The result of the vote was to merge it with the Philosophy Portal. Banno can't legitimately remove it, without building a new consensus first. I've copied the TfD discussion to the Philosophy Portal talk page, for everyone to see. You should probably get over there to defend your position. Go for it! 03:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Yes I can - see the discussion. Banno 17:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

It needs to be removed from all the articles it appears in first, otherwise I'll leave behing an ugle redlinked template in each article. I put in the "To be orphaned" section of TfD hoping someone would do it. You can if you like, by lookat Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy Quick Topic Guide, being sure to leave behind simple references to the template in discussion etc. - Splash ^talk

Infinity, I would suggest that you not remove the links from the philosophy articles for a while. Although I don't like the Quick Links, there are probably enough folk around who do - and it would be a shame if you had to go through and add all the links again. Perhaps you should wait a few days to see if a consensus really does arise. Welcome to the Wiki! Banno 17:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oh, alright, OK, I'll stop. But should I change it to the old, undeleted template? Infinity0 17:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Nope, if it's the links to the deleted template you're removing you should go ahead. Consensus on that was clear. - Splash ^talk 17:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Splash, what I meant was changing the deleted template tag {:{Philosophy Quick Topic Guide}:} into the undeleted template tag {:{Philosophy (navigation)}:} . I should have thought of that earlier... I guess I'll have to wade through my contribs and go over all those articles again :( Infinity0 18:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Ok. It's up to you (or another editor) if you want to replace it with something else, but it's ok to remove {{ Philosophy Quick Topic Guide}} from any and all articles it appears in. Normally,I'd have done it myself and deleted it when I closed the TfD debate, but I didn't have time. - Splash ^talk 18:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Deleted. Thank you for doing the leg work. - Splash ^talk 21:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Good revert, but really dude, your edit summary... don't feed the trolls.

Whoops, yes, I just realised that was a bit harsh, I usually reserve that message for the more serious cases. :P Infinity0 ^talk _contribs 16:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You are welcome. Please see my latest comments. I beg you to memorize Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Verifiability if you want to deal with RJII. He is a notorious POV pusher. That is, he has a particular view of capitalism — one that is shared by many, but not by all. The problem is (1) he presents his POV as "truth." — if you read our Verifiability policy, you will see that Wikipedia does not claim to determine the truth, only to provide verifiable information, accounts of information, interpretations or explanations of information, and so on. (2) he systematically deleteds any attempt to provide an NPOV definition of capitalism, i.e. one that accomodates other views. As you should well know, capitalism is an ideal system that doesn't really exist; capitalism is also a set of systems that really do exist but diverge from the ideal (and it is a system that can be local or global); capitalism is also an ideology, or set of beliefs about what that ideal system is. RJII does not make these three distinctions. He sees only one truth. If you really understand our verifiability and NPOV policies, you will be well-armed and protected to identify his mistakes and fix them, and defend your improvements to the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the advice and guidelines :) But - ideal system? From what I understand by "ideal", that's POV, but I don't think you meant that. Can you explain this phrase? Infinity0 ^talk 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I am trying to explain a way in which I think RJII is violating NPOV — by providing an "ideal" account of capitalism. That said, the problem is not providing an ideal account. The problem is to provide it as if it were the truth. If RJII, you, I or anyone else had a verifiable source that says "Ideally, capitalism = ..." then we could put it in, as long as we say, "According to ..." and provide the source. So, we could add Marx and Engels; Gundar Frank; Wallerstein; Dobb; any number of other views, as long as they are properly sourced. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You may also want to familiarize yourself with Max Weber's idea of "ideal type." "Ideal" doesn't necessarily mean "wonderful," it can have the meaning of a Platonic ideal, or what Aristotle called the "essence." Slrubenstein | Talk 23:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oh, as in " Idealism"? Thanks for clearing that up :) Infinity0 ^talk 23:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm happy to see you're another person who keeps an eye on the Karl Marx article for vandalism. However, I would like to suggest that your most recent revert's summary might be unfortunate because it mixes your personal opinion with your activities on Wikipedia. It usually leads to better editing and more harmony with other editors when these are kept more separate. -- Improv 00:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I continue to find your comments on the Talk:Capitalism page very interesting – and important. I hope you do not think I am patronizing you but I just really want to encourage you to incorporate much of what you know (that which comes from a verifiable source ... but, you learned it all somewhere, so you must know sources) in the article. I wrote a longer message to Felix encouraging him to do so, but whatever I wrote to him here User talk:Felix1981 goes for you as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you. But must of what I have written on that talk page come from me, influenced slightly by Marxist theory. However, you are mistaken that I'm well read - the only two books I've read (related to this subject) are "Marx for beginners" by Rius and "The Communist Manifesto," which I took with a pinch of salt. I'll try my best to write something along the guidelines, but I'll have to dig up lots of sources, which is a pain :( Infinity0 ^talk 18:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Okay. But The Communist Manifesto IS a verifiable source, and it talks about capitalism, i.e. it is relevant. So you can draw on it to make points in the article. By the way, if you are looking for another book to read, I suggest Maurice Dobb's book on the Development of Capitalism in Europe. You may also find Eric Hobsbawm's series of books on the history of Europe (and its colonies) very readable and informative. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Infinity0, do you have a source for your claim that under communism goods will be shared rather than exchanged in a market? I have been going through what I have of Marx and Engels, Lenin, and Mao, and I haven't found anything about abolition of all markets. I do know that abolishing the labor market is crucial to communism. Do you have a source that states that under communism goods will be distributed through sharing rather than markets? By the way, I am not saying such sources do not exist. But that is because I do not think Marx, Engles, Lenin and Mao speak for all communists. I think there are many strands of communism and there may be one or several in which produce is shared rather than exchanged in a market. But as far as I can tell, there are major strands of communism that makeno such claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I put the quote in the talk page, you might have missed it. It's from the Communist Manifesto:

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying. But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

Infinity0 ^talk 19:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you for providing "a" quote. But this quote has no value unless you tell us who wrote it, where it was published, and what page. Does it reflect the view of ALL communists, or of some communists? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

"Who wrote it"? :| You said there were communists before Marx, but I imagine they are too obscure to be of importance: Marx was the first major communist, and that is his interpretation of it. Infinity0 ^talk 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing me to the source. If it is his (actually, his and Engel's) interpretation of communism you should say so. In fact, I did suppose it came from the Manifesto, but I didn't have to go around flipping through the pages. As a general rule — and I say this with respect and in good fath &mdash whenever you refer to or quote a source, you should name the source and the author's. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. Everyone benefits when we do this.

Now, I reverted to my language for the reason I put in the edit summary: Marx and Engels are much clearer about what they oppose than how they invision a communist society working. This is true of Lenin and Mao as well. If you can find me a source where they say that everyone will share everything, then I will say "Thanks, sorry, and we go back to your wording." But I can't find the source for this particular claim.

By the way, our opinions about who is obscure or not is irrelevant to Wikipedia (i.e. it doesn't matter whether I agree with your opinion of pre-Marx communists or not). There have been and are other strands of communism. You are not responsible to provide accounts for all of them — no one editor is. But you, just like I, are required to provide the context for a quote or source and at least leave room for other sources and views (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Please do not think I am being dismissive of your views or contributions. I am not. It's just that these policies are important. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The right-hand edge needs adjusting, and I can't figure out how to do it. Perhaps you could take a look at it? Go for it! 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Looks fine to me atm? I'm using firefox 1.5, maybe it's an IE bug? Infinity0 ^talk 16:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Oooh I see, I'll go fiddle it around. Infinity0 ^talk 16:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Awesome. Now I've got to go see how you did that! Go for it! 12:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

But it has some serious glitches which are causing some of its sections to overlap. Go for it! 09:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I've converted it over to the Philosophy portal's format, and all the mysterious problems went away. Go for it! 12:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I've reverted your edit button change. When I press one of them, it opens a Template:Portal:pagename page. Let me know if you get the same results. Go for it! 18:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Aww, oh yeah, damn. Infinity0 ^talk 18:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Be sure to send a message to Banno and Dbuckner too. Massive reverts like the one Dbuckner made really should be discussed first, don't you think? Go for it! 12:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

We are discussing it right now on the talk page... just leave the philosophy page until the discussion is over. Infinity0 ^talk 12:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Portal:Australia and Portal:New Zealand have awesome custom category browsebars, in which the categories on the bar are linked to the country-specific cats.

My question for you, mark-up expert extraordinaire, is: 'Is there a way to make a template to apply this browsebar concept to all the country portals?' That is, so that each link in the top line contains the country-specific categories rather than generic ones?

If you can come up with a way to do this, I will be very impressed.

Go for it! 12:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

There's a very easy way, which involves variable-passing (such as {{ main2}}, but I can't be bothered reading up on that. If you click on "editing help" and have a look around, you should be able to find something about it (and when you do, please post the link here :P) Infinity0 ^talk 12:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Just did it. To use, put {:{browsebarcountry|Countryname|Countryadjective}:} :D Infinity0 ^talk 12:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You are a Wikipedia mark-up God! Go for it! 12:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I made a version of Socrates' head as an icon for the TOCs, but I've run into a small problem...

Socrates displays fine in Portal:Browse because the background is white. But his white background shows up and looks unprofessional in Wikipedia:Browse and Wikipedia:Browse by overview.

You wouldn't happen to know how to fix this, would you?

Go for it! 02:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Sorry, currently on holiday, and this is my first chance at a computer. If you're using Adobe Photoshop, then try using transparent GIF or PNG image type, then use the eraser to erase the white out, leaving a white-and-gray checkered grid as a displayed background (it's actually transparent, the grid is only to distinguish it from a normal white background). If you're using a different program, try hitting F1. MS Paint can't draw transparency, I don't think. Infinity0 ^talk 11:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Is there a way to set up variables on the same page they are being used in? Like at the top of the page, or something? I'd like to make it easier to set up the colors on a standardized portal page. Go for it! 02:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

No, I don't think so. It's unfortunate, because otherwise we could save a lot more bandwidth in repeated markup. They should allow style tags, but they don't at the moment, probably because of possible abuse. Infinity0 ^talk 11:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hello there, I see that you removed the NPOV tag from the article. IMO, the article still needs much work, and perhaps I can be in the position of fixing it up. Nevertheless, the assertion that morality is not somehow innate as opposed to a social construct is not a fact, but rather a POV held by some people, and IMHO, that position leads to paradoxes (e.g. the social reformer paradox - if "society" defines morality, and it considers itself to be right, then how can social reformers who agitate for changes ever be viewed as righteous when they stand for changing the existing order? Yet we view certain reformers such as Lenin, Gandi, Martin Luther King, Mandela, etc. as potentially righteous and noble people.) I think the whole article needs to be drastically cleaned up, but I hope I'm not missing a point you're trying to make. Thanks. Ngchen 03:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Actually, that wasn't me. Go re-add the tag if you want. Infinity0 ^talk 13:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Just in case you didn't see it there.

Sorry Infinity that I missed this when you first posted it. I'll return to the issue, but I'll give it a new heading because that one was getting unwieldy. You say you've lost track of my point. It is, chiefly, that what you seem to be proposing -- a system in which the only outside investors would be those using debt instruments -- would prove an unstable system, for predictable reasons.

It sounds like you're saying that investment in corporate bonds is in principle better than investment in corporate stock -- i.e. one is less exploitative than another. If that is what you believe, you may be the only person in the world to believe it. To show why, let me ask you this: In an enterprise system with worker ownership on the one hand and bond holder participation on the other, would there still be enterprise bankruptcies, or not? If there would be bankruptcies, then would this mean the bondholders were out their investment, or would the individual workers owe them the money as individuals even after the dissolution of the company, forcing them (the workers) to also declare individual bankruptcies, or what? In a system such as that which obtains in much of the world at present, with transferable equity rights owned by outside investors, the answer is clear enough. If a company fails, the stockholders take the hit first, then the bondholders are usually compensated with the equity of the re-structured company. But in your scenario, there aren't any stockholders any more to cushion the fall for those bondholders. So either the bondholders are just out of luck, or they can continue to pursue the former workers of the defunct business. Which is it?

The latter possibility seems rather ghastly. In the former case, it seems to me, bondholders would soon (and quite sensibly) begin to demand some of the rights common stockholders have now -- whoever has that residual insolvency exposure, whatever its name, should have some say in who gets to manage the company. So the distinction between investment in equity and investment in a "fixed-price return" would be more one of verbiage than of substance.

"Look at it this way: investors don't do anything with the company - so if the company fails, it's not their responsibility, and what's the point of punishing them?" Okay, I'll look at it that way. There is no point in "punishing them." But the capitalist system doesn't do so. It allows them to take a loss, which isn't a punishment. The point of letting them take the loss is that they've agreed to take a loss, and that society (as represented for example, by both the bondholders and the workers) has an interest in letting them take the loss they've agree to take, And, more to the point, investors can hedge their risks by diversifying, whereas the internal investors necessarily have a lot more at stake. So if I try to look at it in the way you suggest, I come to the conclusion that risk-bearing equity serves a valuable buffering role, and that it is best for everyone to have that role served in that way. -- Christofurio 20:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Infinity. The new browsebar from the Philosophy Portal got placed on Wikipedia's Main Page (!!!), but some POV'er removed Art and Philosophy from it. He cited the discussion on Template talk:MainPageIntro#portal:art and portal:philosophy. However, that discussion was tied 2 to 2. Please go there and support Art and Philosophy. Art packs a lot of punch for being only 3 letters, while Philosophy is on the same level as Science, both of which rank above Mathematics on the hierarchy of fields. But we're almost there! See ya at that discussion! Go for it! 08:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The edits on Creationism should be put in other places. Mainly this is on physics topics and there are a lot of other possibilities to create new articles on Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics. I am waiting your response.

• I suggest you create new articles for Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics and let the article of second law of thermodynamics free of ambiguous links. -- Bonaparte talk 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi, do you still need help? I have been travelling a lot lately and have had only sporadic access to the internet. Let me know, 68.239.101.51 20:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Um, can you remind me who you are again? Your IP has no contributions, so I can't tell. Infinity0 ^talk 12:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Self-note

• vfd Capitalism Day
• fix double link in Existence of God with link to Absolute Infinite

Infinity0 ^talk 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Is there any way to make two columns of multiple boxes line up at the bottom edge of the lowest two boxes in the columns? We are almost done with the Main Page redesign, and I've run into a couple formatting problems. Would you please come take a look at it? Thank you. Go for it! 16:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I am sorry, I do not know how to. Can you post your request at the adminisstrator's notice-board? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I'm pretty sure you know how to fix this one. On the Main Page Redesign Draft, on the 2 columns we need some padding between the columns without getting space on the left or right edges. With cell-spacing, it shrinks the boxes down so that it creates margins on the left and right outside the boxes. I tried to put a padding column while in a sandbox, but I coudn't get it to work. Would you please take a look, and see if you can fix this? Go for it! 18:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Where are classes defined? In .CSS files?

I've been going over the Italian main page source code, and I can't find the classes that are in there defined anywhere.

When you pull the Italian pages into the English WP, the boxes turn out rectangular instead of round. I'm thinking it's because the classes can't access their definitions. Is this correct?

Go for it! 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Class definitions are stored in the central CSS file which only admins can edit. Infinity0 ^talk 17:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm thinking about requesting adminship, and have written a draft of my request. I would appreciate it if you would proofread it for me, and let me know what you think. -- Go for it! 23:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Please vote here. — goethean ॐ 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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 03:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Because when I first made a Wikipedia account, I thought this worked like other sites: you pick a login name and a public ID, and only the second is visible to anybody else. I didn't bother to change when I realized that the edit screens meant WP doesn't work that way; and I am now more or less stuck. Septentrionalis 22:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

This block also includes a violation of WP:NPA. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Infinity0 for evidence. howch e ng { chat} 23:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Please don't go on vandalizing (user wolfkeeper e.g. will be angry about your vandalism out of revenge on Special relativity). 80.138.193.56 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Or do you like to have all your contributions cancelled by a vandal from 2001 up to now? 80.138.193.56 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you need to get a life. It seems that vandalising wikipedia is a full-time job for you. Did you just admit you have been vandalising wikipedia since 2001? Infinity0 ^talk 16:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello User Infinity0 I saw your nick at "Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism" - I only want to give you some links to get a right view of this person - he was involved to vandalism, too! (radical POV) [1], [2]

Have a look at him, on his user talk he speaks about talking in Deutsch/ Rotwelsch so that only a specific group of persons can understand him - have a look at the history of User talk:Mr Phil see here (I don´t know the flow of work at en.wikipedia with this facts, at de.wikipedia it is nearly a reason for a indefinite block)! -- 84.181.221.253 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, one advice - have you compared the IPs on User:Infinity0/Vandal report with User talk:Mr Phil?

