User talk:Slizor

Welcome to my Talk Page. Please leave any messages for me or about me here and I will pay them their due attention. :D

Classical liberalism

Please define for us, what a classical liberal is? What is a liberal? (Gibby 15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

I love how it's always me who is required to prove things. Libertarians, clearly, don't require proof. Slizor 14:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slizor. In any debate with Gibby it is normal to be accuses of a lot of things. Good luck in getting this article more neutral. Electionworld 18:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the article neutral does not mean eliminating its very purpose. Both of you are ignorant on the term and the very purpose behind liberalism. Electionwood you spent a whole week deleting Hayek and Friedman's interpretation of the great depression and tolalitarianism on the liberalism page because you were completly ignorant of their viewpoints and how it applied. (Gibby 13:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Your material and pov is poorly cited. You hardly have enough evidence to overturn much of anything. You also can't delete, repeat CANNOT delete cited and reputable material, especially material that argues the counter to your own POV. You can't do it. (Gibby 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Nevermind I'll do the research for alternative sources. Mrdthree 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

puppet

I think you might be a sockpuppet for another account. But for whom? Your first edit was classical liberalism and that is where you spend most of your time editing every so often. I will need to investigate more. (Gibby 05:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

WP:POINT

Hello, I know that you are having a tough time with KDRGibby, but please don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. From this diff here I infer you meant to illustrate a point about citing sources, and how "cited material" may be citing irrelevantly, but if you encounter trouble, simply take a deep breath, relax, and contact another administrator about the incident. Also, refrain from edit warring. Thank you. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I knew he was on at the time and so figured he'd change the page back pretty quickly and thus wouldn't really effect too many people. Slizor 02:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But still it is better not to do that. I stopped discussing with him, but won't refrain of editing the articles involved. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to edit the articles involved because of his attitude towards (his) sources. He does not have a logically consistant position which can facilitate actual debate or (a somewhat) dialectical approach to Wikiediting. What Gibby's sources say are true - everything else is just "populist" or "socialist" "propaganda" (all three words there are contextual quotes from Gibby (i.e. he said them in that context.)) Slizor 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slizor, on the CL talk page I suggested that the whole article be merged and asked for your support or input on this idea. I hope you will agree. Kitteneatkitten 06:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Wishing you all the best on your birthday! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee.

Many happy returns! Enjoy the day!

Thistheman 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry? Here's a little snack for you on your birthday, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day, Slizor!

Have an awesome day! Mr. Turcotte^talk 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation for Classical Liberalism article

I have filed a mediation request at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-16 Classical Liberalism Edit War. You might be interested in getting involved with that discussion.Shawn Fitzgibbons 14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]