User talk:Max rspct/archive7

Historical materialism

Hi. Good workout today with you. I think between the two of us, we left the historical materialism article better than we found it. I particularly like this series of edits.

I look forward to working with you in the future. --Uncle Ed 19:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

F.A.B. Yes the 'stages' should be there. Allen W Wood's (not Alan Woods) book is good on it. I havent done much. Maybe the disclaimer title should go but I will look at the older versions again. max rspct leave a message 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

May userbox policy poll

Hi. You're a supporter of userboxes, and there's currently a policy poll going on about userboxes that might solve the speedy deletion issue. I encourage you to vote if you haven't already. Thank you. Dtm142 21:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha

I like your edit to Battle of the Bulge, in that it made me laugh. I'm not sure I agree with removing it, but i see your point. Do you do all your edits in the style of Ali G? --Awiseman 01:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Adulation of this scumbag needs to go. I'll put in some ODESSA if you want. Ali G? Bo Selecta! -- max rspct leave a message 01:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AAFlight191 newspapers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AAFlight191 newspapers.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Aryan Anarchism

My dear max rspct I was wondering if you could explain your behaviour. First you remove the section on Aryan Anarchism with the comment "(xenophobic marxism etc - not notably anarchist sorry deletinh 'aryan anarchism' more advert for far-right)",. The section was restored with an addition to the section discussing Aryan Anarchism on the talk page inviting you to explain your somewhat bizarre comment. Bearing in mind Lala Hardayal's prominent position as an academic philosopher and Stanford University, involvement with the IWW and eventual departure from the USA following his arrest for his anarchist activities, your suggestion that the piece is not notably anarchist is hard to understand. This is compounded by your final quip "'aryan anarchism' more advert for far-right". Perhaps you could explain why you regard the self-organisation of migrants against repressive immigration control? For that is certainly a feature of tehir involvement with the voyage of the Komagata Maru. Is it odd that this movement, as with every other anarchist movement, throws up contradictions. I think not! Did not Peter Kropotkin throw in his lot with Tzar and encourage Russians fight Germans as a war against the state. Was not Pierre-Joseph Proudhon a patriotic anti-communist noted for his sexist attitude to women. His anti-semitism is matched by that of the pan slavic nationalist, Bakunin. Skirting around the section on American individualist anarchism for sake of brevity lets dash to the Anarcho-capitalism, the reference to "Steve Booth's work in the UK publication Green Anarchist", the whole section on (New Right) Post-left anarchy, or the puff for the insignificant academics David Graeber and Andrej Grubacic in Small 'a' anarchism. Some how all these escape your attention, and you hone in on this short piece on Aryan Anarchism. Is it too much to ask why?Harrypotter 11:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Is still non-notable.. more so than Anarcho-capitalism and American Indi anarchism.. that's why i homed in on it. 'Aryan anarchism' is simply absent from all well-regarded books on anarchism -- max rspct leave a message 16:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with your reversions, please pause for a minute see if someone else will revert the page if User:Harrypotter reverts again. I will be happy to help (if I'm online at the time) and hopefully so will the other users who agreed with you on the talk page. You are close to violating WP:3RRCaptainj 20:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, cheers - I know -- max rspct leave a message 20:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Flight 191

My concern is that someone will again try to make 9/11/01 be America's worst plane crash... which it was, but it was done on purpose as opposed to Flight 191, which was accidental in the sense that there was no deliberate sabotage (as far as we know), just negligence. How would you word it to get around the unique 9/11 situation? Wahkeenah 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington

I read your note and am seeking more information on the Duke's supposed illegitimate daughter. According to my mother I am a descendent of the Duke. I couldn't trace the link. My cousin says it was an illegitimate liaison and issue. That is as much as I know. If you can help I would really appreciate it. My name is Brendan Goodman and my email is [email protected]. Many thanks.

