User talk:Max rspct/archive5

Follow-up

I do not have any obligation of justifying my actions to you. You are exactly the kind of person that weakens this project, and as such I now understand that I should not have expected you to change your ways or admit that you were wrong. --Sn0wflake 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to be receiving a barnstar at the same time I am holding this discussion. It just makes the points you are raising moot. Have it your way. I am a vandal, disruptive and use my sysop rights to opress the good editors of the Wikipedia. See, you've revealed to the community my true nature. --Sn0wflake 21:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good for you.. To me barnstars don't mean nuthin'!!. -max rspct

My reversion

Excuse me, I believe you are mistaken. I was attempting to revert Hogeye's vandalism, and I just didn't revert far back enough. he was the one that removed all the book references. Sorry for the misunderstanding =) TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 18:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Respect.

I see you study Aikido.... LoopZilla 21:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"You are a T'ai Chi master then, old sacred one?" said a Wikipedian.

No: I am a beginner with 15 years experience LoopZilla 13:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pendantry

==[[Aikido]] and it's adherents== + ==[[Aikido]] and its adherents==

Now read Truss who is a grand master of the apostrophe! LoopZilla 14:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheik Yerbouti!!

Wow! signal

Hi MR. Thanks for the signal about copyvio! Well spotted and Just In Time! Reverted to the anterior edition. Cheers -- Svest 01:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Ward Churchill part 1

Hey Max, can we please work out something on Comrade Ward Churchill rather than just revert each other for the rest of time. BTW, totally agree with you about the changes that need to be made to Wikipedia's structure. Bring on democracy. Fluterst 13:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for watching Ward Churchill

I appreciate your rollbacks of the vandal/POV-warrior User:Fluterst over at that page. I've beeen trying to keep that page safe from some similar vandals for a little while. Your last edit, unfortunately, rolled back only part of Fluterst's vandalism, and didn't quite remove the most outrageous rants. I.e. see: [1]. I know you were trying to get rid of all the nonsense, but probably a click went astray.

I'm not really sure what to do about this problem user. I'm not an admin myself, or I might be tempted to block him/her. But this type of behavior, as outrageous as it is, doesn't obviously fall into one of the speedy block categories. I've reported vandalism in progress; but that seems not to generate as much attention as I might hope. Any ideas? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be terrified to try to edit Anarchism myself. I'm sure it's even more of a briar patch than is this one minorly notable academic, Churchill. I took a gander there... while my heart is with you, you should be careful not to put unencyclopedic stuff into the article, no matter how much some of the right-wing Libertarians piss you off (you had something about "Wikipedians disagree...", which is wrongly "meta").

Btw. Maybe you'd enjoy the funny little poll at User:Karmafist/Wikipedians' Political Perspectives. I think you might be the only other editor listed there whose "political compass" turns in about the same direction as mine (or at least to the same distance). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waaht????

I'm not sure if this is a question. But, e.g. [2] is wrongly "meta". Wikipedia editors are not the subject of the article, and should not be mentioned within it (Wikipedia:Avoid self-references). It would be fine, of course, to say that "experts disagree", or "Anarchists disagree", or something else about the subject matter itself. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 14:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't invent it... It operates very much like a boilerplate tag.. which should perhaps be there instead.... but official ones get taken off quickly by 2 editors. Lulu pal, we've had a long big headache dealing with 2 trolling, evangelical (and possibly far-right) editors who are determined to rewrite the article in a darkly revisionist sort of way - max rspct leave a message 14:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that the phrase had been there earlier. I have no idea who first wrote it. But any editor who removes the self-reference is doing the right thing, even if they are a darkly revisionist evangelical or whatever (judge the edit, not the editor). Self-reference is really, really destructive of encyclopedic tone, and has no place anywhere in WP article space (on talk pages or user pages, sure; and obviously in Wikipedia space. But never in articles... no matter what the history or conflicts about a topic). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're chatting

One of my watched pages is Bob Dylan. Over there we have this really annoying editor named Monicasdude. He probably is rather right-wing, along the line of our above chat, but that's not really what makes him annoying; it's just that he's obnoxious as an editor (he has a very exaggerated sense of his own knowlege: delusions of adequacy or the like :-)).

