Welcome

Hello, FreddyTris, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DickClarkMises 14:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand edit

Hi Freddy, your edit to Ayn Rand has been reverted. Ayn Rand did reject altruism, but your quote misrepresents her position. She beleived in benevolence and was fine with voluntary charity as long as it didn't harm oneself. Please make sure your edits are factual. Thanks!Ethan a dawe 15:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw your reply on that other users page. My reply above also addresses that as obligation doesn't enter into voluntary charity, merely benevolence.Ethan a dawe 15:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read this link as confirmation of my point: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q7

"What was Ayn Rand's view on charity? "My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." [From "Playboy's 1964 interview with Ayn Rand"] " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethan a dawe (talk • contribs) 15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Revert

Hi Freddy, you said "(You're allowed to be wrong, but you're not allowed to call my good-faith changes vandalism. Get it?" I was reverting an edit made by FraserB, Not you.Ethan a dawe 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Steve's the one who reverted my change, claiming it was POV just to restore another fact that nobody disputes. You're the one who called it vandalism when some guy tightened up the lead. That was just ridiculous, so when I fixed Steve's mistake, I fixed yours too, but got the comments mixed up.

Now you've put some of it back, but I'll let the other guy deal with that, if he still cares. Frankly, I agree with him, but not necessarily for the same reasons. See, I don't want the intro calling Objectivism a philosophy because that might turn people off. If it's not labeled, they'll click to see what it is and get a chance to learn all about it. That's my thinking, anyhow, but it doesn't matter that much to me either way. Good luck. FreddyTris 07:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

classic steve

he's such a cool bloke. --Buridan 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but things are getting hotter for him. FreddyTris 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where is this conspiracy theory they are putting forth? --Buridan 18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's moved to grand farce. They're running all over the place, trying to ruin my reputation. It's pathetic and they're free to make fools of themselves for all I care, just so long as they stay the hell away from my user page, because it's mine. Do me a favor; take a look at Ayn Rand and decide for yourself if it needs further changes. FreddyTris 21:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring on Ayn Rand

Freddy, I really suggest you take a moment and broaden your contributions beyond the Ayn Rand article. Almost all of your edits have been there and over the same few things. Your likely to get yourself into trouble over it, so take a break and add some other stuff. Regards, EthanEthan a dawe 12:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, but I only started editing because someone I know asked me to explain Objectivism after they got misled and confused by Wikipedia articles on it. I'm here to make sure the Truth comes through loud and clear.

Since we're exchanging advice, let me give you some of my own: don't edit war with me. You keep reverting my changes without getting involved in the discussion on Talk or even explaining your reasoning in your edit comment. Makes it look like you don't have any Reason for your changes and just want the article to follow your whims. That makes you a bad Wikipedia editor and, worse, a bad Objectivist. FreddyTris 17:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Freddy/Fraser/Lancombz It looks like you're not an Objectivist seeking to get the truth out afterall. Thanks for the advice. Ethan a dawe 21:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes me different from you is that I care about the Truth, not appearances. You can't even think this through enough to see what's really going on. FreddyTris 21:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you, and your response doesn't come close to an apology for what you've done. Truth? I don't think you have spoken it once. Dishonesty always fails for the dishonest in the long run. I'm hoping you change your ways.Ethan a dawe 22:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask me if I care, second-hander. FreddyTris 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've laready answered that question.Ethan a dawe 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now you've answered another by tacitly admitting to being a second-hander. I've been watching your moves and laughing the whole time. Keep it up. FreddyTris 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This user has been blocked indefinitely" Thank you. Endlessmike 888 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow up

While appearances can be deceiving, these are the only tools Wikipedia has at its disposal to prevent sockpuppetry abuse. While sock puppets are allowed, the problem is abuse. When multiple users from the same IP engage in edit wars over the same range of articles, and it is indistinguishable from abuse, it is, in fact, abuse. My remedy was to propose a ban, not a block, from Objectivist related articles. If you, lancombz, and FraisierB agree to submit to a topic ban, then I will personally appeal the block. Also, see my follow up to the SSP case here. Otheus 06:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]