Fair use rationale for Image:Muttawakil bbc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Muttawakil bbc.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Music for nightclubs

Please, make me a favour. before reverting my hard work, take a moment to read the texts that I linked from my user page. I'm not putting my personal opinion here, because i don't have any. Some of you really seem to be unaware of the most important issue in an encyclopedia: articles must be logically interconnected and not inconsistent. Now, we have dozens of well written articles on popular music genres and subgenres, but they just miss a bit of logic in definition. Please do not forget that slang is a bit different from official language. You cant come here and say prink-prank-dumb-whazzup-m8. Does that get into your brain? I'm only trying to make all these articles suitable for the next WP CD. Being an eclectic, that means that I love all music, I can give a neutral contribution. I can change my mind at any moment, but please let me begin my work. Do you have a better term that includes all the music genres that are played in nightclubs? This term may even be House, Techno, or whatever is reached here by consensus, I don't really care. For now I'm working on club music, it seems a good idea. Brian W 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure. -- max

House music

I see you are an expert in house music, so why don't you cut away the text regarding Doctor Who, Space music, Pink Floyd and so on? Who did write all that? Consistency. Brian W 23:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you can call me that. You obviously don't know your history -A basic breakdown: Doctor Who et al -> Funk-> Disco-> more Electronic music and hip-hop-> House music..... -- max rspct leave a message 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously were not born 40 years ago, have not lived the music of 1970s as I did and you can't understand the hidden meanings of electronic sounds as most of youngsters today do. Dance music is the opposite of all that scene, please do not try to rewrite back history, you can't fool me.. Youngsters today are frustrated becouse it seems that there is nothing else to invent, so are inventing this big lie: that modern dance music comes from Stockhausen, Einstein and God himself. You can't imagine how much I'm laughing at you all, :P. Brian W 00:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, go and laugh in the corner by yourself. - max

Kronstadt

It seems to me that the Cliff stats provide a context to the 1921 uprising. He is saying that the peasant class was becoming bigger as the working class in Russia was becoming smaller through the course of the Civil War, thus providing the background to the rebellion. Kozlovesred 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

PD images on the BBC website.

Looking at Image:Bruno-bbc.jpg I wonder what evidence you have that BBC website is full of public domain images? Gordo 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/ Gordo 12:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you got better things to do? Anyway.. I did a fashion shoot last month and Bruno indicated that it he had no problem with it. max rspct leave a message 13:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Bruno own the rights? And why quote rights by saying that was the BBC that placed the picture in the Public Domain? Gordo 15:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Favorite Songs

My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Beurlinginjured.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Beurlinginjured.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Linking to other wikis

There is no rule against it. We're supposed to link to other wikis, but in a certain way. See Wikipedia:Interlanguage links for details Will (^E_@) T 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It helps as the french website has some slightly diff info.. especially when looking at the ENG List of airports in France -- max rspct leave a message 19:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I get it now. There is a link bottom left - max

Review requested at Emancipation

An editor User:FredrickS is currently insisting on what appears (to me and others) to be an obviously eccentric entry on the Emancipation disambiguation page (diff). As I've seen you around various political articles, perhaps you could swing by and provide another opinion. - David Oberst 16:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about "obviously eccentric"... pretty accepted/mainstream term from what I can see/have learnt. -- max rspct leave a message 10:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

POV changes to lead of WC misconduct allegations

I'm not sure how much you're around WP, or if Ward Churchill misconduct allegations is on your watchlist. But User:Verklempt has lately been trying repeatedly to insert some POV nonsense into the lead. I guess you can see what it is yourself from the edit history, but basically it's: (a) insert misleading phrase "compared victims to Nazis"; (b) invent brand new claim that Churchill "plagiarized" "little Eichmann" phrase from Zerzan; (c) remove the actual characterization of what Churchill's essay is about to substitute a short caricature. Anyway, if you feel like watching... way cool. LotLE×talk 04:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ok. But he doesn't want to be a "posterboy for academic freedom" anyway. You should write his biography Lulu, sugarplum. -- max rspct leave a message 10:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... you go over my head sometimes, Max. Poor little Lulu. Btw. On the Zerzan thing, Churchill does borrow the phrase, but he directly cites its source on initial use (see the article talk page for the details); the problem wasn't that Verklempt denied the Zerzan attribution (which Churchill makes), but that Verklempt had inserted "the phrase Churchill plagiarized from Zerzan". That is, Verklempt is so fond of the word "plagiarism" when talking about Churchill, that he (Verklempt) uses it to describe an explicitly footnoted quotation. Anyway, thanks for your kindly changes... which fixed some sections outside the lead that really needed some POV removal, great work. Btw2. Last night (or morning time on your side of the pond), we went back and forth a million times, with Verklempt continually reinserting the word "Nazi", sometimes several times in the same sentence. Obviously an argumentum ad miseracordiam type thing; the distinction there is that Churchill and Zerzan (and Arendt) look at Eichmann not qua Nazi, but qua bureaucrat (Arendt claims Eichmann was indifferent to anti-semitism, for example; Eichmann's evil has nothing to do with ideology). LotLE×talk 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kindly? Sure old bean !! haha -- max

