Talk:Robert Maxwell

Why?

Why the use of the term bastard? Were his parents unmarried when he was born? Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 22:48, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Tis a common epithet for a person the speaker (or writer) dislikes - intensely. Although his parents probably were married, I like to think that they would have disowned him later in life. Keep^goats 22:55, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh, okay, then this should be moved to the essay space. Let me know if you need help doing that. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 23:41, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

How about "fuckface"? Cause that's what I call people who destroy other people's hard-earned pensions. MiddleMan 14:58, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I bite my thumb at you Unbeliever in the one true faith of the Right Wing Bastard Haters. Keep^cool 00:20, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Rojer, seriously, if you have reasons for not liking the guy, feel free to spell them out. But if you just want to call him a bastard, I think it should be in an essay. (I call left wingers "pernicious swarm" and was forced into the essay space, even though I am documenting my assertions. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 00:30, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Did you document that table of "garden sun taxes" you made up yet? human^{be in} 20:59, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Human, why the hostility? Oh well. I'll give you a few clues before you go reread the essay in question.

• Hypothetical
• Thought Experiments E.g., Einstein's elevator, HeartOfGold's sunshine conservation permit fees, etc.

Anyway, what's wrong? Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 21:23, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I see you added the word "hypothetical", yes. It's hard to read past an essay with made up data at the beginning. "Why the hostility?" The "hostility" is in regards to you saying you document your assertions, and yet make some up. "What's wrong?" As I asked, I think your talk page, what's your motivation for being here, when you don't like RW? This is, like it or not, a hotbed of liberalism. That's why most of us were kicked off CP. You, I'm not sure. You didn't like their inaccuracy, but they were also not right wing enough for you? Not sure... We should have this discussion on one of "our" talk pages, I suppose. But we are having it here. Poor Robert M. human^{be in} 21:41, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I read his biography. Not the best person, according to WP. Anyway, I won't force anything here...but am expressing my opinion. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 00:32, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Leave it alone for a while HG. Let's have a few opinions 1^st please Keep^{your head}_down 10:42, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Nah, I am going to start insisting on equal application of rules. Don't get upset, such things are done to others (including me). Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 10:43, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

But you're acting like judge & jury. Keep^{your head}_down 10:52, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Sorry- forgot you're a wee bit conservative. Keep^{your head}_down 10:52, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

No, I am not. If I were, I would simply block you. You're welcome to seek others to form a mob and outnumber me. It really isn't that hard on rationalwiki to find people who have similar or identical mindsets to you. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 10:55, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

WILL SOMEBODY GET THIS GUY OFF MY CASE?

Curls up into fœtal position in corner of room. Keep^{your head} 11:15, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I calculate with 98.6749% accuracy that your connection is 4327.82912 times faster than mine and you are taking advantage. (but that's what one expects from conservatives) (is this ad hominem?) Keep^{your head} 11:26, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I would recommend that the phrase "at least one rationalwikiadan" be linked to the RWiam who thinks it. Then the opinion is attributed. Is the rest of the article relatively factual? human^{be in} 13:02, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Done. Yes. Keep^{the faith} 14:16, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

RojerB, I am not picking on you. You're entitled to share your opinions, but you should do so in a rational manner. I have no intention of either silencing you nor do I have delusions that I will persuade you. You have your eyes wide shut, and that is your choice. But if you want to write articles on what you consider as needing more attention, my view is that you should either do so rationally, or do it in the essay space. You could also just go to wikipedia, where they have refined the art of being liberal in the mainspace. Heart♥Gold^{Jump up and down} 15:42, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

ByeKeep^{the faith} 15:48, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Should Maxwell be here?

If I remember correctly Maxwell claimed to be a socialist. While I accept that no true socialist would do what he did, nevertheless I think he self identified himself as one.--Bob_M (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

As there has been no response to this I have added it to the article. --Bob_M (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

I could claim to be a butter dish but ... Keep^{your head}_down 16:20, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Mao

Waiting for reason he should be a red link... human^{be in} 01:51, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Sorry for the delay, your edit here killed mine. We had two redlinks; one for Chairman Mao, which came from this page and another for Mao Zedong. My initial edit was to combine the two red links into one, and I felt Mao Zedong is the one we were more likely to eventually have an article for. Yes Mao Zedong is still a redlink, but Chairman Mao now no longer is.:--Remarcsd 01:53, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Ah, I see, combining redlinks for efficiency. Ignore/delete comment I left on your talk page. Sorry about the EC, I figured making a new section would avoid that. Anyway, are we ever going to bother to have an article on Mao, however linked? What's the thing to debunk? Did you have the germ of an idea of hor to at least write a funny article about him? Again, just curious. human^{be in} 01:56, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Not really, but considering two other editors have apparently found him a subject worth linking to, I just decided to go woith the flow and eventually someone will get around to either removing both links or writing the article. I don't have a problem with either approach, I merely leave decisions like that to the people on a higher pay grade. I'm logging out shortly so may not respond for a while:--Remarcsd 02:02, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

No rush to respond, but, er, "a higher pay grade"? OK, that funny. But most of us RW whores addicts are happy with our "demoted" status, even if we pay endless pi "dollars" to keep this thing afloat. Anyway, I agree with your philosophy (combine two redlinks to one). Now, whether or not someone will write the brilliant fricking article about Mr. Mao..... Maybe I will. (OK, "brilliant", not). Just 'cause ya pushed me... hehe... human^{be in} 03:51, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Delete

This is a blatant throwback to the days when RW was... well, shit. I actually have less knowledge than I started with after this. ^narchist 17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have to be honest -- I more or less agree with ADK here. (Isn't that something :-) ) I don't see how Maxwell is on-mission -- at the very least someone should add some more historical background. EVDebs (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's that it's linking to RW users as refs AND that those users are non active. It's incredibly dated. Even if the topic was on mission, it'd need nuked and restarted. ^narchist 19:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've always been annoyed by the personal anecdotes as refs. Off-mission, kill it. Blue (pester) 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I don't mind it in moderation but this is excessive. ^narchist 20:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, look! The page is back! Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I should have checked this. Let's nom it for deletion again! Тy^Talk. 17:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. If it wasn't good enough before, it surely isn't now. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)