User talk:Mista-X

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
If you need help, post a question at the Newcomers' Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Hi Mista-X. Just a note, don't sign your new articles or edits. You also might want to engage in debate about the article or justification of your changed on the "Talk" pages. To access the talk page for a particular article click the "Discuss this page" link at the bottom of the page. AndyL (talk) 01:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

5 Young Left and Rebel Youth Network

6 Maoist Reviews

6.1 Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
6.2 Spamming?
6.3 MIM is notable according to WikiPedia
6.4 Continued Vandalism

7 Mediation

8 Centralizing discussion

9 Alan Duff

10 RfC

11 Notice of request for arbitration regarding AndyL

General greetings

Hi!
That's a lot of interesting detail in your "new user log" entry. You could copy it to your user page, where it will be easily accessible for much longer.
Kind regards from New Zealand Robin Patterson 06:15, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hardial Bains

Hi,

My source for the info regarding other parties Bains founded is http://www.leninism.org/stream/98/hardial-1st-anniv.htm. While the author is unfriendly he seems to have factual info but its certainly worth checking for accuracy. AndyL (talk) 06:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

Well, the "Hardial Bains is a Charlatan (http://www.leninism.org/stream/96/charlatan.htm)" and "Hardial Bains is still a Charlatan (http://www.leninism.org/stream/98/hardial-1st-anniv.htm)" articles are definitely POV and I wasn't proposing integrating the accusations into the article but the comments about the other parties seemed factual. (BTW, just because an article is old, doesn't make it untrue, after all everything Bains wrote is older than those two articles). I took out the CPT&T reference but RCBM-L seems likely as does Communist Ghadar Party of India (see http://www.cgpi.org/pv150902.htm) and the others. AndyL 14:47, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article in the CGPI paper above calls Bains the founder of the parties mentioned in India, Britain and Ireland. Makes no mention of T&T. AndyL 16:46, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cuba

BTW, you might want to check out Allegations of human rights abuses in Castro's Cuba, we've had a bit of an edit war with your buddy TDC who you've conflicted with in Paul Robeson (TDC, as you might have guessed, is a fervent anti-Communist and has been propagating his views in a number of articles). AndyL 16:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Allende

Don't cross 3RR, let him or her. 2 can catch one out,--SqueakBox 17:08, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I reported 200.30.222.170 for 3RR on Allende at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3R, i was just saying don't break the 3RR yourself, let them do it and we can get them blocked, as plenty of us don't agree with him, --SqueakBox 17:18, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Young Left and Rebel Youth Network

Mista-X, the article on Young Left is very poor. I hate leftists but have taken pity on the article. I suspect a less compassionate soul will just delete it. Can I suggest you add something notable to it or delete it. Johnnyio 04:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I will take my pity elsewhere. Delete Johnnyio 04:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete Improve the article or just delete it. Friendly enough words. I tried to improve it as you can see. So leave your conspiracy theories to the barely attended meetings of the Young Left LOL. I would have thought in Canada you could do better with such a group, given how you're all communists who speak funny. Johnnyio 04:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DOOD, the record shows I corrected the spelling errors and tried sincerely to clean it up. THat's real love. I send it out to yo.

Your spelling is just awsome! --Mista-X 04:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But as for Canada, I believe only the solution outlined in the South Park Movie is acceptable. In the alternative you could all become our carpark. It's so hard to get a park these days. We need the space, living space as it were. Anyway, love 2 U. Johnnyio 04:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone from Canada can obviously tell this guy has never been there. If he had he would know that parking space is rare in any urban spot, especially in Ontario. --Mista-X 04:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No one time I did visit Ontario. Go ON. In fact I banged a particularly sweet ho, picked her up near the airport. Might have been your mom. Johnnyio 04:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mista-X, it seems Johnnyio didn't actually post his Young Left deletion nomination on WP:VFD, he just put in the {{vfd}} template which created the VfD subpage. Johnnyio was subsequently blocked for trolling/vandalism/etc., so obviously he's not going to fix things. Rather than have Young Left be in limbo for the forseeable future, I deleted the vfd tag. Heh, do tell me if I'm missing something here. Otherwise, happy editing! TIMBO (T A L K) 05:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia a long time, and share the views of groups like the Young Left which oppose capitalism and imperialism. As you probably already have guessed, your articles on Rebel Youth Network and Young Left are going through votes on deletion not because of any rules about notability or other nonsense, but because Wikipedia is largely controlled by right wingers, going all the way up to the Ayn Rand worshipping millionaire Jimbo Wales.

Anyhow, I would very much like it if you posted the articles to Anarchopedia (http://eng.anarchopedia.org). You will not be hassled about deletion there! I like Anarchopedia although it gets vandalized too often. Infoshop's OpenWiki (http://www.infoshop.org/wiki) does not get vandalized much, but you can't upload pictures yet.

I think you'll find these wikis have histories of left groups that might someday rival Wikipedia. A lot of it is US-based currently, although there are plenty of articles on communist parties from Greece to Peru to Indonesia to Colombia. Recently Revolutionary Workers Leagues were looked at, although just the US ones, not the one formed in Canada in 1977. Actually, some of it is not there because Anarchopedia and Infoshop's Openwiki need Canadians who know about the NDP and the CP of Canada and so forth.

So take a look at these wikis - people won't try to give them the boot there!

Fraternally Ruy Lopez 06:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maoist Reviews

We do not link to every review for every film, usually only to significant reviews that are a part of the movie lore, like Ebert's review of The Brown Bunny, or compilations of reviews like Rotten Tomatoes. If you continue to add these links to further your political viewpoint, it will become vandalism. --The Grza 00:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --The Grza 00:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --The Grza 00:36, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not support MIM. you are assuming that just because I added links to these reviews I must be pushing their viewpoint. This is not the case. Your distaste for these reviews is simply YOUR distaste, your POV. You are trying to portray your viewpoint as non-political, but it is in fact, entirely political. You are allowing mainstream (bourgeois) viewpoints and reviews to be linked to because you consider them to be acceptable. It seems they are acceptable to you because they are part of the status-quo. People come to WikiPedia in search of facts and alternatives to the mainstream corporate control over information. People come to contribute, share ideas and cooperate with others. This is not what you are doing here. Calling this vandalism is typical of tyrannical corporate types. For example, providing no space to people in the hood to be artistic then criminalizing them for spray painting graffitti. Or like dominating the media and shutting down small outlets when what the people have to say is no longer acceptable and deemed inapropriate. I will not allow this practice to be perpetuated on here, without a fight. Different viewpoints is not vandalism, unless the POV is being put right in the article. For it to be vandalism it would have to destroy, distort, or somehow make the article not-viewable. Linking to alternative reviews does not do this. --Mista-X 00:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My distaste for these reviews is based on their complete lack of relevance to the pages at hand. I don't like many of the reviews, some because they're poorly written, some because they like terrible movies, but if relevant they should stay. The MIM Reviews are terribly written with no taste whatsoever, but they are being removed because they lack any significance to the article. --The Grza 00:48, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how they are irrelevant. Perhaps you can explain how a review of these films from a class concious and scientific standpoint is irrelevant? If you don't like what they have to say, that's completely fair. You can take that up with MIM if you like. You could even post links to other reviews with different opinions. But other people may disagree with you, and find the MIM reviews to be completely relevant and maybe even a fresh breath of air. Calling the MIM reviews "terribly written with no taste whatsoever" is just your POV. In my POV Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn is a terrible writer, but I have no right to go to the article on Gulags and remove references to his work just because I might think they are "terribly written with no taste whatsoever", (not to mention pure fiction based on his own accounts which very well could be entirely made up) do I? So in short, you have admitted the reason you remove these is just because you don't like them. --Mista-X 00:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Some reading you should do since you seem to want to push your political agenda. And since you want to add ther maoist reviest to those article, i expect you do to add political reviews, ie not move reviews, to ALL nmovie related articles, as well as to add the the revirews of all extremisits parties, like Nazis, Marxists, Anchrists, those involved in radical Islam, so that your own political views can be balanced out. But being that your a POV pusher no better then the Oliver North vandals and others like him, i doubt that you will do that as it would go aginst the pushing of your own politicaly movated agenda. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 01:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I thought I made it clear that I don't support MIM. I may agree with some things MIM writes and/or does, but I agree with some things that the NDP writes about and/or does too, and I definately do not support them. Secondly, I am not in the least bit disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point by adding external links of movie reviews. This does not deface or vandalise an article in any way. Thirdly, I don't give a shit what you expect me to do. I will add things that I know about, which are relevant to articles. A Nazi viewpoint would most likely be racist, and therefor would have no place on WikiPedia, IMO, although there could be an exception. I am totally down with all types of opinions being linked to on WikiPedia otherwise, and they should be to "balance out" as you say. Fourthly, you calling these ideologies extremist is simply your POV and unscientific. Lastly, I have no idea what you are talking about with this "Oliver North" crap. --Mista-X 01:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spamming?

