Personal tools

User talk:Liberationfromwithin

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Good job

Hey, I have seen your recent edits (such as this one) and you are doing a goog job. Keep it up!

By the way, please create your profile. Thanks.


Lenka Habetinova, 27th September 2009, 22:49


Welcome to the community Liberationfromwithin! Thanks for contributing to Debate: Humanitarian intervention. I'd love to see you make some arguments on that article. If you make an argument, I'll make one as well. :) -- Brooks Lindsay 05:19, 28 September 2009 (CDT)

Couple items

Hey Liberationfromwithin, clearly, we're impressed by your editorial abilities. We've featured your work on the main page of Debatepedia. I've also made some changes to Debate: Humanitarian intervention, cleaning things up a little bit. I've added some arguments too, although I'll need to spend some more time on this article. Anyway, have a look. -- Brooks Lindsay 06:39, 30 September 2009 (CDT)


Really good writing on Debate: Socialism vs capitalism, User:Liberationfromwithin. Really. One thing, though. We are trying to create an encyclopedia of arguments and logic. So, take the mentality that you are more documenting lines of argument than making them in your own voice. This takes a little bit away from the enjoyment for the writer, but it ultimately adds to the quality of the resource for the reader. Go back through Debate: Socialism vs capitalism and erase the word "I", and that general tone. Does that make sense?

Also, give a try at shortening the argument title to just one line. This takes practice, but it is a valuable exercise in the use of language. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 12:14, 9 October 2009 (CDT)


Hey, good to see you back editing on the site Liberationfromwithin. How have you been? -- Brooks Lindsay 13:45, 2 November 2009 (CST)

Re: Hey

Yeah, I know how that can go. I'm actually constantly traveling and working, with Debatepedia, and it can be a little isolating. An important way to cope is to try to engage with people - and even strangers - on a fundamentally dignified and decent human level - be friendly, share your emotions and what you're doing in town, accept invitations to things, find things to do and invite other people along. You may want to go visit a hostel in London and do a guided tour of the city with other young people - that will get the fun juices flowing. I would also strongly suggest finding an improve comedy show, and I would really recommend giving it a try (nothing is better for meeting people and improving your social life - funny people are fun to be around). Watching a comedy show on youtube, or John Stewart or Stephen Cobert always lifts me up. And, I would also suggest finding a debate team. I think that is hugely valuable, fun, and stimulating. I'm 26, and these are definitely things I wish I'd done more of in high school and college. -- Brooks Lindsay 17:02, 2 November 2009 (CST)

Some comments

Good to see you editing Liberationfromwithin. Got a comment: Saw you change "Coca Cola has been dehydrating communities in India" to "dehydrating communities in India". In general, we want argument titles to be nearly full-sentence headlines, which means that if they were seen by themselves, a person could get an understanding of the context of the argument and the debate. Therefore, they would usually need to include the object in this case (coca cola). This is particularly important when argument titles are made into the page title for argument pages - where the argument title does actually appear as the title of the page in Google searches (and thus where it is important that the full context of the argument is made clear). Does this make sense? -- Brooks Lindsay 16:19, 30 November 2009 (CST)

Re: Congo

Yeah, so I just created an article of direct relevance: Debate: Business with human rights violators. Have a look. Does this fit what you were thinking? -- Brooks Lindsay 19:26, 30 November 2009 (CST)

More comments:

Love your writing skills. You're a true addition to Debatepedia. You need to, though, work on isolating specific arguments out of your long essay-like prose, consistent with the format that we have. "The case of the Congo" is not an argument title. An argument title would be: De Biers in Congo demonstrates hazards of business with human-rights violators. Work on this, and try to make this article look like one of the recent Debate Digest articles you can find on the main page of Debatepedia. BUT, BUT... you kick ass... :) keep up the good work. -- Brooks Lindsay 17:24, 2 December 2009 (CST)

On the format

Our format, I'm confident, will force you to become a better writer, by helping you isolate and separate specific arguments. The exercise of developing very short argument titles is especially important in this process, as it pressures you to isolate arguments into very short sentences, usually in 7 words or less. In general, it is important to start paragraphs in essays with these kinds of summarizing argument/paragraph titles. And, this exercise will help you develop headlines for the articles you are writing.

