed to make edits stick when some jackass keeps vandalizing my changes? Chuck0 04:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm neither "vandalizing" your changes, nor am I a "jackass."

There's always tomorrow. -Will Beback · † · 07:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And there's also the WP:RFC, the WP:BLPN, the WP:ANI, and other ways of asking for help. -Will Beback · † · 07:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

In the Stacks commented on your conduct. This edit of yours responded by commenting on his/her character. The former is acceptable, the latter is not. - Jmabel | Talk 20:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, that's sound advise from Jmabel. Please avoid personal attacks. -Will Beback · † · 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to when people are engaging in personal attacks against me on both talk pages and using the entry on me. The problem here is that Wikipedia is deficient when it comes to dealing with people who start attacks from anaonymous account. Chuck0 17:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I know. I don't envy your position, but I admire your courage for not letting the attacks drive you away. Another user in a very similar situation is user:Cberlet/Chip Berlet. He's been attacked repeatedly over the years. Attacks on Chip Berlet, the encyclopedia subject, are legitimate within the scope of WP:BLP. Attacks on Cberlet, the encyclopedia editor, are not allowed by WP:NPA. Editors have been blocked for confusing the two. (This attack is truly amazing). Throughout it all Cberlet has kept his cool and avoided sinking to their level. By doing so he's gained the respect of the community. -Will Beback · † · 18:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've taken some time away from Wikipedia over the past few days in order to cool off and get some perspective. I've been much more patient this year with personal attacks, although sometimes it seems like ti takes a while for more established Wikipedians to intervene. What frustrates me is that I can't even contribute here without being attacked by somebody. I guess we'll see what happens. Chuck0 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Infoshop

where the heck is it chuck? i need my fix! Murderbike 08:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot I could ask you that here. Good thinking Murderbike! I may criticize you from time to time but I really do appreciate the service you have provided. If it weren't for infoshop.org I may never have become an anarchist. So yeah, what's up? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 09:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of a challenge to get the word out when your website goes down. Generally, the best source for information is my blog. The server evidently crashed last Thursday afternoon. I called Daver on Friday. He runs the server and Flag.blackened.net. Unfortunately, Dave was sick as a dog on Friday, so he could barely talk to me on the phone. This means that he was unable to make the hour drive to the co-location facility this weekend to look at the server. I'm going to call him right now to get an update. Thanks for your concern. Chuck0 21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I just talked to Dave. He's going to go work on the server this afternoon or tomorrow. Chuck0 21:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Any status on infoshop? I check the news every day. It seems your blog is down too =( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.75 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't post updates here. Best place to check for updates is my blog, even if it is having its own problems. The Infoshop News server is down this week because of power problems. Chuck0 (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Rothbard

