User talk:Mhazard9

Please watch your edits

Please watch your edits in the future. During a recent edit of yours at James Bond you deleted half the page. Also please do not mark your edits as minor when they are clearly not. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

• Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers
• Wikipedia:Manual of style
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions

Welcome to Wikipedia K1Bond007 07:41, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Base and superstructue

Hi, Ong saluri here. I consider your revision to the lead section in Base and superstructure to be good in some respects, but I've expressed a few concerns about possibly obscured meaning on the article's talk page. Nice to meet you. Ong saluri (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Politics and the English Language

Greetings Mhazard9 - I have been following your recent edits to the George Orwell article Politics and the English Language with interest, but also with increasing concern. My first impression, based on your claim to reduce "prolixity", was that the huge amount of work you were putting into it would result in a great article - like most articles, this particular one needed serious stuff done to it - but little by little I have come to realise that the article was becoming harder to understand.

Your initial stated intention of reducing prolixity has, in my opinion, become all the opposite. I have therefore taken a bold decision and reverted your recent edits to the article "as was". Please don't take this personally - it is only my opinion, and as such open to debate, but maybe we can discuss future major edits to the article on the discussion page. Consensus is what Wikipedia is all about. --Technopat (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI Discussion about you

Hello, Mhazard9. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mhazard9_-_possible_disruptive_editor.3F Exxolon (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring others' messages

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Deor (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Literary criticism edits

I don't really see what you're trying to do with the huge number of trivial changes to wording in articles like Literary criticism. It would help a lot if you'd use the Talk page to discuss your objective and explain why you were making changes. But in any case, could you please edit in smaller chunks, using more honest and explanatory edit summaries than just "clean up; composition"? Far from being mere copyediting or grammar cleanup, some of what you did amounts to substantial changes to the meaning of the article, often making previously good explanations of the subject into false oversimplifications. If you think there's some reason to prefer some of your rewordings, please explain on the Talk page what it is. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rbellin: I apologise for offending you, I did not know you own this entry; you have disabused me; thank you.

I copy-edited the page to say what it means, and mean what it says; thus, the filled-in lacunae and the completed incomplete constructions. As I did not write it, I am not too-close to miss its faults; if you do not see them, you choose not to — after all, your categoric “triviality” dismissal kills communication. Don’t you think so? Otherwise, why the argumentum ad hominem attack? Why not facts? Why not specific examples? Why just opinion? Why the “hurt feelings” chicanery about a public academic endeavour, that is not yours? The sun shines for everyone . . . might I get some? The explanation is plain English: “Clean up; composition” means what it says, and vice versa.

I followed this link from a Kingsley Amis book entry, and read that Literary Criticism does not say what it means and does not mean what it says, so I corrected it. Again, categoric dismissal betrays the expert’s hubris; more attitude than ability. Give examples, be specific, I cannot read a blank. Compare the editions; you will see the gaps and lacunae my edition fills and corrects in completing the entry. Still, the gist (substance) of your contribution(s) is good, but compositionally uneven, hence my participation. Sport, among eggheads, taking umbrage is telling! Mind your self.

In CMOS talk: The substantive and mechanical edits mean to elucidate the concrete distinction of the terms, from the abstruseness to which this subject tends. As the article says, laymen have trouble distinguishing between literary criticism and literary theory; we over-schooled, expert eggheads do not have that trouble — but regular folk do. That was the purpose of the edits, the typography, et cetera, which are my quotidian labours IRL.

You do recall those other aspects of editorial work, from your real-life publishing work, do you not? After all, as you know, editorial work is more than typing-in paragraphs from favourite sources; two per cent of the work is just two per cent of the work. Let me know, if the owner of the entry might welcome another contributor; if not, well . . . I shall understand.

Mhazard9 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. I have made no ad hominem remarks at all; in fact, your insinuations about "hurt feelings" and out-of-the-blue claims to know about my real-life work (huh?) are the only ad hominems here. (And incidentally, not that it should matter, but since you accuse me of personal defensiveness: I wrote perhaps four or five paragraphs of the existing article, the bulk of its text is not mine.) As far as I can see you have provided no justification I can see for the changes you just reverted, beyond these vague and nonsensical claims about "saying what it means." Again, please use the article's Talk page to discuss your proposed changes and explain why you think they're preferable. Reverting doesn't help. I still don't see how the bulk of these changes make the article better, after reviewing them again. And I note that this is not the first time you've been cautioned about making arbitrary changes to articles' wording, failing to discuss them, and using dishonest or vague edit summaries. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Literary criticism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please stop revert-warring; you are already in violation of the 3-revert rule. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Korean War article

Thank you for your contributions to the Korean War article. Your edits suggest an eye for detail, so I wanted to let you know that your typographical changes conflict with Wikipedia's house style, set out in the Manual of Style (MOS).