Having read your essay on the Congo, I can tell you're a very good writer. And, I especially appreciate your attention to an overwhelming force of facts. It reminds me of my approach to essay-writing at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service. If you're willing, let me help you take your writing to the next level. -- Brooks Lindsay 23:57, 2 December 2009 (CST)

Re: Format

Well, I can help by editing your writing on Debatepedia, and giving you feedback. And, by you sending me links to your writing so I can have a look and give feedback. -- Brooks Lindsay 19:34, 3 December 2009 (CST)

Re: Article

Have another look now. I've added three arguments and made some small edits. I'm working through your piece. But, gotta go to bed now. Keep prodding me to help you out and build your debate articles Liberationfromwithin. I'm very glad you sent me that message. PS: Sign your messages by writing, ~~~~. -- Brooks Lindsay 23:50, 9 December 2009 (CST)


You can do that for sure. We do not allow counter-factual nor counter-logical arguments. This can get nuanced, but the instance you explain is certainly fair-game for deletion. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 15:59, 26 January 2010 (EST)

Re: Deletion

Hi Liberationfromwithin. Make sure to "sign" your posts by writing ~~~~ after them. On the deletion, I think your heart is in the right place. But, it's OK to modify, change, delete other people's work on Debatepedia. It is a wiki, so all the content is "collective". But, make sure to explain why you are doing it in the "reason:" box of the editing box. And, if the person then complains, then we can explain the issues. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 18:40, 26 January 2010 (EST)


Liberationfromwithin, you gotta sign your comments on the talk pages, like Talk:Debate: Capitalism vs socialism. This is the only way that people can properly know who is making the comment, and communicate back. You can do this by writing ~~~~. But, great work all around!!! I've been following it. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 13:23, 27 January 2010 (EST)

Debate: Capitalism vs socialism

Hi Liberationfromwithin, Debate: Capitalism vs socialism is the next Debate Digest article. I'm going to spend a good amount of time helping it along in the next couple of days. Thanks for the hard work on it - it's why I'm making it the next Debate Digest article. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 15:33, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Re: Link?

Not sure what you mean. I looked at Debate: Capitalism vs socialism and it looked just fine. What am I missing?

On seeing if anyone is editing Debate: Capitalism vs socialism, you can click the watch tab in the upper right of the screen. Are you seeing this? Let me know if not, because it may only be for "admins". Let me know because I'm curious if non-admins have access. But, in any case I'm going to make you an admin in a couple hours. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 16:57, 28 January 2010 (EST)

Re: Changing argument title

Hmmm. Isn't "externalities" the better/broader term for the argument, including various costs to the environment, animals and so-forth. "Social costs" is more narrow. But, maybe that's what you're intending to express, which is totally fine too.

If you want to change it, I want to walk you through this operation so you know how to do it. It's really easy. Essentially, you'd go to the argument page, click on the move tab (which you'll now see because I gave you SYSOPS privileges). You'll then change the name to the new title you want and click "move". Then you'll go back to the main debate page and put the new argument title/link in. Does that make sense? Give this a try! -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 10:30, 1 February 2010 (EST)

Re: Argument

Brilliant explanation Liberationfromwithin! I agree with you. Did you give a try at changing it? Give it a try. I can help make any needed adjustments. Also, I've been working on the debate on the recent US Supreme Court decision on the Citizens United case (Debate: Unlimited corporate spending in elections), so forgive the brief distraction from Debate: Capitalism vs socialism. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (EST)


Hey Liberationfromwithin, how's it going? Just want to say that I wanted to follow Debate: Unlimited corporate spending in elections with Debate: Corporate personhood - because of the direct relation between the two. And, then, to finish the short-narrative, make Debate: Capitalism vs socialism the featured Debate Digest article. This is why I haven't been working very robustly on the Debate: Capitalism vs socialism article, but that will come in a couple of days. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 13:20, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Re: Corps...