Please stop deleting the Rothbard section out of "Anarchism in the United States." You're claiming it's "original research." Apparently, you're not familiar what what that term means here. If something is sourced, then it's not original research. Original research is something that is not sourced or cannot be sourced. See WP:OR. That Rothbard was an anarchist is amply sourced.Anarcho-capitalism 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I will keep deleting Rothbard from that entry as he doesn't belong there. You don't understand why I'm removing him--you think that the dispute is over labeling him as an anarchist. The reason why I removed him is because he isn't notable enough within U.S. anarchism to have his own section on this page. At the most, his name could be listed at the bottom, but he doesn't deserve a section. I will explain more in detail on the talk page when I get back from running errands. Chuck0 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you're not looking at the sources. One of the sources, which is in a peer-reviewed journal, says: "This volume honors the foremost contemporary exponent of free-market anarchism. One contributor aptly describes Murray Rothbard as 'the most ideologically committed zero-State academic economists on earth'." Review by Lawrence H. White of Man, Economy, and liberty: Essays in honor of Murray N. Rothbard, published in Journal of Economic Literature, Vol XXVIII, June 1990, page 664. If he's the "foremost contemporary exponent" then obviously he's notable and more notable than any other contemporary individualist anarchist.Anarcho-capitalism 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What you really, really don't get here is that there are books and articles published which purport to be about anarchism, but which aren't. Anarchists are well aware of the books and articles out there written by non-anarchists about what they think is the anarchist movement. I'm going to continue this response on the talk page for the "Anarchism in the United States" entry. Chuck0 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What you don't get is that non-anarchists are more qualified to decide whether something is anarchism or not. An anarchist of any particular school is going to be too immersed in their POV to be objective - especially a rabid anti-free-market capitalist self-proclaimed "anarchist." What matters most is what scholars more removed from the situation think.Anarcho-capitalism 02:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-anarchists could provide some perspective provided' that they are knowledgeable about anarchism. A example of this type of expert would be the late historian, Paul Avrich, who wrote several books about anarchism. However, nobody knows who you are and your understanding of anarchism is pretty warped by any measure of expertise, including Wikipedia's very democratic approach. There are several additional problems with your argument. One is that a movement like anarchism, which was marginal for several decades, is not on the radar of your typical academic experts. Anarchism favors a very bottom-up approach, therefore the body of anarchist thinking can be found in anarchist publications that don't see wide circulation. Another problem with your argument is that you are basically saying that anarchists are incapable of explaining the scope and nature of the anarchist movement. This is like saying that physicists are incapable of describing their profession. Your point is valid to the extent that outsider perspective is useful when it comes to sectarian disputes, but sectarianism is not an issue here. As somebody who has been an anarchist for 20 years and is currently a prominent anarchist, I think I'm in a position to give an accurate overview of contemporary anarchism in the United States. Chuck0 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how long you've been an anarchist, I don't think you can give an accurate overview. You don't seem knowledgable enough to me and you push your POV in articles. The fact that you were censoring the Murray Rothbard section, and claiming he wasn't an anarchist ("Removed section on Rothbard as he isn't an anarchist nor a notable person in anarchism. No books on anarchism would include Rothbard. No original research here."), proves that. I personally don't think "anarcho"-communists are true anarchists but I don't censor them out of the anarchism articles. You're a prime example of an "anarchist" who can't seem to put his POV aside and write an NPOV article.Anarcho-capitalism 08:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been extremely patient with the nuttiness that you have written in these discussions. Look, Dude, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. There is a certain expectation that the entries will be based on facts. You say that anarcho-communists aren't really anarchists. Are you serious? In other words, you are saying that anarchism doesn't exist. That is ridiculous and makes it clear that you aren't a credible person on these subjects. Chuck0 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Anarcho"-communism is authoritarianism masquarading as anarchism. It's not actually for liberty but for oppression, as are all forms of social "anarchism." As far as being a "credible person" on these subjects, I don't need to be because my opinions don't go into Wikipedia articles. I respect the rule against original research and I don't delete cited information, unlike you.Anarcho-capitalism 03:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are engaged in original research if there was ever a more clearcut example. You have a clear history of using Wikipedia to establish your nutty ideas about anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. If I were an anarcho-capitalist, I'd be embarassed by your words here. You are basically arguing that what everybody knows as anarchism is not anarchism. Ridiculous. You have no business contributing to Wikipedia. Chuck0 04:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here or the articles? Of course I'm engaging in original research on this discussion page. That's permissible. I'm just talking. The rule against original research applies to ARTICLES. I don't post original research in articles. Understand? On the other hand, you deleted cited information. You need to learn to respect the rules of Wikipedia.Anarcho-capitalism 04:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't put MY opinion in Wikipedia that "anarcho"-communism is not legitimate anarchism. But, I cite that invidualists don't consider it to be true anarchism. For example the 19th century individualist Henry Appleton said, "All Communism, under whatever guise, is the natural enemy of Anarchism, and a Communist sailing under the flag of Anarchism is as false a figure as could be invented." IF you think that is original research, then you don't know what original research means here. It means something that is just made up by one of us, that is not cited. Please acquaint yourself with WP:OR. Anarcho-capitalism 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If original research means "something made up by somebody," then your take on these subjects is a clearcut example of original research. At this point you are simply vandalizing articles with your irrational nonsense. Chuck0 04:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I cite my additions to Wikipedia, so you have no business calling it original research. Anything cited is not original research, by definition. On the other hand, you're deleting a whole section of an article that is extensively sourced. So, you're the one that's "vandalizing."Anarcho-capitalism 04:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting third parties involved in this dispute. I've had it with your juvenile behavior. Chuck0 04:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Good deal. I wanted to do that. I just don't know the procedure.Anarcho-capitalism 04:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

NCOR

Chuck,

While deeply respecting your views, I'd suggest that you stop reverting the website on NCOR. I realize it isn't the most flattering thing to NCOR, but it is factual and it is the way students are feeling (as it states that this is the opinion of students on the campus of American University) and it is clear that you are not a student on said campus, therefore you are not in a position to judge the feelings of said campus. Also, as shown by referenced articles to Student Newspapers, this is not a minority view. Furthermore, as has been stated by multiple people on this talk page, controversial information is not grounds for removal from the original article.