Anyway, I just made a one word change to remove the gratuitous (pejorative) word "violent" before the mention of Weatherman (and that they named themselves after the Dylan lyric). Totally side point: did you see the documentary on the group? It's quite excellent. But our annoying editor Monicasdude keeps rolling back my one-word edit, probably just out of spite. I need to avoid 3RR though... feel like fixing that for me? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

im nitgetting into a war with you

What is it about that paragraph you think is inaccurate? jucifer 00:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I removed BTW please make yourself more understandable ;|

Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 00:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captialism usage

Re Capitalism article. Definitions get added to the dictionary because they're common usages. That's how dictionaries work. Do you disagree? MrVoluntarist 21:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidictionary cannot be used as a sole reference - it's wikipedia rules! Wikipedia articles should not use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Wikilinks are not a substitute for sources. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary - max rspct leave a message

That was a citation of a real dictionary, not a Wiki-dictionary. Plus, even if the dictionary were wrong, it would be redundant to say "that dictionary claims" the word is commonly used that way. But listing it as a definition, the dictionary is claiming it's commonly used that way! MrVoluntarist 17:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eh?

User page edits

Who the deuce do you think you are to remove stuff from my user page? I spent quite a bit of time getting it the way I like- especially the userboxes- and your meddling is not appreciated. Do not do it again. --maru (talk) Contribs 01:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well stop promoting Swastikas then - max rspct leave a message

Marx

I got your message but you must have sent me the wrong link; it took me to a comment that Marx was not an economic determinist. Of course, that is true (he was not), but this has nothing to do with my point about Marx and historical specificity (if anything, my point is supported by the claim that Marx was not an economic determinists - or did you mean to send me to a different page?) Slrubenstein | Talk 15:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikimodel.com modeling causality help wanted...

... facilitating quality wiki work.

I have synthesized a wiki at http://www.wikimodel.com for modeling causality. I would greatly appreciate additions to the work in progress! Thank you --Dialectic 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? This a cosmology/physics braindrain?

I'm back!

You've convinced me. See ya round tha traps. AnAn 05:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back possum ~ max

Ping

I've replyed to you on my talk page. Feel free to remove this notice once you've seen it. --Gmaxwell 17:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new deal

I'm curious. If you're an anarchist, why would you be defending the New Deal? The New Deal is BIG GOVERNMENT. RJII 20:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not defending the New Deal in this instance. I just don't think it's economic fascism. But if you are so in favour of no government-owned corporations etc what do you think of the tax payers money given away in privatisation at the behest of private think tanks. Really RJ you should be more shocked at capitalist control and pilfering of the state. for example:
On the advice of the Adam Smith Institute, under John Major's Conservative Government's Railways Act 1993 British Rail was split up and privatised. This was a continuation of the policy of Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government's privatisation of publicly-owned services.

Remember it was Thatcher's gov that pioneered all that privatisation in US etc -max rspct leave a message

Uncle Ed

Ed got burned during a dispute with a user. He and FuelWagon both left the project for a while. I am saddened by both. Even though they couldn't see eye-to-eye, I consider them both friends and I pray they rejoin us. Regards--ghost 21:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It got very nasty between them both. Something that left me heartsick. I tried to apologize to both, as they'd both reached out to me IRL, so I felt I left them down. I've used that emotion to get involved with the project again, despite my schedule. I can't undo what was done, but I can do a little penance. I'm glad that I might've helped a couple of people so far. Thanks for your concern--ghost 21:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ooch -- max rspct leave a message 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism and Holocaust denial

One prominent libertarian holocaust denier was Pierre Guillaume. See also La Vieille Taupe Harrypotter 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cheers did u add it to that list? - max rspct leave a message

Perhaps

Perhaps I may be wrong: sometimes people in the veil of removing POV push fresh POV. I fail to understand the reason for removing a representation of Ushas is the page Hindu Goddess. Perhaps your POV may be right! Would you be able to remove her representations in the like manner from 100s of places in the world. --Bhadani 06:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your positive response. I regret that I was incoherent while leaving a message on your page. I shall be more careful in future. By the way, I perused a number of pages indicated in your user page: frankly speaking, they are very good collection of topics; and nicely built pages. I will certainly draw lessons from them while creating/ editing pages. As regards the image, let us forget this, as there are other more urgent and better things to do here than discussing on a particular image. --Bhadani 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okedokey! -max rspct leave a message