Some specifics:

• MOS:PAIC: "Inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation ... with no intervening space".
• MOS:ELLIPSES: Spaced ellipses (". . .") are discouraged in favour of the unspaced alternative ("...").
• MOS:EMDASH: "Use em dashes sparingly. They are visually striking, so two in a paragraph is often a good limit."
• MOS:QUOTE: For quotes, "preserve the original style, spelling, and punctuation." (This still applies here.)
• MOS:BOLD: Use boldface for "proper names and common terms for the article topic ... Do this only for the first occurrence."
• WP:MOS#Dates: Dates are given with "a spaced en dash where opening and/or closing dates have internal spaces", e.g., "23 March – 16 July 1953".
• WP:MOS#Quotation marks: Typographic or curly glyphs are "Not recommended".
• WP:MOS#Unit symbols and abbreviations: "A non-breaking space ... separates numeric values and unit symbols", e.g., "23 mm".

Although I appreciate the merits of your typographical aesthetic, I hope you won't mind a judicious application of MOS guidelines to your edits. Such reversions will be for the sake of consistency, in the wider scope of the encyclopaedia, rather than any personal ideology. Warm regards, Pslide (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested in style and punctuation, you might like Tony's exercises, perhaps Redundancy or Hyphens and dashes. I enjoyed them thoroughly and think they're useful for editors of all levels. Best, Pslide (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Red Army

Kindly check your facts before editing - you are introducing numerous errors to an article that needs a lot of work already. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check your facts before editing. Georgi Zhukov was a Marshal of the Soviet Union, not a 'Field Marshal.' Buckshot06(prof) 10:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Smart quotes

Please note that per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, articles should not use smart quotes. If you are composing your changes in a word processor, which often automatically uses smart quotes, please disable the feature when editing Wikipedia articles in it. Thank you. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Iliad

Hi there. I noticed you've been involved, to a greater or lesser extent (yes, this is a form message), on the Iliad article. I'm planning a bit of a reorganisation, and would appreciate any thoughts on the talk page (topic is at or near the bottom). Cheers! --Quadalpha (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

You appear to have introduced some very stilted and unusual English style in your changes to the plot summary. What, for example, is "historically armed"? A bow and arrow? "Whereat" is distinctly archaic, "apartment" is US English, which should not be used in British English articles. "In aid of laying the mole trap, Esterhase selectively tells Smiley ..." is just awful.

You may be an expert in "compositional details", whatever they are, but please do not neglect conventional, or indeed conversational, style. HLGallon (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Operation Paperclip

Your complete re-edit of the "Operation Paperclip" lede resulted in poor flow, with disjointed commentary and several errors. In particular the Cold War was not "Russo-American" but "Soviet-American," and your composition included several run-on sentences that would be difficult for a first-time reader to understand. If you wish to edit the lede, please respect what previous editors have worked out over the past several years. I am sure you can add a great deal of value to the article if we work out your proposed changes on talk.Apostle12 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have edited your version of the lede to eliminate run-on sentences, reduce real and apparent redundancies, and move away from overuse of parentheses. If you will kindly observe these stylistic changes, your future edits will require less rework on the part of other editors.

I just reviewed your most recent edit to the article, and I note that you seem inclined to employ phrases that are close to colloquial, thus inappropriate to an encyclopedia (e.g. "shot their bolt")--it would be good if you could move away from this sort of thing.