Yeah, no problem on waiting to feature Debate: Capitalism vs socialism. I'm actually also traveling at the end of the week for five days, so that works for me for sure. What are you doing in Tanzania? It's great that you're going. You'll have to tell me about it when you return. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 14:30, 8 February 2010 (EST)

Re: Travels

Hey there. Yeah, I'm just going to ski for a couple days in Sun Valley, Idaho. Cool spot. Grew up skiing there. Enjoy your trip! Will talk to you on the flip side, better and brighter. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 17:54, 8 February 2010 (EST)


Hey Liberationfromwithin, I'm organizing the arguments on Debate: Capitalism vs. socialism. I've widdled down some of them, merged repetitive arguments, and just re-crafted some of them to make them more pithy and concise. You have a talent for writing. One thing you will have to do with your arguments, is to make the argument summary on the main debate page into paragraphs, and to then place the extended arguments into dedicated argument pages. Make no mistake, that I encourage your extended arguments 100%. But, they can't go on the main debate page. Argument summaries should give the core argument, and with only a few examples. They should generally be no longer than seven sentences. They should look like a standard paragraph. But, again, you are doing great work!!! I'm so impressed. You give me and others information and history to absorb. And, I appreciate that.-- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 12:40, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Recovered argument...

I just recovered it. Really sorry about that, it looks like it got lost in the process of re-organizing arguments, but this did not happen with other arguments, I can assure you. I merged your argument about African colonialism into Argument: Capitalism fosters colonialism, exploitation, subjugation. Does that work? -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 15:11, 22 February 2010 (EST)


Ok...wait. Let me explain what I've just done on the page before you revert things back again....

The argument that you'd made about "capitalism causing suffering" was all about how it fosters imperialism and how that causes suffering. That is the same argument as the one above it, although I've re-titled it to read, "Capitalism has fostered imperialism, exploitation, and suffering" to more accurately reflect the breadth of effects at hand.

I also moved your analysis after the Indian scholar's quote into the argument page. It's important that you understand that I am trying to apply consistent rules across all debate articles on Debatepedia. Those must apply to you, and they must apply in this istance, and that means that your arguments cannot be five paragraphs packed into one. Argument summaries should, as I said before, be about 7 sentences - or an average, modest-sized paragraph. If you want to extend an argument - which I fully support - we gotta take it over to an argument page. I don't think you know how to do that yet. It's so, so simple. Learn about it here. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 16:00, 22 February 2010 (EST)

On traffic to argument pages

There has been a tendency among editors to think that extended arguments or quotes on argument pages get less traffic and attention than arguments on the main debate page. In case this is your concern, I want you to know that a dedicated argument page often gets a crap load of traffic and more attention than it would if it was just on the main debate page. This is largely because search engines pick of the title of the argument page, and send readers directly to it, in addition to sending readers to the debate page where they can also link to the argument page. This is just in case you are worried about your work not getting enough attention when part of it is on an argument page. It will get plenty of attention, and probably more when it is. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (EST)

Couple more comments:

A couple of your argument summaries are still too long. Give an effort at reducing them, and then also creating an argument page and posting your external link suggestions to that argument page under the header of "External links". Does that work? -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 17:06, 23 February 2010 (EST)

On the link you're trying to create...

On the link you were trying to create, there was just a problem in there being a period and a space between the dividing line that disrupted the wiki function:

Looked like this:

  • '''[[Argument: Capitalism is not ruled by individual, but corporations. | Capitalism is not ruled by individual, but corporations]]'''

Changed to this:

  • '''[[Argument: Capitalism is not ruled by individual, but corporations| Capitalism is not ruled by individual, but corporations]]'''

Now that the link is red, you can go and put content into the page. :) -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 17:33, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Progress on shortening arguments...

Hey, I want to see you make some progress on shortening your arguments on the Capitalism vs socialism article (ie., putting half or the bulk of some of your very long arguments into an argument page). -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 11:49, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Well done...

Looking much better! Well done. I'm going to return to this article a little bit after finishing Debate: Gay marriage tomorrow. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 23:46, 2 March 2010 (EST)

Hey there

How's it going. Just wanted to note to you that Debate: Capitalism vs socialism has been viewed about 18,666 times so far, so it's getting read fairly widely. Good work. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 11:00, 5 April 2010 (EDT)


...alot of views. And, certainly, owing mostly to you; you're the biggest single contributor to that article. You can see the total views at the very bottom (center) of each page. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 15:14, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

Re: Argument

Yeah, just fixed it. You can't indent on MediaWiki software for some reason. It creates a box around the indented paragraph and blows the page out of proportion. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 18:49, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits