Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.

User talk:Zazaban

From Anarchopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Greetings and welcome to Anarchopedia, the anarchist knowledge portal! I hope you enjoy our community and participate in our mutual work.

Here are some tips to get you started:

  • If in doubt, be bold and do it in the way you think will help the most people.
  • Many Wikipedia things apply, such as
    • To sign posts on "Talk/Discussion Pages" use '~' symbol. Use ~~~ (3 tildes) or ~~~~ (4 tildes) to insert your name or name and timestamp respectively.
  • We, however, are not Wikipedia, and therefore expect wider range of articles. You can help by moving articles in danger of censorship from WP here.
  • Please note that we try to keep our naming convention case sensitive. Examine the difference between moon and Moon, mercury and Mercury etc.
  • If you copy the article from Wikipedia, please be aware, that although you can do that you must provide a reference. Do so by adding {{wikipedia|Name of the article on wikipedia.}} at the very end of your article.
  • Check out articles with downloadable files, Wikipedia would never allow such an expression of free exchange of ideas.

Some more information:

Thank you for your time, comrade.  ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) Talk 2007 November 28 06:13 (UTC)


Hi, Thanks for a heads-up. Some things to keep in mind in case if you didn't know them already. There is a chat on #anarchopedia on server of Internet Relay Chat. Also there is an e-mail list for Anarchopedia which you might want to join. However, please keep in mind that it was decided that all the issues will from now on be discussed on the wiki itself so that everything is transparent and we can't be accused of having a hidden hierarchy.  ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) Talk 2007 December 7 16:27 (UTC)


The term was most definitely not used as defined in USSR. Here it meant a member of the Communist Party.  ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) Talk 2007 December 11 09:14 (UTC)

Ubuntu GNU/Linux[edit]

Not only is this the proper and correct way of calling it, but this is what i've heard it called on multiple ocasions. In fact if you look at the actual system, it makes more sense to call it Ubuntu GNU than Ubuntu Linux.  ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) Talk 2008 February 4 06:02 (UTC)

And, it is very sad to hear that some users of GNU/Linux have never even heard of GNU or rms, but have heard of Linus Torvalds and Linux.
The system is GNU/Linux, by the way. RMS and the GNU team built an operating system based on Unix, and they hade made everything – but a kernel. Their proposed kernel, GNU/HURD, was made more complicated than it should have been. Linus Torvalds just did the kernel in the early ninties, and the GNU developers just happened to need a kernel, so they came across each other. Now, greedy Linus Torvalds just wants to promote the whole thing as "Linux", like he was the only one. And since RMS doesn't do the corporate advertisement bullshit, many people never hear of him and just call it Linux, because Linus Torvalds does do corporate advertisement.This is one of the reasons why property is theft (because by taking it for you and only you, or proclaiming it yours, you are stealing from the rest of the people who own it, and stealing for the rest of the developers, respectively). Anonymity 08:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and my talk page is not a forum. Every time somebody edits this page a message pops up on my screen. Zazaban 19:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Argument that"[edit]

Hi, i see the reason for the move... i think there needs to be some sort of standard as to the naming convention of the arguments. Look at Category:Arguments, there are quite a few of them by now, mostly about veganism, and i'm thinking about expanding that to more arguments. As i can think of no better naming convention, i'll go and move all the pages accordingly.  ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) Talk 2008 February 5 08:32 (UTC)

Sysop Status[edit]

Please change my status for sysop, because I am doing ips block spam and anarchopedias offenses in all, I am sysop and bureaucrat of the meta and developer in anarchopedia in Portuguese. Thanks Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt 10:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure how to do that. Zazaban 15:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi! It's simple you just go on special pages, then management of privileges of users and inserts my nickname and click sysop or administrator and save ok? Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt 16:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, when I go there I get an error message. Zazaban 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Made you a sysop, Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt.  ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) Talk 2008 February 12 06:52 (UTC)

Pushing an anarcho-capitalist point of view and reverting User:KropotkinInBlack's edits[edit]

It seems that you are pushing a capitalist point of view ("anarcho" capitalist or "libertarian" capitalist to be specific), reverting KropotkinInBlack's valid edits, and claiming censorship. Your biased version of the article what anarchism is not that you revert to contains things biased to an anarcho-capitalist Point of View. Most prominently this:

Most Anarchists (including Anarcho-Capitalists and free-market Anarchists) dismiss this notion on the grounds that the smallest possible state means no state, effectively making Big "L" libertarians 'cowardly' Anarchists.

, which infers that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism. While I admit my bias is leftism (which classical anarchism has its roots in, not just anarcho-socialism), you make edits that reflect your point of view. Another thing noted is this (on the article anarcho-capitalism:

Anarcho-capitalism is a view that departs from Anarcho-socialist theory in that it regards only the state as unnecessary and harmful to human society. In its embrace of capitalist economics, Anarcho-capitalism contradicts classical anarchism, which historically and currently has been anti-capitalist. Social anarchists generally argue that anarcho-capitalism isn't a form of anarchism at all, as it differs on what constitutes illegitimate hierarchy, often denying a central basis of classical anarchist theory that advocates the abolition of all hierarchy. Anarcho-socialists generally believe that capitalism cannot exist without enforcement of an economic class system, thus it is impossible to remove coercive hierarchical relationships from a capitalist system. Being based in liberalism, Anarcho-capitalism holds that individuals should be free to compete with other individuals. L. Susan Brown, an anarcha-feminist, noted that this belief in competition means that individuals are free to take advantage of one another in order to satisfy an ends, rather than granting individuals freedom for the sake of freedom.

, which makes it seem like the only anarchists who oppose "anarcho"-capitalism are anarcho-socialists, which seems like a good but not-so-clever way to make it seem that only a small group of anarchists critisize "libertarian" capitlaism.

While I'm not a believer in NPOV, I do think all opinions should be welcomed and the text of an article should not be changed to match your point of view. At least indicate that this is your viewpoint by putting it in a separate section and signing.

--Anonymity 07:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry for misunderstanding about your philosophy. To me, zir edits do not seem to be rants, and not attacks on anarcho-capitalism. Now, why did you change "classical anarchists" to "anarcho-socialists"? Traditionally, anarchists are anti-capitalists, for the capitalist system has a hierarchy, and it should be abolished beacuse of that. The class/economic hierarchy. I am not an anarcho-socialist (although I do have socialist influences, I also have influences from liberalism and other forms of anarchism), but I believe "anarcho-capitalists" are actually capitalists who hold objectivist and Randian views, and just want to base the whole world on a capitalist mmonetary system and go into an anti-democratic WTO plan. So, I think instead of claiming censorship, you should talk it out with KropotkinInBlack, who I don't think is a POV pusher myself.
And this doesn't look like a rant or an attack (keep in mind my bias, though), so why did you remove it?
The word "libertarian" is rightfully a synonym for anarchism, especially used in repressive times when the term "anarchy" will get a person in trouble, But capitalists in the USA have (for the time being) managed to convince people there are two definitions which are often separated by the geographical regions of North America and Europe.

--Anonymity 19:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


I have a problem with editing the Templates. On wiki it works but not here. I have copied these in template articles.

I suck at templates, sorry. Zazaban 22:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unholy XXX abomination[edit]

First, please avoid promoting LGBT sexual deviations in main page of Anarchopedia, because they NEVER brings life, thus they are useless. God before punishment too tries to peacefully/logically convince sinners. If that didn't convinced you, and if you constantly refused, refuse and will refuse to believe in God and His Truth, and if you are still keeping spreading unholy sexual abomination that cries to Heaven for vengeance (first God's revenge is for cause repentance, but if failing to cause repentance, due to unrepentance, for condemnation in hell) by keeping LGBT evil prominent thus promoted, you are risking eternal loss of salvation, yes, without any human force (including inqusitorial and mine) involved. Remember that you are not immortal, think about you when you die naturally - if without repentance even slightest, then hell awaits you. DOOM and QUAKE computer games are only partial approximation of real hell. You never would play DOOM and QUAKE as gladiators fought their struggles in reality - you would fear it. But hell is much worser! And is eternal!!! In Bible is clearly revealed, that God directly burned Sodom and Gomorrah to force repentance of their homosexual inhabitants, and if they still refused to repent, they next condemned themselves to eternal damnation in hell. Every sort of sexualism is never freedom. It is worst sort of slavery and degeneration, including unholy cat-houses where sexual/LGBT orgies take place, that leads directly to hell. Men and women if saved, are destined to be angels, which have no gender at all. In Heaven sexualism doesn't exist. Humanity since Adam and Eve in Paradise if never sinned, theoretically would be reproduced by pure creation of genderless people directly from holes in ground, without any sexuality involved. Sexuality is result of original sin and as such is only temporary. Thus fight for sexuality is null and void totally. All left (USSR), middle (capitalism/democracy) and right (Third Reich) wing politics came directly from Freemasonic, thus satanic inspiration. Only in Catholic Church is truth, despite of masonic infiltration that wants to destroy Catholic Church from inside. But hell gates never prevail over Church, as is stated in Evangelium. No one exists self-existently, only God exists self-existently. Existence of you and rest of creation is sustained by God directly. If God would cease to sustain your existence, you would instantly became NOTHING. That alone proofs God's Existence. I tell you that all to save your immortal soul. If you will still sin, then you will have eternal torment in hell worser than alive experiencing of DOOM and QUAKE sequence of respawning-fight/injury-death-respawning sequence until winning game that lasts for one month. Really. 20:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's great, but you see, I don't believe in god, or the bible, or jesus, or hell. So your arguments mean nothing to me. Try to accept that some people hold different beliefs from you. Zazaban 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Because you have immortal soul, you are self-conscious by experiencing existence of your personality inside your head, even if you close eyes and hear nothing. If you would be soulless animal, you would be never self-conscious as brain without soul, as computers, robots (both soulless electric brains) and animals (soulless brains only) are without self-consciousness. That alone proofs existence of soul inside you. Your body including brain is only non-conscious layer external to your self-conscious soul. In this way you have experimental proof for existence of immortal soul. Thus if your soul exists, being real being and religious concept at once, then rest of religious concepts that you deny too are real. As you see, by refusing to believe, you are denying reality, but never fiction. 09:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that made no sense. You seem to be under the impression that you know what it is like to be inside an animal's head. That isn't proof, you're just making claims with nothing backing them up. I could say 'the Earth revolves around a candy apple' and I would be offering as much evidence as you are. Zazaban 23:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know[edit]

Thanks for informing, and for taking time to deal with this. Their arguments above seem confusing, I doubt it has anything to do with anarchism. ~Rev 22 21:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm back[edit]

Hi, sorry i was gone for a while, so i couldn't help you regarding the vandalism.  ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) Talk 2008 July 11 11:35 (UTC)

criticisms of civilization[edit]

Why you reverted my edit? Any reason for this reversion? If you disagree with any content, then discuss the issue in article talk page. --Cercopithecus 10:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


I have created a userbox for sysops and added it on your userpage. But due to any problem it is not working properly. Can you fix it. --Cercopithecus 03:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont't worry, I have fixed it. --Cercopithecus 03:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)