Please pay heed to flow and the use of awkward phraseology to convey the ideas you wish to include in the article. Your care in this regard will save other editors a great deal of time and work. Thank you. Apostle12 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've been nice. You continue to insert extremely awkward phraseology in the article, often with no apparent purpose. Take a writing course sir! Apostle12 (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You claim to have reduced "prolixy." I couldn't find that word in any dictionary, though I did find "prolix," which means "wordy." When you change "US Pentagon headquarters" to "the Pentagon headquarters, in the US," please realize that this edit (like many of your other edits) does NOT reduce "prolixy." As many other editors have noted, here and elsewhere, your writing style might most kindly be described as turgid; at least you might occasionally bow to consensus, instead of insisting over and over on your own literary aesthetic. Apostle12 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Your edits to the "Operation Paperclip" article during the past day truly were over-the-top. They probably constituted the most disruptive editing I have ever seen on Wikipedia--you obviously have an axe to grind, you introduced extensive O.R., and your prose is nearly impossible to read. I will be taking the necessary steps to get you blocked until you can constructively engage with the other editors. Meanwhile your edits have been reverted. Please abstain from doing further damage to this, and other, articles. Apostle12 (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Apostle12:

Greetings, and thank you for the argumenta ad hominem; Oscar Wilde was correct. I apologise for not communicating with you ’til now, but . . . I have been reading the sources for this entry, and have replaced most of the facts you suppressed — especially because you ignored my original reply to: Be specific and give examples of the errors, misrepresentations, and whatever else you define as disruptive editing. So, I have been restoring the facts you obscured from the record: For example, Operation Paperclip originated as an Anglo–American matter, but suddenly . . . the Earth tilted right and the Brits fell off and disappeared . . . and only John Wayne drove the jeep, spoke German, saved the day, and he alone returned (helmet chin strap unfastened) from the mission . . . and the facts be damned . . . ’cause they don’t fit the Good War Disney version, wherein we (the US) hired German, not Nazi scientists. If you disbelieve me, read “The scientist” section of the entry.

Lie to me, lie to Jesus, but do not lie to yourself — especially on the Internet, where most of these facts are available, for example, the “They are Nazis” discussion correspondence (by other editors in whose name you spoke), that you IGNORE, because you conflate “Nazi” and “German” and so misrepresent the historical record, contradicting your contributions, by the way. Oy vey! Consider this, when Nazi apologists say: “Certainly not everyone was a Nazi” . . . might one, as the reader of the Operation Paperclip entry, not expect “certainly” to be substantiated with a fact and a citation, rather than a discourteous, dismissive cool-guy, in-crowd reversion? I guess there are some things we just don’t talk about, eh?

Apostle12, as an editor, do you ever speak for yourself, or shall you always hide behind Authority (the Second person plural, really!?), rather than intellectually defending your point of view with facts? If you disbelieve me, please review your earlier correspondence to me, notice, please, your Article Owner’s anger manifest as personal attacks, NEVER do you address the matters to hand. Why not? It’s easy, cite the title, the chapter, the verse, and the page number; no fuss, no muss, just brain work, and your hyperstension remains stable. Character assassination is unnecessary and unmanly — especially when you practice the editorial rules you preach. Ist das nicht so, mein Herr?

The substantiated (cited) expansion work I have done is so that the Operation Paperclip encyclopædic article answer the elementary “Who? What? Where? When? and Why?” questions to the subject; by the way, when did Operation Paperclip end, the entry does not (yet) answer that elementary question, can you? I ask you, the Article Owner — because another editor already did — and neither you nor your shadow deigned to provide that FACT, substituting, instead, more attitude than ability.

I have been, and continue, reading the cited sources, and your factual suppressions are impressive. I ask directly: Are you a Nazi apologist? Based upon the discussion page correspondence, I must ask: Why are you and pal(s) suppressing the references to “Nazi scientist”, given that “Nazi scientist” appears in many of the titles of the sources? Are those professors wrong, and only you correct? Please, let me know.

When I replied, you stooped to argumenta ad hominem, rather than step up to communication. Operation Paperclip occurred in an historical context, the Second World War, not a vacuum; pray tell, was that fought solely by the US? Be a sport, please remember that verifiability is the watch-word here, not what I say, not your obscurantist, White Hat–Black Hat interpretation of world history — just the facts with substantiating citations. Given our twenty-first century remove from the matter — i.e. most everyone is dead and everything done — why are you afraid of the full disclosure of the historical facts? The story is true and fascinating, why lie with weasel words? Everyone’s hair was mussed, there are photographs, really.

If you are what you claim, a history aficionado, then surely, might you not survive publication of already-published facts? Given your THREATS to banish me . . . because I disagree with you, might you not, at least, be specific and give examples of error, misstatement, and misrepresentation? I ask this minimal editorial courtesy because I do not know you to insult you, as you have insulted me, over a history article. The edition I expanded is supported by VERIFIABLE American and British sources cited; please read them, rather than CENSORING facts, names, and dates that discomfit you.

Mhazard9 (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As with your edits, this reply is quite baffling. You seem to imagine that I am a Nazi apologist who wishes to suppress information; hardly, and quite the contrary. You also seem to imagine that I wish an America-centric, "John Wayne" flavor to prevail; again, quite the contrary.

For quite a number of days I worked to help incorporate in some coherent way the factual information you introduced into the article. You would not engage on talk, so yesterday I kept my edits extremely short, explaining each with the reasons they were important to preserve the meaning and flow of the article.

The above is total nonsense. No one is "lying with weasel words." No one is "CENSORING facts, names and dates" that discomfit. Apostle12 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please stop your disruptive editing to the Nazism article as well.Spylab (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, stop it. You are not making the article better by cluttering it up with unnecessary details (that's what the links are for), and by re-introducing poor writing and grammar mistakes.Spylab (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned, you don't need to keep cluttering up the article with dates and unnecessary extra details; that's what the internal links are for. If someone wants to know the details, they will click on the links.Spylab (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nazism, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Spylab (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your Nazism history article edit war against MHazard9.

Dear Spylab:

Like you, I base my editorial work upon facts and sources, yet, because you do not know something or dislike it does not mean it is wrong. In a history article, FACTS (dates, times, places, and names) matter, because the article must answer the questions: Who? What? Where? When? and Why? without the reader having to go elsewhere for the information promised in the article. That is why the proper noun spellings and accurate translations matter. You are wrong in deciding for the reader that he or she does not need to know those dates; in 2010, most people were not then alive.

Give it a try, let us work together; please, be a mensch and don't cop out with “disruptive editor” canards; our work histories would embarrass you before the authorities; we know what we know, we are history aficionados, most Anglophone readers might not be. Let me know.

Best regards, 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Mhazard9 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.5.22 (talk)

Space Race revision

Hi:

I was looking over the major revisions that you made today on the Space Race article, and although in some cases they improved some aspects of the article, they also introduced new errors, both factually and stylistically. I suggest that this major rewrite be done in an user sandbox page, like User:Abebenjoe/Sandbox2, where the article can be fine-tuned and then migrated to the main article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Abebenjoe:

Please, be specific and give concrete examples. As the self-appointed article owner, you are obliged. Your style of editing is your business . . . or do I require your permission to participate in correcting the right-wards tilt narrative of a "done deal". Example: “When the Russians effected the first space walk . . . that was okay, but the Americans did it better” . . . is not objective . . . gosh . . . What might I say?

I am an ex-US Army officer (Infantry) and am risibly impressed at how you Cold War REMF jokers are tougher than men of arms, especially here, in Wikipedia . . . where such “toughness” results in flagged articles on account of right-wing bias. The USSR is dead (not Russia), so nil nisil bonum.

I refer to your Voskhod 2 article quarrel with an editor who sought to identify the USSR as launching it, but, rather than address his matter . . . you copped out and dismissed the entire article . . . just to disregard him . . . oh boy! You are one (intellectually) tough guy . . . yet . . . you WEASELED out from answering a direct EDITORIAL question . . . Why, sir? Was that other editor factually wrong? Again, the morally outraged tone betrays you. Set your feet on the ground, even the astronauts respected the cosmonauts. Let me know. Meantime, I shall continue contributing FACTS, I defer opinion to you.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I see, Mhazard9, that you are still engaged in disruptive editing and massively narcissistic self-justification. I might suggest that you would be more effective here if you tried co-operating with the other editors. Might be more fun too! Apostle12 (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I was away on vacation and just noticed your reply. I'm an ex-Canadian Armed Forces infantry soldier as well, involved in the last years of the Cold War, but being in the American or Canadian armed forces doesn't mean much to this article. Anyway, I didn't write this article, and I find it has huge stylistic and content problems, but your edits just made them worse. As I said, I've written or helped write a few FA articles, and will fix this one up shortly, as I do know the subject matter, and know how to properly cite works, and write from a neutral point of view, which is the basis of an FA article anyway.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Goldhagen article

I've reverted your edits of the article on Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. When editing an article, "[t]alk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy" (Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Content_changes). Please consult with the talk page before making substantial edits, especially of controversial topics or articles. Shoplifter (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Shoplifter (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary for me to give detailed explanations as to whether your edits are imprudent. It's sufficent that you have not consulted the talk page prior to implementing sweeping changes to the article, as follows from the wiki guidelines. I've given you the opportunity to voice your concerns on the talk page, but you have instead chosen to engage in edit warring, and, additionally accused me of making "unexplained reversions of Talk-page-based corrections of POV pushing" when in fact you have not replied to my concerns on your user talk page nor are you making changes in accordance with an article talk page consensus. Seeing as I've gotten your attention with the 3R warning, are you willing to revert your edits and opt for a talk page dicussion? Shoplifter (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please show good faith by reverting your latest edit. If I see your honest about wanting to reach a settlement without getting administrators involved, I will go through your edits and give you a point-by-point description of where I find potentially controversial adjustments that require consensus-building. Shoplifter (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Shoplifter:

The presumption of Good Faith rests upon you; check the rules; I expanded with verifiable facts. Show me the criticisms, and you and I shall resolve them. Fair?

Let me know. Mhazard9 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as a showing of good faith I'll agree to that. Here's some of what I find problematic:

1) You changed the name of the category "Critics" to "Detractors". The latter connotes writings of insulting nature as opposed to academic criticism.

2) In describing the criticism of Finkelstein & Birn, you replaced the word "errors" with "errata". The latter is your WP:OR, the former is the correct assumption (namely, that published material contains errors, not misprints).

3) You opted to describe the academic criticism of Goldhagen's book as "denunciations by detractors" instead of the neutral "other critics".

4) You've editorialized on your view of Goldhagen's work in the introduction, employing a flagrantly WP:POV tone. Additionally, you removed the caveat about Goldhagen's most famous books being "controversial".

As a minor point, your stylistic changes do not comport with the Wikipedia: Manual of Style. Shoplifter (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked: Using IP addresses to evade scrutiny

Hi. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhazard9, I have blocked your account for two weeks for evasion of scrutiny with your IP addresses. You may appeal using {{unblock}}. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Falklands War. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please stop re-adding erroneous informaiton and making clearly POV changes. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Das Kapital

Hi Mhazard,

I appreciate the recent, thorough work you've been doing on the article on Das Kapital, but I'm curious why you reverted some of my changes. As per WP:BRD, these things are best raised on the talk page before reverting them. It's hard to get a sense of the specific reason for your changes, because you've used the same edit summary for most of your work on this article. Perhaps in the future you could be more precise? I'll be restoring the missing templates (which are fully justified until the problems are fixed; the article is in generally terrible shape, especially compared to the amount of useful work there is out there on Capital); I'll also be changing "Oekonomie" back to "Ökonomie" - I'm a fluent German speaker, and this is how the word is spelled (see the German article on Capital). "Oekonomie" is sometimes used as a typographic choice, but is not generally considered to be the spelling for the official title of the book. Cheers! Sindinero (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sindinero:

Thank you, for your observations, recommendations, and comments . . . but, because of the tone of umbrage, I am increasingly worried, because YOU are the subject of your communication, not the book article about Das Kapital (1867); neverthenonetheless, in the Wiki Geist I await your lead in establishing the required corrections, here, in the English Wikipedia, where Anglophone ignorance of Marx has kept the article skeletal. Let us work together, ¿sí?

The German language changes I effected corresponded to the internal consistency of the ARTICLE, Marx’s (M.’s) nineteenth-century spellings are what I applied, not the contemporary reformed German language (with which I agree), but, because they CONTRADICT each other, the article is almost immediately at disadvantage for credibility; what M. wrote is not what you wrote. Oh. Especially risible, however, is the "gosh golly" "How?" "Who?" . . . My porridge! . . . attitude, which is intellectually uncool, because it smells of Page Owner Outrage (POO: ¡Cómo se atreve!) — more attitude than substance, and not collectivist Team Spirit. I observe this of you, because the Das Kapital article has lain substantively fallow for two years (ca. 2009) . . . and suddenly . . . clip-clop, clip-clop anounce the horse's shoes that the Landlord (¿Grundbesitzer?) has returned from a shopping trip to the big city . . . and ascribes all editorial defects to the newest editor hoeing the row. Really?

The edit summaries are brief . . . because they are summaries; the comparison feature allows a reasonably acute editor to compare . . . but . . . Hey! it's only Wikipedia, where whine and cheesy fanboy writing are freely proffered, and viciously defended. No thanks, I prefer bourbon whisky, and dry facts. Disbelieve me? Compare the skeletal original, before I arrived to hoe the row . . . and, please!, re-think your umbrage.

So, like Karl Marx, I expect You to lead by example, not by managerial diktat; therefore, provide translations from the German article (indubitably superior), and I shall work with you; show me, Sergeant. Furthermore, it is better to ask forgiveness than permission, especially about contributing to a public forum with no owner. Because we are intellectually unalike (Marx is cool with me) and gamesmanship is not my gig (your over-labelling), is why I did not seek the absent Grundbesitzer for (his, her, shis) permission to match the German title of the Article with the German-language Title page of Das Kapital illustrating the article Das Kapital (common sense, ¿No?) . . . but, elsewhere, in the German Wikipedia, where things are done in German, a la alemana, is a specious argument; y'know . . . the Gringo and the Kraut ways is dif'rent; being neither, I take your criticisms as progressive arrows enroute to OUR redacting a better article about Das Kapital.

I shall accept your extended editorial hand in my bionic claw, and ask you: Work with me, Sindinero, because our article needs work, not emotional POO from an Owner-Overseer who knows what is required, yet has not done it, and does not do it, because. . . . Help me with your German–English translations, as You know and M. knew, human translations are superior to machine translations, which are inherently inferior (I do not command German to that degree), and I shall gladly work with you. I apologise for the lack of self-reference, but, I prefer gazing at the work, rather than at my navel; it's a generational perspective.

As you might recall, the original state of the article was riddled with the usual Anti-Communist, Ant-Marxist character assassination phrases of "According to Marx", "Marx says", "Marx claims", et cetera, which are argumenta ad hominem meant to distract the mind and attract the heart, hence why I do not take umbrage at your communications about this matter. Elucidating your difficulty in grasping the gist of my initial copy-editing requires your choosing to do so; do not bullshit yourself; if you grasp Marx, you grasp the editorial reality, which you claim to appreciate in your topic sentence. Dude! Wazzup? ¿Realmente no entiendes?

I look forward to working with you; ’til then, you have my

Best regards, Mhazard9 (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with the positives, then. I am sincerely glad that you are not a McCarthyite anti-communist—there are enough of those trolling around these pages, and I'm glad you're not one of them. You also seem to have familiarity with Capital and a desire to improve the article, and many of your recent changes have been for the better. These are all traits to be lauded.

However, nothing in either my changes to the article or my comments on your talk page warranted the response you gave. I would be surprised about this, but a brief look at past encounters you've had[1][2][3] suggests that this is an ongoing schtick of yours. With that in mind, I won't waste time or space treating you like a newcomer and trying to explain the reasons for our divergence in detail.

But a couple points should be addressed. To start with, if you look at the article history you'll see that my contributions have been minimal, and fairly recent. I have no sense of ownership over or affective bond to this article; I'm more interested in fixing problems that come up: in this case, undoing some of your recent changes that either removed justified templates without explanation [4] or broke up complete sentences into fragments[5].

Indeed, if anybody is exhibiting tendencies of ownership here, it's you. This seems to be another running thread in your conflicts with other editors, who are bewildered at being accused of goaltending articles they merely tried to improve by reverting some of your more disruptive edits.

To your credit, I am impressed that in your comments to me you managed to fit that amount of preciousness, precociousness, pretentiousness, narcissism, arrogance, and general aggression into so few lines, but in general I wonder what you're after on Wikipedia. This weird Good-Will-Hunting/neglected-genius/Olympian-polymath/renegade-intellectual/last-of-the-high-modernists schtick is a touch dry, and (in my opinion as a reader) gets increasingly desiccated with each rote repetition. You gesture towards a collaborative spirit but your sophomoric condescension is, well, gastrovoltic. Marx may well be cool with you, but nobody on Wikipedia—even those who actually do know their stuff well ("surplus profit"? Epicurus as a pre-Socratic? really?)—should take the appropriative, condescending tone you take with other editors.

Yes, the article is in terrible shape, yes, it needs to be improved, but it's bizarre that you somehow gleaned from my comments that I was blaming all the defects on you. This isn't about egos or personalities. If you don't like my reverts, let's talk it out, in detail, on the article talk page. Those templates were there for a reason; likewise, there's no good reason for "Oekonomie" over "Ökonomie". I hope we can work together, with any other interested editors, to bring this article to the level that the subject matter deserves; given your history though, I can't be optimistic about this. Sindinero (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhazard9. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice and block

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)