The Troubles

Thanks, I think the article is coming together now. Not just my work though. The problem with an article like this is that to do it justice, it has to be made substantially longer than it should be according to the rules. Anyway, Cheers,

Jdorney 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

CFD "Designated terrorist organizations" underway

I thought you may be interested,

see here

Count Iblis 23:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Roma people mythology edit

My sharp-tongued edit comment wasn't aimed at you; it was a comment on the lunacy of trying to justify having to "disprove" the factuality of some myth cooked up over the ages to explain the existence of the Roma. If people really think we need this in an "encyclopedia" article, then we're in much deeper shit than anyone can imagine. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The earlier comment on your page perhaps puts it better: That this kind of swearing etc puts folk off wikipedia. No need -- max rspct leave a message 09:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wizard changes

Hi. Please join us on Talk:Wizard to explain your recent changes. To the naive eye, it looks like you are scrubbing non-Christian references out of the article. Since hopefully this is just coincidental, please come by and explain what your true intent is so that you are not misunderstood. I have reverted some of your changes in the meantime. Nandesuka 11:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blanking current warnings

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to User talk:Max rspct. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --Yamla 14:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Yamla 14:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for blanking pages. After the block expires, feel free to come back, but please make useful contributions instead. --Yamla 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your sockpuppet has also been blocked. Any further blanking of this page will result in this page being protected. You may not blank current warnings from this page. --Yamla 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Stalking"

Please note:

• If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Regards, Nandesuka 14:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

An unjustified , terroristic block methinks. - max

You quite clearly said you had left Wikipedia. In any case, the block was extended to 31 hours because you used a sockpuppet to get around the block. It will expire shortly. And remember, no personal attacks. --Yamla 21:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I will leave if i don't get justice. I am going to have you de-sysopped. -- max rspct leave a message 21:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

People who call for "desysopping" are normally ignored in places such as WP:AN and WP:ANI. Such is a fact. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 21:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to try, Max Rspct. I can help you set up your complaint if you wish, point you in the right direction. Please let me know if you would like to know how to go about doing this. --Yamla 21:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is plain that you have BOTH stalked me and want to get you threepence in. Why bully me over reverting MY usertalkpage?? I would de-sysop myself if I had done that (given the block). But of course I would never do that in the first place. My curse was AFTER you blocked. Why should I leave wikipedia because of unaccountable, 'rogue' admins and intimidation? eh -- max rspct leave a message 22:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask what's led you to the conclusion that I've stalked you considering we've not interacted for a few months? Not that it matters anyway. If you're going to report me, then do it. I've got nothing to be afraid of, considering these two edits are the first I've made in months to your talk page. --Lord Deskana ^{I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS} 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh so why pop up here again? I'm not going to report u Deskana .. just Yamla. Image justification i is one thing... banning a prolific user over reverting his own talkpage is quite clearly another. -- max rspct leave a message 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to say but the matter of blanking current warnings from your user talk page came up recently on the admin discussion board and it was made quite clear that you may not blank current warnings. And remember, you subsequently attempted to evade the block using other accounts. I don't think your case has sufficient grounds but you are welcome to try. --Yamla 22:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying you should leave Wikipedia. You were saying this. I'm quite happy to have you stay. Anyway, I was not bullying you. You are not permitted to remove current warnings from your talk page. Nor are you allowed to bypass blocks by using other accounts. You did both of these things, that is why your block was initially 24 hours and then extended by another 7 hours (not 24 + 31, as you claimed). We are not stalking you, nor are we unaccountable. Wikipedia has specific procedures (dispute resolution, desysopping, etc.) in place to ensure all admins (and, indeed, regular editors) are accountable. Remember, no personal attacks. This includes calling people rogue admins or swearing, though I'm not aware of you actually cursing at anyone. --Yamla 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

I am presuming you have been unblocked by now, Max rspct. Certainly, your block time has expired but sometimes autoblocks can interfere, particularly if you attempted to edit other pages while still blocked. If you are still blocked, please let me know and I'll attempt to unblock you manually. --Yamla 22:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