Okedokey! [3], and Namaskar. --Bhadani 14:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reasons

Have you tried supplying new reasons for pov tags on the economics of fascism page? I havnet found any of them to be serious complaints or legitimate content disputes. I reason that you are having an ideological dispute which is unacceptable. (Gibby 20:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

There has been plenty. From private property and laissez-faire sections high up in the article to the various contries (each with own section ) and then down to USA and New Deal. Read the talkpage..The article is often rearranged.. every section is disputed... please stop having tantrum Gibby -- max rspct leave a message 21:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Birmingham

This is just a reminder that the Birmingham meetup of UK Wikipedians that you have expressed an interst in is happening tomorrow. Sorry for the short notice. Thryduulf 15:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Chuck_D_Early.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chuck_D_Early.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the image with album cover (has his face on it) -max rspct leave a message

Image:Walter model.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Walter model.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, delete 'im!

Hehehehe...hello!

LOL - that's intentional, as a good amount of my friends are athiests ;) How are you doing, btw? Long time no talk :D XYaAsehShalomX 13:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. There's something very dodgy about them which I can't really put my finger on. Their views do border on CI-ness from time to time, and they imply a lot of things which they don't actually say. It would not surprise me at all if they were actually a Christian Identity group, and I think it's very likely. Let's hope none of them's reading this and don't decide to do to Wikipedia what they did to that cancer charity, though. ;)

XYaAsehShalomX 14:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

u still there? XYaAsehShalomX

Roy Morgan

I didn't think it was notable. In any case, the article doesn't say why it is. AnAn 22:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have, but then I worked in the field for 4 years. I wouldn't equate them with AC Neilsen, and I wouldn't support an enumeration of articles on MR companies. What can an encyclopedia tell you that their website can't? But fundamentally, the article is advertising. It doens't justify itself at all. AnAn 23:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see u have your head around it! How could U work in MR??? undercover? I think it's borderline... even so could have been speedy deleted. I am more concerned with wealth of TV fan articles.. Cull them someone! max rspct leave a message

I'm a bit shocked by the fervor that I've generated by this. I guess people like their companies. I worked in MR while a student, and I almost had the phrase "never to be released" permanently appended to my name. Its a mad, bad industry to work in. AnAn 23:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kronstadt

I suggest you read more than one book before you consistantly remove other people's posts. I can quote you at least half a dozen sources on what you claim is 'unsubstantiated evidence' - maybe you should start by reading 'Kronstadt' by VI Lenin and Leon Trotsky - Pathfinder Press 2002 ISBN: 0-87348-883-0 - this is first hand material from individuals involved fairly centrally in the events. All I am doing is putting their side of the story - you are consistantly removing this, even though there is plenty of source material for it - I'd suggest YOU read Wikipedia's rules about NPOV - because you are enforcing YOUR POV, as a result of one book you have read on the subject by someone with an Anarchist POV. At least both sides of the story should be put equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotboy (talk • contribs)

Lenin and Trotsky had a lot to defend, they are obviously not unbias and Pathfinder press are pretty much old trotskyist-marxists. You really cannot alter the article using these claiming a white conspiracy - this has been known to be false for years. Read S.A Smith's books... and Israel Getzler's book is just about THE definitive book on the subject. -- max rspct leave a message 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV is not the issue here, the issue is that the article should have NPOV - your consistant removal and censoring of other people's posts to balance your slanted Anarchist POV is simply unacceptable. How you can claim that Lenin and Trotsky 'are not unbias' (Double negative anyone?) but Anarchist academics writing with the benefit of hindsight and no first hand experience whatsoever of the events obviously are unbias! You are flouting Wikipedia's rules - the posts I have made are to assist in acheiving NPOV, and they are clearly substantiated in published books and articles. You will leave me with no choice but to declare this an edit war unless you desist from your vandalism.

Whats wrong with using a double negative on talkpages. Most users utilise vernacular language when conversing. Lenin and Trotsky's version of events can be included but should be identified as such and not spread around the article in POV form. I think your prejudice against the peasantry (and labelling of the 16,000+ revolters and the mass support in Petrograd) is typical of the Leninist viewpoint. Oh and as for edit wars ... there is no need.. Put that viewpoint.. the Leninist viewpoint together and source it. But don't interweave the article with stuff based solely on fringe sources and Trotsky and Lenin themselves. Also please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as I fear you desire an edit war too readily. -- max rspct leave a message 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Lenin & Trotsky's version of events should be 'identified as such' then this entire page should be identified as Anarchist anti-bloshevik propaganda. Because that's what it is, a totally one-sided slanted view written by Anarchists such as yourself to try and justify your obsession with this sideshow conducted by Socialist Revolutionaries, Anarchists and agents of the white russians and French intelligence. In spite of the legions of evidence presented at the time and since, you cling to this episode as evidence that the Bolsheviks paved the way for Stalinism. This entire page should carry a POV health warning - in fact it does, in the shape of a big advert for Anarchism all the way down one side of the page.

I was a trot and then leninist before any notion of Anarchism. And I don't slot myself as an anarchist. I am not interested in sourcing from the anarchist FAQ.. but I will quote from a socialist source:

Trotskyists usually justify the Bolshevik's actions on the grounds that the heroic sailors of 1917 had been replaced by newly recruited peasants, easily influenced by counter-revolutionary ideas. But Evan Mawdsley and Israel Getzler cite Soviet research which shows that three-quarters of all the sailors in Kronstadt in 1921 had probably been there since World War One. It also clearly demonstrates that 90% of the sailors on the two main battleships were drafted before 1918.[39]
:from Beyond Kronstadt (In the absence of my book Getzler which is at hand somewhere - I am searching frantically for it). -max rspct leave a message

Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ...	and silver linings	Thank you for your support on my RfA.
		Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

Hogeye

I don't really have the power to do such a thing. "Administrators" on Wikipedia are basically bureaucrats with little subjective power of their own. The best I can offer is taking the case to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, where you can fight to put him on probation, which would remove his access to anarchism. Considering his record, I think a pretty good case can be made against him. The only actions sufficient for me to block someone outright are blatant vandalism and violation of the 3RR (and both usually only last a day). I especially tend to avoid using admin abilities with respect to that article because I clearly have a POV stake in it. Sarge Baldy 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the trees he keeps uploading have been placed on images for deletion. I think the case against them is overwhelming, being original research, highly POV, AND full of lies (such as claiming Max Stirner was a capitalist and Gustave de Molinari was an anarchist). Sarge Baldy 20:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sa military

jesus...i wasn't aware of this, especially that it had continued after apartheid had ended :( XYaAsehShalomX 21:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including keeping, merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. Also, please remember to stay civil even to those with whom you disagree and to those who are not civil to you. -- Jonel | Speak 03:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your Segolene Royal article edit

I just posted the following to the Segolene Royal article Discussion -- let's talk it over there, if you'd like -- and reverted your edit:

Max_rspct: so is it the eng.Wikipedia rule that nothing is to appear here that isn't written in English, not even book citations and links and references? So how are people who know English supposed to find out about people & events in the Outside World, which doesn't?

You said: "deleted long list of books (mostly hers) which are useless this being EN w'pedia".

The Segolene Royal bibliography, which I just restored to the article, lists 14 books: not very many... She is a leading French politician, currently favored to win the presidency of France in next year's election. Very little has been written about her in English. Most of us eng.Wikipedia readers want to know what's happening in that election, and many of us know French, so give us a break and let us read about it.

And how about discussing this in advance, next time, before you just dump somebody else's work? That's what the Discussion pages are for.

--Kessler 14:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if you are sore.. but i think there was good enough reason to delete. I did start trying to convert them to wikipedia's 'style' of bibliography but then I realised that there was no point as they're all in FRENCH. If I'd known you were about I would have put issue on the talkpage, but I expected a wait of weeks before any reply. I am also concerned about politcal campaigning on wikipedia and control of articles by associates of the politicians concerned ... see Marty Meehan controversy in wikipedia news this week. Please try and use english books and/or unbias newspaper article references. -- max rspct leave a message 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Orang3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Orang3.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking

Your September 11, 2001 attacks edit [4] and this edit summary:"rv to mega'2000 (gnaa/vandals)"...if you're part of the GNAA, I'll be more than happy to ban you...what will it be...do you have an explanation?--MONGO 20:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why make personal attacks and threats? You don't like my other edits to 9/11? It makes you happy blocking people? Bad attitude. I didn't blank the page. If you actually paid attention to the edits you will see that I was removing vandalism by someone who put this in -

Conspiracy Theory
[edit]

It is speculated that these attacks we're caused by the prophecy of the death of 4chan. JIHAD JIHAD DERKA ALLAH! Twinkie House made [5] famous. THIS UPDATE HAS BEEN BRINGED TO THOU BY FUCK GNAA

If someone got there and reverted before me.. may have confused you enough to jump the gun and make reactionary threats. -- max rspct leave a message 18:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit diff I provided does not in any way demonstrate that you reverted vandalism performed by the GNAA... your edit summary showed up as a big red flag.--MONGO 21:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, the diff I provided does not demonstrate you revert GNAA vandalism...it happened 3 minutes after another editor did the reversion and you deleted items that had no real purpose for deletion...your edit summary does not convey the truth of the matter and I saw GNAA assuming you meant the immediately preceeding edit, which was not by the GNAA. Your edit summary therefore, was a red flag to me. Did I block you? No. I asked you a question in regards to the incident and that is all.--MONGO 21:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No , you were showing your true colours. Try not to make such assumptions - thats where u went wrong. -- max rspct leave a message 14:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism Table

If you think the anarchism table is good work, why did you vote delete? Infinity0 ^talk 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia Publishing House & fundamentalism

I'm not sure the Category:Christian fundamentalism is appropriate for the Concordia Publishing House article. The LCMS actually dissociates itself from fundamentalistm based on some significant differences in beliefs (which are listed here).

Anywho, as a representative of the LCMS (member of it) I've gotta make sure what we're saying is accurate. ^_^;

-- EmperorBMA|話す 07:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. I think the activities/books put out by Concordia contridict what is said in that link you just gave me. LCMS probably doesn't deserve the fundamentalist tag... but isn't Concordia it's main publishing house? Is Concordia controlled by more dogmatic, politicised elements in the LCMS? -- max rspct leave a message 14:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, CPH is indeed the publisher for the entire LCMS, which probably entails our whole range of views. This will include those who lean toward fundamentalism, even if it isn't official policy. It might be a business decision considering their conservative demographic, or it may be that some of the people they publish have views which might be read to be fundamentalist. Nevertheless, CPH is also our sole publisher for hymnals, catechisms and doctrinal texts (a.k.a. Book of Concord) meaning any fundamentalism would officially reflect on the church itself. Probably they are only about as fundamentalist as Martin Luther was, but that the LCMS has a lot of fundamentalist sympathizers (despite our teaching against fanaticism). I suppose lots more LCMS folks lean toward antifundamentalist views, but we can also be viewed to agree in some ways due to some shared Biblical positions meaning some of our books might have crossover points with fundamentalist writers. Our positions might read fundamentalistic, for example in the evolution controversy, where the LCMS official position is officially doctrinal Creationism (with various exceptions). Unlike the AiG folks (fundamentalist hardliners), we do not consider Creationism to be an essential belief for salvation, but rather an issue of Biblical exegesis. Perhaps User:CTSWyneken can answer any specifics better as he has been to seminary, while I'm simply a parishioner. -- EmperorBMA|話す 19:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with wage labour

I just started wage labour. Please help if you can. Thanks! Infinity0 ^talk 23:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of capitalism

Hey, I'm posting you this notice because I remember you recently editing the Capitalism article. I moved the "criticisms" section and other criticisms embedded in other sections and their responses to Criticisms of capitalism. Atm the ordering of the sections isn't very logical, since all I did was moved separate sections. Please help, and/or comment at Talk:Capitalism#When_to_split_off_criticisms. Thanks! Infinity0 ^talk 22:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evonews / THE EVOLUTION EXPERIENCE

I noticed that you supported the Evolution Experience article for possible deletion, however, many feel that The Evolution Experience played an important role in the development of the dance music scene in Wales in the early 2000's and should be noted for that. We are not a commercial company and are not currently promoting events, and in conjunction with Wikipedias policy for listing information about companies, I feel that Evolution Experience can be included because of the sheer amount of independent articles, television coverage, and even a book which involves the company. The company also features on the BBC News website, and has articles written independently by the following: Mixmag, Ministry Magazine, The South Wales Evening Post, The South Wales Argus, The Western Telegraph, West Wales Mercury, Wales on Sunday, The Times. I can go on. As I am new to Wikipedia, i am not 100% sure about the best way to approach this. In regards to comments that i have created this page and that no one else has edited or contributed, i am sure that over the next few days and weeks, it will become a hotbed of debate and discussion. Also i am not sure if i have left this message in the correct way, please let me know if i have not... regards evonews.

Are you telling me you don't make money out of it? -- max

We dontmakemoney out of it, all money goes back into the events. Everyone involved is a volunteer, and has other REAL jobs.

Terrorism

Hi Max, neither terrorism nor terrorist are acceptable neutral terms on Wikipedia, but you'll still find some editors using them, and there's no policy to say they can't. If you have doubts that the person or incident should be referred to as terrorist, you can request a source, but if the issue is 9/11, they'll find one easily enough, so it's pointless to ask. Sorry I can't be more helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant there is nothing written down to say they are acceptable, and in my experience, good editors tend to avoid them except where the omission makes the article look ridiculous, but equally there is nothing written down to stop people from using them. If they're being used in connection with 9/11, they're almost certainly being used appropriately, though it would depend on the context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making sense. Almost certainly? though it would depend? Are you not aware that one of the biggest debates in American academia at the moment is over 'little Eichmanns' and the validity of the WTC as a target? LOOk at the terrorism article. Yes I do wish you could be more helpful! -- max rspct leave a message 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I'm such a disappointment to you, and I'm sure you're not the only one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joan March Ordinas

I notice a certain tendence to erase JMO's name in relation with Francoist Forces. Any reason fot that? EGB 24 February 2006 (Z)

Where is this happening? By me? Any reason for such a baseless accusation? -- max

This is the link showing your correction about Juan March's involvement in the francoist side: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Civil_War&diff=40764216&oldid=40755929

EGB 3 March 2006

The see also links I didn't mean to erase if thats what you mean.. sorry if so. Where is Franco bit? -- max rspct leave a message 16:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yerbamate

How is it that you picked up the mate habit to begin with? Did you spend a lot of time in South America, or did you come across it in some health-food store? Wareq

My friend started sucking it after he made friends with a chap from Argentina.. we then used it in a complimentary fashion if you get my meaning. I guess not that regular as I also like English tea, miso, sorrel, Kombucha, green tea etc. You can only piss so much. I am about to get a new straw and bowl. -- max

European Civil War

Hi there, noticed that you removed a reference I inserted to the European Civil War in the Spanish Civil War page (describing it as a "shoddy edit"). Any chance of asking why? Paul Preston is one of the most respected Spanish Civil War academics, it seems like the concept deserves a mention somewhere in the piece. Coricus 13:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking back at the edit diff.. I was referring more to what was further down the page - typos, redundancy, unionists etc and the "most liberals bit" - i think it is a misunderstanding or mixup of different usages of these words etc Also the European Civil War as a term is neat but I don't think it is very widely accepted amongst academics/historians tho it is widely accepted that the european wars of last century were deeply connected as was the future history of most of the colonialised world. -- max rspct leave a message 21:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi. I recently nominated myself for adminship. I would appreciate it if you voted and/or commented. Thanks! Infinity0 ^talk 20:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose you think you deserve it? After looking at it, I must ponder on your answers a bit further.. -- max rspct leave a message 21:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... I didn't mean to sound arrogant, if that's what you mean. I'd appreciate any comments you have. Infinity0 ^talk 23:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries... haven't read all the turns and troubles of Anarchism page. I have general problems with the system (or lack of it) of admin accountability.. -- max rspct leave a message 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. I appreciate the comments you left when you voted, and I will definitely keep them in mind. If you have any other suggestions as to how I could improve as a Wikipedian, so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! —akghetto ^talk 07:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning

Hello... good morning. We have not talked for weeks and months. I saw your pages, they are so cute (surely u mean kewl??)... BTW, I like the morning picture, and have begun using this sometimes ... so beautiful ... wonderful ... am I coherent this time ... nooooo ... --Bhadani 16:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nice to hear from you. funny, as I was using our sunrise "issue" to explain to my unknowledgable french friend as to how wikipedia works. i think he will start using the french wikipedia first (altho he is half english) i have kept the sunrise/hindu god pic as it cheers folk up so much (i hope). bytheway, where is the signature squiggle on an applemac ibook G4?? -- max

I am always funny, but I would not compete with you!

, even if you mind Sir. --Bhadani 10:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ww2summarymapeurope.gif

Sorry, I guess I just once tried to change the colors of a previous image, which was a bit misleading. Please go to WW2 and search for the original image and its author. Velho 18:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beck 1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Beck 1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Arniep 20:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rstones2.jpg

Hi, sorry we aren't allowed to use copyrighted images on user pages see WP:FU. Regards Arniep 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-Syndicalism

Hi there, you changed one of my edits to the anarcho-syndicalism page from "council communism- a similar idealogy" to just "council communism, I'm a bit of a control freak so im just wondering why you did this. Just so you know im not challenging you or anything similar to that I was just inquiring - Konulu

it started off as correcting your typo, but decided that 'related ideology' is too simplistic and see also speaks for itself -- max

Harris

Hi Max Rspct. You keep reverting onto the Harris page the claim that Harris is "A protégé of neoconservative Middle East scholars Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer" but have yet to respond to the Talk: page requests for citation of that claim. As I've said there, I know nothing about Harrs, and the claim may well be true, but it's obviously being contested, WP:BLP is clear that biographies of living people must strictly adhere to our content policies, particularly in terms of getting high-quality references for claims. Could you please come to the Talk: page and respond to the issues there. I'm willing to leave this unsourced claim on the page for another couple of days, but in general Wikipedia is extremely cautious when it comes to this sort of thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on the Capitalism article

Hi there. You've reverted my edits on Capitalism a number of times and at one point deleted the entire section in question [6], but haven't yet to respond to my comments on the talk page. I included the link for your reference. For the sake of clarity and consensus, would you please leave your messages there instead of attempting a discussion through edit summaries? (see Wikipedia:Edit_summary#Use_of_edit_summaries_in_disputes)

Also, in your last revert, the edit summary read "please be more honest in edit summaries." What did you mean? Which of my 3 edits [7] [8] [9] was dishonest? Thanks. rehpotsirhc 21:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where spelling corrections in this mista?>[10]. As for talkpage interaction > I have done! ... what do you want over these two small bits? We have gone over this all before. Also, and this is not a ruse, I have encroaching RSI at the moment.. so repeating my edit summaries on the talkpage is causing me physical as well as mental damage. -- max rspct leave a message 21:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source of your confusion in the case of my edits is that you're looking at the diff between all three of my edits and your revert, not the diff between each of the three edits. To look at the difference between two edits, click on (last) on the history page instead of (cur) This is the edit I correctly labeled as a copy edit.

It's true that you posted what at first glance appeared to be a lot of text on the talk page, but further inspection revealed that it was actually just a cut-and-paste of the article Fraser Institute. Please respond with your own words in a manner that addresses the issues I've mentioned -- your edit summaries with statements like "of course it is" and "this is capitalism article" are not sufficient. I'm sorry that you're suffering from a injury, but that doesn't really give you the right to constantly revert articles without explaination. Thanks. rehpotsirhc 22:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained.. stop removing factual information. The section's not staying in that form. -- max

I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately, you can't just decree the makeup of a section--we have to reach consensus. My issues with your reverts are there on the talk page, unanswered by you. I guess it's your choice not to participate in the discussion leading to the consensus. Just don't complain about the descision, once it's reached. rehpotsirhc 22:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are there. You seem to ignore them. I have been contributing on talk page. I have talked much about this in talk archive.. well before u popped up. You keep deleting a line or two that looks unsavoury as you don't want folk to know how bias those Indices are. capitalsim is not just economics and the interpretation of economics by neo-lib/conservative/cheneynite think-tanks. Truth hurts. max

Your recent edits

Please, mind WP:CIVIL. Moe ε 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]