Spamming links to external websites on multiple Wikipedia pages is not really appropriate.

Most major Hollywood movies get hundreds if not thousands of reviews, few of which are notable enough to warrant inclusion as external links on Wikipedia, particularly if the reviewer or publication in question is not particularly well known.

-- Curps 02:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hardly see how this is SPAM. My understanding is that Spamming has to be something commercial. I am not directing users to buy products, simply offering them an alternative viewpoint, which they can read if they wish. MIM is very well known on the internet, and their movie reviews are widely read, at least on the left. Many people who disagree with MIM still find it entertaining and fascinating (OK, maybe that's an exaggeration) to read their reviews. For now, I will leave the others, but would you please leave The Matrix alone? It fits quite well in the section I put it. --Mista-X 02:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is, is your motivation to discuss the philosophy espoused by the makers of The Matrix, or merely to review that movie (and countless others) from a Marxist perspective? The fact that you seem to be adding movie reviews to so many other movies suggests that it's the latter. Also, the last paragraph of the MIM review strongly suggests that their interest is solely is using the movie as a didactic propaganda tool, rather than exploring what the Wachowskis actually may have had in mind. I'm not aware that the Wachowskis specifically mentioned Marxism as a major influence in any of the interviews they gave. -- Curps 02:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My motivation is irrelevant. We can't assume to know the motivation of every single contributer to WikiPedia, and try to decide if their contribution is relavent based on that assumption, now can we? Let's stick to the facts:

Are the MIM reviews relevant? - Well, IMO it is kind of hard for any review of a movie to be irrelevant. The reviews would have to be very off base, which these are not.

Is it vandalism? - Obviously not. It is not defacing the article.

Is it Spam? - No, it's not commercial nor is it forceful.

Are they not notable? - Well, since MIM has an entry here on WikiPedia, I would say that's notable enough.

Is it POV? - Yes, but all reviews are POV and no one is forced to agree with them or even read them.

MIM's review looks at dialectics in The Matrix and observes it as revolutionary. They don't claim that Wachowskis is coming from a Marxist standpoint at all, and they give their Maoist viewpoint. What one individual had in mind is not necessarily important, but rather what is actually portrayed and percieved, IMO. I think MIM would share that view.

--Mista-X 02:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MIM is notable according to WikiPedia

It is interesting that the reviews of movies by the Maoist Internationalist Movement that I have added to a few entries here on WikiPedia are being questioned as notable. The fact that MIM has an entry on WikiPedia that has not been deleted proves notability IMO, and I will be taking this issue up. It seems sparkling clear that it is in fact the ones who are against MIM reviews with the political agenda, and not the other way around. They don't have any other grounds for removing these reviews other than the fact they disagree or do not like MIM ideology. --Mista-X 02:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lots of topics and organizations meet minimum notability standards to have articles on Wikipedia. We even have an article on Time Cube, but that doesn't mean we should accept someone adding Time Cube–related links at Greenwich Mean Time (I'm not making this up, by the way). Donald Rumsfeld is notable too, but I'm not particularly interested in his views about movies (or baseball or flower arrangement).

I think that the religion/philosophy links section of The Matrix was intended for articles that discuss and analyze the Wachowski's underlying philosophy (which seems to be fairly eclectic) or their influences (which seem to be numerous). The MIM review does not take that approach, rather it merely uses the movie as a prop to discuss its own philosophy, analyzing the movie solely according to its own singular perspective and singular influence. This is akin to a dating-advice site publishing an article saying that Titanic is a good how-to guide for picking up women... they have every right to do so, but we would not really accept this as representing James Cameron's philosophy or his reason for making the movie. -- Curps 03:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you admit MIM is notable, you are just saying that it's YOUR opinion that their movie reviews are not worthy. The Time Cube theory could be added as a related entry in time for example. But just because you don't like or are not interested in something, doesn't mean it doesn't belong on WikiPedia. If Donald Rumsfeld was writing movie reviews, I think it would be totally fine to add them as external links. Why is it ok for Ebert to write reviews, but not some Joe Blow, Jane Doe, George W. Bush or some "wacko" from MIM? Their opinions could be just as valid, insightful and entertaining, if not better. --Mista-X 03:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Roger Ebert is notable as a movie reviewer and Donald Rumsfeld is notable as a Defense Secretary; Donald Rumsfeld is not notable as a movie reviewer, and neither is MIM. Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and articles have to be kept to a manageable size; not everyone who wishes to add an external link will be able to do so.