I have closed the report of your WP:3RR violation and marked it as time served. The basis for this is that any such block should have occurred during the time you were blocked by me for other reasons and the block would almost certainly have been that long or shorter. You asked if you are meant to sit back while an article is being decimated. The answer is yes, you are only permitted a maximum of three reverts except for simple vandalism within a 24 hour period. If the article really is being decimated, other editors will contribute to undo the problem, or you can take it to the article's discussion page, etc. In any case, I have marked this issue as closed so no other admin goes ahead and blocks you as a result. That would be unfair in this case, I believe. --Yamla 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: censoring

Hi, first of all, how was I impacting your archival of this page if I removed your comments from another page? Additionally, I don't consider comments like this to be very kind or respectful, so yes, I am censoring you by following policy. You're right. I realised I did remove your earlier comments as well, but since you re-inserted them at your own free will I don't see any issues at this point. --Pilot|guy 00:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes i had already put them there when I was blocked for nothing etc etc. Why stop a one letter typo correction? Why stop my later continuation of my dialogue this evening with Yamla?? -- max rspct leave a message 00:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel I am getting in the way of your conversation by following policy and removing a blantant personal attack? Based on your interactions with this user I hardly agree that you were blocked for "nothing." --Pilot|guy 00:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How is this a personal attack? :

"If you paid attention to other admins.. you will have noticed that others give short blocks for much more. Anyway you seem to admit that i was archiving all along. So what happend? You banned me for 31 hours unjustifiably and because you saw me talking about my clean record on 3RR noticeboard. You wanted to give me my first one. I waSN't deleting warnings - archiving.. and i got banned as you never waited or paused for thought.."

You stepped in when I corrected a 1-letter typo and left the above. The CAPITALISED message was left 39+ hours ago max rspct leave a message 00:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, and I removed the capitalized message based on WP:RPA, among other things. I didn't ask you when you put it in. I realized I removed another message of yours, which was indeed my mistake, but, since you put it back in anyway, what's the problem? --Pilot|guy 00:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Max Rspct's comments about block

You said: "If you paid attention to other admins.. you will have noticed that others give short blocks for much more. Anyway you seem to admit that i was archiving all along. So what happend? You banned me for 31 hours unjustifiably and because you saw me talking about my clean record on 3RR noticeboard. You wanted to give me my first one. I waSN't deleting warnings - archiving.. and i got banned as you never waited or paused for thought. I want that block struck from my blocklog."

No. You archived that most recent time. The evidence shows quite clearly that you were not archiving when you were blocked. You even admitted outright (six times, in fact) that you were blanking. You weren't archiving, you clearly stated, "if i want to blank i fucking well will." You will also find that a 24 hour ban for vandalism is quite appropriate, as is an extra 7 hours for attempting to bypass the block. When I blocked you, I had not seen your comment about your clean record on the 3RR noticeboard. Shorter blocks are generally given for the first 3RR violation, sometimes just a warning, but you'll notice that I imposed "time served" on you. You may think this harsh but I think you'll find most people would disagree. Your continued personal attacks aren't helping your case. I suggest you consider contributing productively to Wikipedia, as clearly many of your edits have already been, and stop this behaviour. It does you no credit. --Yamla 03:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeh I couldn't finish the archiving for 31 hours. Archiving by definition means removing all (blank) on current talkpage to the archive folder.. which I didn't even get a chance to create. I was obviously already disgusted at a few things. And how you can do this to me and yet tolerate RJII's now obviously paid and disruptive project. You went on to Red hair and changed what I had put there just to annoy and wind me up. What's that about then? You were behaving out-of-order and I am still going to report you for it Yamla. -- max rspct leave a message 11:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't say you were archiving, you said you were blanking. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding RJII. I can hardly be tolerating RJII's behaviour when I am not even aware of the behaviour. My only interaction with that user is to note that your 3RR violation was closed with no block. If you have a problem with RJII, I suggest you report it appropriately. I suggest you consider that perhaps there is not a conspiracy aimed to make your life difficult. --Yamla 14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That was a completely unneccessary block you gave me. I was not blanking any part of any article. Quote: "Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to User talk:Max rspct." - That was not an article but my userpage. I was archiving. Where does it say that I cannot blank archive my user talkpage? See Wikipedia:User page:

"In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons."

-- max rspct leave a message 14:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I told you. Additionally, as I have also told you, the specific case of blanking current warnings from a user talk page came up for admin discussion recently and the decision was quite clearly that it was not acceptable. You were not archiving, you were blanking and said so in no uncertain terms (and with profanity). And you do not own the user talk page and specifically do not own the comments posted by other users. What you have posted above is about your user page, not your user talk page. --Yamla 14:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No you are wrong. That wikiepdia page refers to all userpages/userspace ..thats why it has a subheading in it called: '[and editing of pages in the user space]'. I have looked at the admin board. I cannot se anything you referrred to. In any case it is not policy to block users for 31hrs for blanking or archiving their userpage. I am going to take action on this later today. -- max rspct leave a message 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You weren't blocked for 31 hours for blanking your user page. You were blocked for 24 hours for blanking your user talk page after being warned you were not permitted to do this. This block was extended to 31 hours when I discovered you editing from an anonymous IP address in an attempt to bypass your block. See Blanking own talk page for the discussion on blanking your own talk page. The policy is that you may not blank current warnings. If you have a complaint to make about RJII, please make it to the appropriate location. I am busy today and will not be able to look at RJII's behaviour in the near future. Nothing personal. --Yamla 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

THAT IS NOT POLICY. Chit chat among admins does not mean it is policy. I have never completely blanked my usertalkpage. And would have archived it anyway. It takes to to tango and you started this by giving me an unfair block (not even draconian as it is NOT policy). -- max rspct leave a message 15:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your signature

Would you consider changing your signature? I have a few friendly suggestions about some issues with it:

• The font "Cartier Book" is not standard on Windows and so for most people, it isn't going to look like you want.
• Having your talk link red is somewhat confusing - red is the color for nonexistent pages
• You should be able to condense it some so that it doesn't take up as much space. You have <font size="1"> and <font color="Red">. You can condense those into <font size="1" color="red">, thus making your signature a tad bit shorter.

BigDT 19:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well .. I am not really interested in cutting down signature size as it is pretty standard. You would be more help if you advised me how to reset my keyboard as I can't use the tildes.. (RSI hell) -- maxrspct leave a message 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of keyboard? Laptop? PC? MAC? Generic or name brand? Some keyboards have a "function" key that turns your f1, f2, etc, keys into something else. Is it possible that this is a function of your keyboard and you need to hit the "function" key to turn this behavior on or off? If you hit ` (the tilde key without hitting shift), does ` work? If not, it may just be that the key itself is broken. BigDT 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.. it is a PC.. the " and @ keys are back-to-front (the numbers are normal). No pound sign .. THIS is what I get from 1-0 when i keep shift button depressed: !@#$%^&*(). Strange. Oh i know what you mean about the length of my html sig.. but i am still beginner..Can't work out to condese it - it took me ages to set up on the preferences in the first place but... No tildes at all. -- maxrspct leave a message 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's one solution for you if you use IE:

• Make sure that you have the "Links" toolbar displayed. If you do not, right-click on the toolbar and hit "links"
• From the "Favorites" menu, choose "Add to Favorites", click the "Create in" button to display the folder list and choose "Links". Name your new item "Add tildes".
• You will see "Add tildes" appear on your "Links bar". Right-click on it and choose "Properties".
• In the URL box, add this code: javascript:void(insertTags('~~~~','',''))
• Click ok, answer yes to any warning.
• Now, clicking on that button will add your signature in Wikipedia.

