User talk:RL0919

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Ye Olde Talk Scrolls

2005-2006 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011

hello richard lawrence

why does my information on that article dosent deserve to be on that page.....why is it being constantly edited.....?

i havent been spreding ???lies???....and what iam writing is specified with page numbers and a link...which is true....then why???/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.227.55 (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and sorry for speaking truth about alan greenspan who admires or follows ayn rand...and i forgot to mention his role about financial crisis in 2008...although no one can avert or edit(neither me nor you) the coming financial crisis in near future...this is some futile effort being placed to hide the tip of ice berg....wait and see

good night and thank you...may creator of the world bless you with knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.227.55 (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two major problems. First, you are adding this into the the middle of the lead section. The lead is supposed to briefly summarize the article, not contain the detailed quotes about his views. Second, your edits are formatted in a way the disrupts the text with unnecessary bolding and whitespace. This is why people are reverting your changes so quickly. If this material belongs in the article anywhere, it would be further down, in the section discussing his political views, and as just a plain sentence without the extra formatting.

There is a third, lesser problem, which is that Greenspan's government role was in banking, not diplomacy or the military. So for him to make comments about Iraq is just him stating his own political views, not an admission of motives by someone involved in planning or conducting the war. Since many people have expressed similar views about the war and he has no special experience or knowledge about it, some editors might think it too minor of a point to include. That is the sort of thing that should be discussed at Talk:Alan Greenspan. --RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah you are right sir....as iam new to writing articles in wiki...

but i dont fault you... some people termed that info as 'spam'..info must be accepted is what i believe whether controversial or not...i found that widely over net i thought it was good to be written here...thats all

i was a bit uncomfortable for that...

that discomfort was reflected while commenting to you

(---i dont know about talk page and i could comment on wiki so i didnt comment 'them' thats why i was bit angry on that matter while talking to you sorry for that forgive me if that hurts you..... ---)

i thought you were supporting a.g. but you told that his role was in banking(you are not supporting him thats so good ...thats what i feel...i apologize for in appropriate commenting on your page)

though i dont like him...i mustnt try to make him appear bad for people visiting this page

...what i understand is, what you did was appropriate and right....wrong lies with me......thanks for the guidance....please reply after reading this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.217.174 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...forgot some thing(this is just info i want to tell but not quarrelling comment as it appears so)...

1)as far i know greenspan government is what you mentioned [but FED is private as far as i know]..and he belongs to private institution not government..and as far as i know

2)http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/25/billions-lost-in-secret-federal-reserve-funding-of-iraq-war/

all info that i know says FED funded iraq war (and all wars to say and all controversial activities from 9/11 oocured..)...which confirms A.G. role in iraq war...which contradicts your statement...

3) this is not political statement they all planned and are delaying usa collapse(and they are doing together, fulfilling their respective roles to delay or stop collpase...and filling minds of people with trash like WAR AGAINST TERRORISM ), and they are not much caring about trade deficit >4 billion$ per day...and as i wrote 1.2 million+ died(only in iraq for somebody's selfishness) this makes feel bad...and reflecting in every statement i make

...please dont say you dont know these things this is what i think every "american citizen" MUST KNOW....!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.217.174 (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Reserve System is a government operation, not private. The article on Structure of the Federal Reserve System explains it. One of the functions of the Fed is to provide banking services for the federal government. In that role it provides funds for various government activities, including the military. That does not mean its board members are involved in planning or running war efforts. If you get money from a bank to buy a car, that doesn't mean that they decide where you drive. I don't approve of everything the Fed does or that Greenspan did while he was there, but trying to pin the Iraq war on the Fed is too much. As for what Greenspan said about the war and oil, this is clearly a personal political statement. He says it as part of an argument for reducing dependence on oil, involving increased gasoline taxes, etc. This opinion of his may or may not be significant enough to mention in the Wikipedia article about him, but it isn't some sort of shocking admission by somebody deeply involved in starting the war. It is a commonplace political opinion shared by thousands of people. --RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i agree with that..it doesnot deserve to be mentioned in lead section as you said and i said that in 2nd message for you(i send 3 messages for you..this is 4th)...you havent said anything whether you felt bad as i was rude and you accepted apologizies?/..so i will end this message propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.222.165 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Reason

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

As the founder of the Fellowship of Reason, I am interested in your nomination for deletion of the FOR wiki entry.

I am well aware of the objection of some Objectivists to the suggestion that our philosophy, Eudaimonism, has roots in Objectivism. I did not create the original entry, so I cannot claim responsibility for that reference. In my most recent edit, I have attempted to remove all references to Objectivism and I have no objection to there being no reference to Objectivism in the FOR wiki entry.

I hope that with the removal of the references to Objectivism that you, as operator of the Objectism Resource Center, and as a Wiki editor will withdraw your objection to the FOR entry.

Thank you.

Martin Cowen

Martin Cowen 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlcowen (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think you have misunderstood my concern about the article. I don't care about whether FOR claims roots in Objectivism. I happened to come across the page because it linked to the article on Ayn Rand, but I have no objections to such a link. My concern is that Wikipedia has standards about what should be the subject of an article, specifically, the notability guidelines. The guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is of particular relevance. To be notable, there must be published coverage of the organization by independent reliable sources (news organizations, books, etc.). As far as I can tell, FOR has not attracted that type of coverage. The article was created before such guidelines existed, so it has "flown under the radar" for a long time, but if it can't meet the criteria then it shouldn't be kept around. If there is coverage by independent reliable sources that I don't know about, then that's another story, but it didn't look good when I searched for it. --RL0919 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Fasa

Hey, i saw you had deleted this article as an expired PROD. I find that very strange because i did add a source. --KzKrann (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is that a reliable source (per the WP standards on that) be included in the article. The website in the citation did not show any indication of being a reliable source. If you want the article restored so it can go through a full Articles for Deletion discussion, I can do that, but the end result is very likely to be deletion again unless there are additional sources available. --RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be. --KzKrann (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand

Nothing controversial about edits. Rand supported state initiation of force. Rand's economic and political philosophy share no differences from the philosophers mentioned. Please allow me 5-10 minutes to add the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.5.102 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that multiple other people have reverted are ipso facto controversial. Also, you are packing details into the lead section of articles that would be more appropriate in later sections. See also the comments I just left on your talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're simply not controversial. Anarchists, who are part of libertarian movement, are by definition opposed to Objectivism. Period. I'm adding it to the article, not changing anything. it was absent and should be added. If a retarded person comes on here and disagrees with me, that doesn't mean what I'm saying is controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.5.102 (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]