I note that IMDB has a review links page for The Matrix (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/externalreviews), with links to no less than 281 reviews. However, MIM does not seem to be one of them. -- Curps 05:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism

You have continued to vandalize pages with this stuff after being warned to stop by several users. This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing. --The Grza 03:27, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

No I have not, you are the only one that asked or "warned" me to stop, so who are the several users? And again, I ask "what vandalism"? You still have not explained how the external links I have added are vandalism. --Mista-X 03:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are vandalism because you are intentionally violating Wikipedia's editing policy repeatedly, despite being warned. --The Grza 03:34, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between violating an editing policy and vandalism. Certainly vandalism is a violation, but a violation isn't vandalism necessarily. So what "editing policy" did I violate? and for the last time explain how it is vandalism please. --Mista-X 03:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...and BTW, actually, you broke 3RR, not me. --Mista-X 04:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no three revert rule for vandalism; The course of action is to revert the vandalism where you find it, if the person continues then you warn them, and finally, you report their actions to the Vandalism in Progress page. I've done all these things. This is not a matter of disagreement over what the rules of Wikipedia are, this is one user flouting those rules to insert spam onto the pages repeatedly. The edit policy you violated was inserting links of little to no value for your own POV, spam or other, more personal reasons that don't relate to the articles on Wikipedia. I tried to explain to you that these are not of note, not because I disagree with them, but because they are meaningless in the context of the article. The end result of the policy you're trying to create would be miles long links at the end of every page, instead of actually including information. This is an encyclopedia, not WebArchive. Thank you for ending your vandalism of these pages, by the way. --The Grza 04:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's too bad there was no vandalism in the first place, so yes the 3RR is valid. It is obvious that you knew it wasn't vandalism in the first place when you noted your removal was based on the fact that it was a "communist review". You changed your tone later on to try and cover the fact that you were vandalising a legitamate addition based on your POV. Anyone will be able to see this in the history, and like Fidel Castro "it will absolve me". I am still waiting for you to explain how it was vandalism. You can't seem to make up your mind if it was because it is POV (all movie reviews are) or spam (it had no commercial content, and if their is you certainly didn't point out anything of the sort) nor is it being pushed on anyone (like being sent to their e-mail or forced on their screen with a pop-up) which constitutes spam. I am not sure what "persynal" reasons you think I have for posting these reviews, other than I think they are valuable and worthwhile. I disagree with you that they are "meaningless in the context of the article", that's your POV. You have not given any reason other than your persynal dislike and POV of the reviews. There is no "miles long links at the end of every page" to speak of, and in the case you have not given me an explanation of how it is decided which reviews should be allowed to stay and which should not. I don't think this is for you to decide, but rather the masses on WikiPedia. --Mista-X 04:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand edit summaries. They are there to explain, at a glance, what the edit was, not a detailed reasoning why the edit took place. I did, as my edit summary states, remove a communist review. The POV is inherent in these type of reviews the same way Christian reviews are bound by their ideology instead of actually critiquing a film. As for my "POV", it's based on Wikipedia's "POV" that meaningless articles designed for advertisement for an ideology or a product are spam and repeated entries of such become vandalism. I'm now done with this conversation, hopefully the admins will take the appropriate action if you restart your spree. --The Grza 05:29, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation if problems persist. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyL 14:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Centralizing discussion

Regarding the ongoing debate over your edits to movie-related pages, AndyL has objected that the discussions have not taken place at Talk:The Matrix. To accomodate this objection, perhaps future discussions should be centralized there rather than various users' talk pages. -- Curps 21:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alan Duff

Thanks for the tipoff about the article. I've given it a bit more wikifying. I liked the whole article (though I wondered where it all came from but I didn't look at the external links). Kia ora! Robin Patterson 22:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Can you please consider certifying my dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Curps? To do so add four squiggles immediately under my name at Users certifying the basis for this dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Curps#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute) AndyL 03:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Notice of request for arbitration regarding AndyL

I've filed a request for arbitration against AndyL. For reasons described in the request, I don't believe you are a directly involved party, but you may wish to provide evidence later if the arbitration request is accepted. -- Curps 00:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Mista-X"