Archive

Sorry, didn't know it was an issue .. incidentally, you may be interested in WP:RENAME. Best, --EmbraceParadox (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a user is blocked from editing, as an anonymous user, then to unblock them an administrator must know their exact IP address; otherwise it is impossible to unblock the correct address. This can be gotten by the user in three easy ways that I can think of:

1. Visiting Special:Mytalk, which sends the user to their talk page. In the case of this person, while not logged-in it would send them to the talk page of their IP address.
2. Attempting to edit a page, which causes the block message to be displayed. It should tell the user what their IP address is.
3. Using an external IP-displaying site which reveals to one their IP address without them needing technical knowledge. I don't know any in particular, but I'm sure that Google would make finding one trivial.

Once we have the IP address, it would be easy to check for blocks or range blocks, and then either grant the user (as a registered user) IP block exemption or to unblock the address.
I hope this helps; let me know if you need any further help with this. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How seriously do we take this list? I've checked some of the entries of the philosophers I actually know by emailing them. This could be a long process. But what is the source for these names? Some of them just appear to be those who have spoken at the institute - almost certainly because they were invited, in my view, with expenses and so on. Where is the evidence that they endorse the view of Rand as a bona fide philosopher? Peter Damian (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that people who really don't like her or her work AND are doing editing on that page because of their dislike won't be open to any argument. Others, even those who don't like her or her ideas, but are fair, will see that she is a philosopher. The fact that she is listed as such in more than one encyclopedia would be enough. The fact that more than one professor emeritus of a major university has written papers on her philosphical ideas would be enough. The fact that there are books out discussing her philosophy would be enough. The fact that she is mentioned in some philosophy text books would be enough. Look at the Wikipedia article on Objectivism - the system she created. Look at Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to examine some of her work in that field. For a reasonable person, no more needs saying. --Steve (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the RFc on the Ayn Rand page, there is no consensus to support the edits and deletions made by one faction following the Dec 31 freeze. The vote as to whether there was a consensus for the changes was 9 to 3 against, 7 to 5 if one counts only experienced editors, and adds votes for two editors who commented but did not make an explicit vote. In either case, a minority, no matter how vocal (the talk page has never been so large, and so empty) cannot claim to have established a new consensus.

Hence, we shall revert to the actual consensus version of Dec 31, and I respectfully request that all editors accept and defend this long standing consensus version as the starting point for new edits. Reversions to the controversial shortened article should not be supported against the vote of the RFC. I request that those who wish to modify the article state the changes they want on the talk page, and request a vote for the changes they wish to make. I request that editors not simply assert that there is a new consensus for deletions as has been done, since the RFC clearly shows that this is not the case.

If you have suggestions for improving the article (I support trimming down all sections which have their own separate wikipedia article, such as Objectivist movement) please discuss them, conscisely now, but let us not revert to an edit war. Kjaer (talk) 01:05, 12 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} 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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]

I would like to see you and Kjaer sign on to the mediation. A lot of editors have signed on and many of them seem like reasonable and good faith people like Slim Virgin and Ethan. Wikipedia isn't perfect, but I think the interest expressed is generally a good thing and people who didn't know anything about Ayn Rand are learning a bit about her background and significance. Rome wasn't built in a day... If you're not going to participate in the mediation the matter will move up the chain to Arb com. This doesn't seem any more attractive as an option. What do you think? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]