In relation to the comment regarding the comparative length of the controversy section, I'd suggest that you add more content to the original. If you do not have more content to add, how are you qualified to edit this page in the first place?

I'm sorry, but you are obviously unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. I've been to more than a few NCOR conferences, so I'm qualified in that respect to know something about this subject. The problem here is that you are using Wikipedia as part of some campus campaign against this conference. It's okay to include some criticism of an entry, but criticism of subjects should not exceed the size of the text about the actual subject of the article. This is an entry on NCOR, not on some criticism of the conference. The standard Wikipedia procedure about criticism is that it can be included if it is notable. The criticism section should only be a parapgraph or two and people add links to criticism in the "External links" section.

That is how Wikipedia works, but I suspect that you don't respect those policies. When I discovered your first edits, the section on controversy has some inane nonsense about a "smell lingering after the conference." That may be an appropriate addition for a 14-year-old defacing Wikipedia stories, but we are adults here. Chuck0 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing sources statements

There you go again removing sources statements by claiming they're original research. This time in social anarchism. It's about time you learn what "original research" means. Original research is statements that aren't sourced and cannot be sourced. I added a sourced statement. That's the opposite of original research. Familiarize yourself with WP:OR. Anarcho-capitalism 02:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Enough! Obviously you are pushing an agenda and deleting perfectly good sourced information. Stop editing and take a step back. You wanted third party to get involed. I have become involved by just reading these endless debates. And frankly all your arguments are friviolous and void regarding anarcho-capitalism not being anarchism. Which have lead you to crusade against all information on wikipedia regarding anarcho-capitalist where it appears in different topics of anarchy. Seriously it is called anarcho for a reason. Lord Metroid 23:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Your comments belong on the appropriate page, not the talk page for my user account.

Do you know anything about anarchism? Chuck0 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Do not personally attack other users. Calling an editor a "fucking retard" [2] is out of line. Rapartee 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)! How the hell am I supposed to deal with a user who is out of control, who uses sockpuppets and who drives people away from participating on Wikipedia? Doesn't of people have dealt with this (Personal attack removed), who seems to have unlimited time to hack hsi version of reality using Wikipedia. I'm fucking tired of dealing with these (Personal attack removed). Wikipedia doesn't fucking work. Chuck0 07:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And who (Personal attack removed) are you to complain about my language when you cite Wikipedia policy from the safety of an anonymous user name. Chuck0 07:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Chuck0. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wodup 08:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, a Wiki-robot? Is this how Wikipedia works now? People can't user swear words? This is ridiculous. Chuck0 08:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:Civility#Examples, profanity-laden diatribes are a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Avi 08:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the fuck can't I say what I want to say? Aren't we all adults here? Is Wikipedia now suggesting that swear words are the same as personal attacks? Chuck0 08:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

When directed against other editors, such as "****ing retard" they are the same, and you know that. -- Avi 08:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But the other editor is a "****ing retard". Have you bothered to read any of his arguments here? Is Wikipedia an open service or an example of fascism? I can't make changes on this damn site without having some **** revert my changes or contributions. Chuck0 08:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether he or she is or is not mentally incompetent is beyond the scope of your, mine, or anyone's ability to opine upon here. Please refresh yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in order to both better contribute as well as prevent yourself from disrupting wikipedia, which may need to result in a block. No one would want that, but sometimes it is necessary. -- Avi 08:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a bot. About the profanity, sure, you can use profanity, but you can't make personal attacks. Sorry. And just now, you're getting your final warning for personal attacks. If you do it again, you will be blocked. Wodup 08:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm already being blocked by other editors from making edits, so what's the difference? I don't want to be blocked and I understand these policies, but I've had it with dealing with other so-called editors who won't let me do anything. Chuck0 08:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

hi

Hey Chuck. I know it could be a while before you read this, but whatever. (And I hope you remember who I am.) The admin is right, please do try to tone down the attacks, it's for your own good, if you keep attacking and attacking it's just a vicious circle. Think of it as an exercise in controlling your emotions, if you fancy that :). Also, I suspect User:Anarcho-capitalism to be a sockpuppet of User:RJII. Don't let his behaviour get you down; if you do, it'll just encourage him further.