BigDT 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But i use FIREFOX mutha! ;-) -- maxrspct leave a message 21:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just tried it ... the same thing works in Firefox. Right-click on your bookmarks toolbar, choose "New Bookmark". Paste javascript:void(insertTags('~~~~','','')) into the "Location" field, give it a meaningful name, and click ok. BigDT 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ..but I want the keyboard righted again - fixed so it is normal. Must be a button to press for that. cheers -- maxrspct leave a message 21:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have recently made a significant change to the Anarchism article. It is typically considered good policy to discuss such large changes on the talk page before making them, however if you were to have viewed the talk page at any point in time, you would have realized that this has been discussed at length, and removing the section on Anarcho-capitalism is extremely POV oriented. You have reverted to this blatant POV pushing session several times to day, and I would like for you to clarify your position on the talk page instead of continuing. Looking around at your talk page, etc it seems you already have quite a history of inappropriate behavior on wikipedia, so I will not give you the benifit of the doubt and will call you out as either a troll or a shameless agenda pusher. Two-Bit Sprite 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The term didn't exist until you guys turned up last year. I have sourced and argued for 12 monthes or more. Not interested in trolls. -- maxrspct leave a message 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, saying the term didn't exist until last year is comlete hyperbole — according to the Anarcho-capitalism article "[t]he term anarcho-capitalism was most likely coined in the mid-1950s by the economist Murray Rothbard." Secondly wikipedia is not an almanac of what the world looked like however many years ago, it is an encyclopedia of the present. If you have a problem with the term "anarcho-capitalism" then please add criticisms to the section in question, or at Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism where is belongs. Also, your usage of the term "you guys" shows your blatant "us vs. them" mentality meaning you have a particular bias against the perfectly legitimat (and very real) theory of anarcho-capitalism. Wikipedia is not the place to impose your views upon others (via intentional omission). Two-Bit Sprite 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I rest my case. Rothbard does not equal notable anarchist belief system. maxrspct leave a message 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Rothbard is "equal notable anarchist belief system" is not the question. I was responding to, "The term didn't exist until you guys turned up last year." which is obviously false. Secondly, who decides what is "equal notable anarchist belief system"? A google search for "rothbard anarchism" turns up 74,500 results. I'd say thats notable. Notability is not subject to whether or not you happen to agree with the position. Two-Bit Sprite 19:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Google is a pretty bad basis for a claim for notability. Try again. -- maxrspct leave a message 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. How about you try... what tool should I use to measure notability besides your assertion? How do you intend to tell the authors of those 74,500 web pages that they are talking about something which doesn't exist or isn't notable? Two-Bit Sprite 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Their true place (anarcho-capitalists) is in the group of right-wing libertarians described in chptr3" : using political ideas by barbara goodwin ISBN 0471935840 -- maxrspct leave a message 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

One source? Two-Bit Sprite 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not notable enough to get any more eh? -- maxrspct leave a message 20:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was that you are basing you opinion on a single questionable source. The author isn't notable enough to even have a page on wikipedia... The only place I can find her book is in the UK... The ISBN you listed doesn't have a page. Try again. Two-Bit Sprite 20:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are sorts of divisions between european and american academics and teaching methods.. I agree with the early american anarchist divisions .. but they are stuck in the 19th cetnury. Anarcho-capitalism is not as notable as those when it comes to anarchism. There is a wealth of books on anarchism,.., there are only two marginally (if at all) independent books your compatriots have come up with. The book is enormously influential in the teaching of politics here. maxrspct leave a message 20:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism - A-C removal

• Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [1]

• Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. [2] [3] [4] [5]

--Serge 20:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I love you too Serge. -- maxrspct leave a message 20:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh?

Uh, what's with the 10 repeated sentences? [6]. -- infinity0 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See [7]. -- infinity0 21:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh... you're not supposed to edit that page... Also, there's no need to dig it in really. :/ -- infinity0 22:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, i thought that was the idea.. my eyes lit up.. My mistake? LOLOL--maxrspct in the mud 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Namings

I asked them on their talkpage, see there for their response. The Ungovernable Force 07:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, RJII just made a note regarding that on their userpage in response to my question. Wow. The Ungovernable Force 07:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Its pathetic really. Only confirms what I have said. Honesty and integrity? He has been using fringe sources all along... Nobody will bat an eyelid. I wonder if User:Cberlet would see the anti-semitic pointers in this. --maxrspct in the mud 13:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

elf link

I know from numerous sources that yes, that was originally the elf website back when the earth liberation press office still existed, but since its demise someone else took the domain name and now you have this site. It really has no relation to the elf at all and you won't find any currently updated earth liberation site that has a link to it, therefore it's not a good reference. In fact many people are linking to this wikipedia article rather than that site. The site also has a lot of things that probably wouldn't be on there if it were what it used to be, such as numerous advertisements and links to liberal enivronmental sites. They've also taken the much more radical guides off the site that were once there. All in all it's just not a good site and no longer affiliated with an elf press office in any way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.112.38.11 (talk • contribs) .

I was checking to see if you responded to my last comment and saw this. Although I don't know why this person is talking about this on your talkpage, I can confirm that the website in question is not the ELF's website, at least not anymore. Someone said it was bought by the guy who owns T-shirt Hell, whether that's true or not, I don't know. I do know that the site really shouldn't be linked anywhere here on wikipedia though. The Ungovernable Force 18:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, strange. --maxrspct in the mud 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What is it you love doing?

Adding Template:Fact to articles? You confused me. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeh I lovE doing that. Why not? I enjoy pointing out unsourced declarations like that. --maxrspct in the mud 17:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)