And relax, there is far more important stuff to be getting on with, as I'm sure is the case especially for you! :)

Anyways, in consolation, it seems like he is gonna be banned for a year, as part of a ring of 13 sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Proposed decision. See you around. :) -- infinity0 13:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In other words, my hunch that he was a sock-puppet was correct. It's too bad I didn't know about this sooner, because I decided several weeks ago to minimize my involvement with Wikipedia. My decision makes even more sense given how much of my time was wasted by this person. Chuck0 20:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sherman Austin

hey Chuck, can you comment here on the details of Sherman's charges? cheers! Murderbike 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein/Proposed decision

Hi. Please do not edit that page; it is reserved for arbitrators and clerks. The proper place to raise your question would be at WP:AN/I, if you believe that a banned user has returned under a new alias. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Infoshop link

Chuck, I like you, and I think you're a great editor, but I hate to tell you this - you haven't a leg to stand on with the Infoshop link. I've tried to get some sort of consensus on the issue with direct discussion and then the RFC, and the clear consensus is that they don't want the link. Considering that In The Stacks most recently used the word "harrassment" in his edit summary, it seems that his patience is wearing thin. I just don't want to see you blocked is all, because you have a lot that you can contribute. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

license

hey

i tried to send infoshop.org an e-mail, but the e-mail addresses are broken, so i'm sending you here.

i'm active at the hebrew wikipedia and i wanna put 2 pictures from infoshop.org on the hebrew wikipedia, so i need you to authorize that the pictures are in the public domain or that you release them under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/)

the 2 pictures are: http://www.infoshop.org/graphics/cutting_sm.gif

http://www.infoshop.org/graphics/no_eu_sm.gif

hope that there's someone there to answer me...

thanks Odonian 10:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Those graphics are in the public domain. This was made clear to me when the artist sent them to me 10 years ago. Chuck0 15:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ANSWER link

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles, as you did to A.N.S.W.E.R.. Advertising, and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox", is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

I don't want to go this route, but what can we do? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a real Johnny-come-lately to this dispute, aren't you? The link in question has been part of this entry for various periods of time over the past year or so. The link is not promotional, advertising or a soapbox. The links goes to a notable page about the subject matter. If this link violates the Wikipedia stuff you are quoting, then Wikipedia would have to get rid of large numbers of external links. Chuck0 06:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Which entry? The links that I keep adding back to several pages are perfectly legitimate links. In The Stacks is removing them for personal reasons, which clearly violates the spirit of Wikipedia. I'm not going to go over the solid reasons why those links belong with those articles. I will keep adding these links until In The Stacks gets tired of playing the censor. Chuck0 01:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Yo, while I realise you are no longer actively contributing to Wikipedia, I wonder if you would consider submitting an image of yourself for use in the Chuck Munson article? It would a great addition to the page. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get a good picture from one of my photographer friends. Thanks for cleaning up these talk pages. I still think that people are using them in an effort to libel me, although the stuff they are citing is decontextualized and very obscure. People also don't read these talk pages, except for Wikipedia editors. Chuck0 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Any luck with your photographer friends? An anonymous IP just made edits removing two external links from the Anarchism article, which you might be interested in reviewing. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 20:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The Infoshop photographer is in town. I'll ask them to take a good public domain picture of me. Chuck0 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged, thank you. Skomorokh ^incite 14:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anarchism in Cuba

Hey Chuck, I see you have been popping in once in awhile, and figured Id let ya know that I started working on this article in my sandbox, and would ask for any input you might have, advice, editting, whatever. Cheers! Murderbike 23:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ALA Electoral fraud

You're the only ALA member I've seen here before so I'm sending this request for comment towards you. An editor has repeatedly added an allegation about a recent ALA election as an example of electoral fraud to that article. If you have a chance, can you give your input or sources to talk:electoral fraud#ALA? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a current ALA member. I'm on several librarian lists, but I haven't heard anything about this. Chuck0 03:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism

I am a Anarcho-communist myself, please don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about simply because I make an edit you don't agree with. Zazaban (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a mistake to add the Communism template to the anarcho-communism entry. I fixed that mistake. Chuck0 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism Task Force

Hey Chuck, since I see you've been editing a bit lately, I figure I'll invite you to check out the Anarchism Task Force we've created to try to better anarchism-related articles around here. Feel free to stop by! Murderbike (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I may participate a little, but I'm trying to minimize my involvement with Wikipedia, because I see this project as a big waste of time (flame wars over stupid things) and I think the anarchist articles here generally misrepresent anarchism. I'm also involved in developing an alternative to Wikipedia which is an anarchist encyclopedia and general interest "peoples" encyclopedia. Chuck0 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Understandable, though I think Wikipedia can only benefit from more of "us" around. Murderbike (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't Just Vote, Get Active

Yo Chuck, since you mentioned your interest at the Anarchism Taskforce, I've started an article on the 2004 Don't Just Vote, Get Active campaign. Skomorokh ^incite 07:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Link corrected. Skomorokh ^incite 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Crimethinc.

After reviewing the matter, I think you were right on the issue of including criticism from anarchists in the CrimethInc. article, even if they're not exactly paragons of scholarly virtue. I'd like to try and integrate some critical responses because the article does read like a cheerleading piece, but I'd like to reference critics of a slightly more notable flavour than "some dude with a blog". Given your uniquely qualified position, can you recommend any reasonably objective treatments from somewhat notable critics? скоморохъ 01:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yo Chuck, sorry I missed your comment at Talk:CrimethInc. a few days ago, I have responded there now if you're interested in developing the matter further. Skomorokh 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

lifestylism

Yo, I'm not entirely averse with your latest removal of content from lifestyle anarchism, because although sourced, it wasn't of an especially high quality. I do disagree with your rationale that just because the term is pejorative and no-one self-identifies as a lifestyle anarchist, we shouldn't have a comprehensive article on it. If you look at the articles on Nigger, Fascist (epithet) Champagne socialist, and Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet, you'll see that Wikipedia has plenty of comprehensive articles on pejorative terms that include a description of what the term is supposed to claim and those who the term has been leveled against. I think articles that "teach the controversy" i.e. state both sides of an argument, then meta-discussion etc in order to let te reader make up their own mind are vastly superior to stubs that don't tell the reader very much at all. скоморохъ 03:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia has longer articles on other perjorative terms, but those terms are known to just about everyone and have a substantial usage. Lifestylism is a pejorative used by a few people in a marginal political movement, therefore an entry should be shorter. It also just occurred to me that with three links, readers have access to more information on the term. If it were up to me, the entry should be deleted. Chuck0 (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that just because it's a narrowly-used term it should have a short article, but the version you argue for is admirably concise and as you point out, the links give a good exposition of the topic for readers interested in looking further into the matter. Thanks for taking the time to comment on the talkpage, I'll leave the article in its current state for now. Regards, скоморохъ 04:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

i am a lifestyle anarchist. Like Oscar Wilde. --Eduen (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Spunk Library

Yo Chuck, I've started an article on the Spunk Library; any comments, additions or corrections appreciated. Skomorokh 18:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty good overview. I think that the tense should be changed about the collective running the archive. The collective hasn't been active, I think, since the late 1990s. So I would say that it used to be run by a collective, which incidentally included several more people than the original four. I'm still the one who checks the Spunk mailbox.

On a trivia note: I used to use the review from the Rough Guide in my sig file, which was then read over the air by Dr. Laura during one of her shows. At that time, Dr. Laura was doing more activist work, in this case for the mandatory installation of censorware in public libraries, which I was opposed to. Chuck0 (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections on the collective and inactivity, I've incorporated them into the article. Shame the project is dormant, anything which needles Dr. Laura has my hearty support. Best, Skomorokh 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a very interesting project while it lasted and included some rather groundbreaking work that most people don't know about. It wasn't the earliest online archive, but it was one of the early ones. We also had one of the earliest online collectives. We also had a rather lengthy internal discussion about copyright that foreshadowed many of the issues about file-sharing and intellectual property that people hear about today. I'm not upset that the project is dormant. Most of the material from the archive is slowly being migrated to the Infoshop Library and other websites and publications have used many of the materials in the Spunk Library. Thanks for expanding the entry on Spunk. Chuck0 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, best of luck with the continued improvements at Infoshop. Incidentally, if you ever feel like writing a blog post on Spunk or early online anarchist activity, I'd be happy to use it as a source in our articles here, to give the reader more than barebones facts. Best, Skomorokh 02:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism discussion page

Chuck, I agree with your re-write of the Wikipedia policies I posted on Talk:Anarchism. However, by re-writing them, you make it look like I misquoted the policy, which makes me look dishonest. My point is that the policies already allow us to use anarchist writings in the article, and I hope that posting them will help other editors to feel they have the freedom to use those writings even though some of the frequent anarchist editors discourage such use. If you make it look like I'm acting in bad faith, it will just make it harder for me to make the argument that anarchist writings are appropriate sources. So, please, please, never edit another person's post. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to make it look like I was editing your post. I was editing the Wikipedia sourcing policy that you had posted in order to create something new. Chuck0 (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, but unfortunately we're stuck with the wikipedia policies we have. Nobody will abide by brand new policies we make up on the Talk:Anarchism page. If you go to the policy pages, maybe you'll have some success changing the policies there. If you do, let me know, and we'll post the new ones on Talk:Anarchism too. Thanks. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"This user feels that the current campaign to delete images from articles because of copyright concerns is a draconian interpretation of current Fair Use guidelines."

We agree so much. Many, many articles I visit regularly, often on prominent subjects have either only one image or none at all and if they have more than one are usually taken down very fast. At the rate we're going there will be only a few dozen images left. One image was deleted because the person was worried that the design for a building in the corner of the picture was copyrighted. (!) Zazaban (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to use Infoshop as a source

Yo, Chuck, sorry to bother you again. I was wondering if you could tell me whether there was any quick way of determining when an Infoshop News article is from Infoshop itself rather than just republished. Like a few of us have discussed before, I want to encourage the use of the reliable anarchist media in Wikipedia, but obviously we can't accept press releases and word of mouth. Regards, Skomorokh 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the Anarchism task force's new attempt to define a guideline on what "reliable sources" means in the context of anarchism: WP:ANCITE. Skomorokh 04:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information

Please explain why you called this this 'removing inaccurate information.' Do you have a source that has determined this was inaccurate? The original report was from the Washington Post, a citation that you removed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the source is me, the subject of this entry. This part of the Washington Post article is inaccurate. Reporters frequently get information wrong when they do biographical stories. Chuck0 (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What statement by the Washington Post was incorrect? EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Post was incorrect about me being arrested. Reporters frequently misquote people and mix up stuff from different interviewees. Chuck0 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Infoshop OpenWiki and copyright

Yo Chuck, I've been creating a series of articles on anarchist scholars (e.g. Shawn P. Wilbur, Lawrence Jarach), and was looking around for information to start an Allan Antliff article. I found what would be a great start here from Infoshop OpenWiki but noted that unlike Wikipedia, Anarchopedia, Agorism.info and Anarchy Wiki, Infoshop OpenWiki has no declaration of copyright status. This means, for example, that we can't use the Infoshop OpenWiki article on Antliff to start Wikipedia's article, and that cross-wiki collaboration is impossible without violating copyright.

Is not having a copyright notice on Infoshop OpenWiki a conscious decision taken by the editorial collective? Is Infoshop Openwiki under any explicit copyright at all? I'd really appreciate if you could look into this. Regards, the skomorokh 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't changed the default copyright statement for the OpenWiki because I'm too lazy and often have other priorities. It's on my to-do list. Chuck0 (talk) 05:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reply. the skomorokh 14:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Tried the other day to change the copyright notice for the OpenWiki, but couldn't figure it out. So, some progress, but couldn't update anything. Chuck0 (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Labor / Worker's Rights project

I recently drafted a proposal for a Worker's Rights & Labor Issues WikiProject ... I thought you might be interested, since you are working on the Anarchism project ...

Cheers! Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

problems on Infoshop

Chuck - I'm a programmer and have some experience with mediawiki. I notice that infoshop.org is having some tech problems lately and was wondering if I could lend a hand. I'm sorry that I can't guarantee a lot of time, but I should be able to find a couple of hours next week. I don't know the best way to contact you (the email us link is down), so I'm just posting here.

Mcuringa (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We've been migrating the site from one server to another. We've run into a few technical problems and some of us are otherwise busy with life and other projects. Drop me an email at chuck@mutualaid.org if you want to help in any way. Chuck0 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The World Can't Wait

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The World Can't Wait. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World Can't Wait. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Chuck0! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 542 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mary Dearborn - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS permission

Hello, please send an OTRS permission to this image, Thanks מתניה (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mary Dearborn

The article Mary Dearborn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long unreferenced WP:BLP of biographer with no significant claim to WP:Notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the fuck's the point of having an open encyclopedia if it doesn't have entries on significant authors and biographers? Chuck0 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)