Another assumption alludes to these IPs, 62.197.126.10, 204.15.149.58, 60.248.157.241, 201.242.184.112 and 85.124.84.195 - perhaps you can use it for further investigation. -- 84.181.251.204 02:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Shut up, Mr Phil. According to [3] you are a blacklisted IP. Wow man, what other crap have you done apart from vandalising wikipedia?

Hello, I´m not User:Mr Phil! I´m a User from German WP who to gives you the informations, we have on de.wp about him! I told you to compare your IPs on User:Infinity0/Vandal report with User talk:Mr Phil, because on German WP a User (I don´ write the name, because he had big vandalism of Mr.P on his user talk!) -he gave me the named IPs (62.197.126.10, 204.15.149.58, ...)- told me that something can´t be right! Or is Mr. P a soliloquizer? That means not that the IPs on User:Infinity0/Vandal report are no separate vandals, too. The IPs 84.181.xx.xx are no static IPs of dt. Telekom AG, I don´t know wich other people use it, too. (DTAG is a incumbent operator of telecommunications [4], perhaps 90 or more per cent of telecomunication at Germany, the Telekom is involved!) I´m fighting against vandalism on wp - an against people like this Mr.P! -- 84.181.245.201 22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

You should really stop using blacklisted IPs. [5] How can I know you're telling the truth? Infinity0 ^talk 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

It is very difficult to give you a argument, but if you have a idea, tell me! But perhaps you don´t need some, because I only can give you indices and if you can use them it is good. (Whenever I can, I´ll give you links too, so that you can check!)

Look here, you have blocked him, or? And there is another IP 80.137.42.212 [6], [7] on his user talk. When I read the diskussion I have the assumption, that this is Mr.P., put him here and you are in Hamburg!

blacklisted IP: are there every IPs of DTAG on this black list? I can´t change the IP on my own, it is a dhcp-server that gives me my IP! (my english must be awful for you, or?) -- 84.181.245.201 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I guess. If you need evidence or assistance at the German wikipedia, feel free to use the evidence at User:Infinity0/Vandal report. But what did you mean about the other IPs you mentioned, eg 62.197.126.10, 204.15.149.58...? Infinity0 ^talk 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I think these are "proxy-tarned"- IPs (because ripe gave no realistic answer ( there is a list)) that Mr.P. used for vandalim at de.wp! I thought perhaps they appeared here, too! -- 84.181.245.201 23:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Also, Mr Phil has only been banned here for one day, I'm afraid, and the ban expired on 21:30 today. Fortunately, he hasn't edited since then. Infinity0 ^talk 23:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmm... I'm afraid that locator isn't very accurate. I am in England, but it says my IP is in Scotland. lol. But I guess that for me, the "certainty" is 34%, yet for 80.137.42.212 the "certainty" is 86%. Infinity0 ^talk 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes I know, but if you have a better tool, I would be thankful! (there are problems if providers collaborate with others, one time ripe said DTAG but in reality it was 1&1, sometimes there is no result, too) You have to combine if the result can be realistic or not! -- 84.181.245.201 23:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, shut up already user 84.181.245.201, you're the one who should be banned from here -- Mr Phil 07:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the message. I agree that he needs monitoring; however, WP:AIV isn't the place for that. Try Vandalism in progress. Of course, if he reappears and starts causing trouble, feel free to add him to AIV again. Cheers! Deltabeignet 04:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I made changes as the article Neoconservatism and neoliberalism in Canada has Fraser institute as being bastion of neo-cons. -- max rspct leave a message 19:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Mr Phil has found my talk page and asked me to "reprimand" you for personal attacks. He mentioned:

"We do NOT give readers complete bullshit."

"The word "testosterone" does not even appear in that source, you fucking phoney."

"Stop wasting people's time. You're pathetic."

I'm going to assume that you made a mistake under the pressure of fighting a problematic user. So... consider yourself reprimanded. Cheers! Deltabeignet 20:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, you can download Inkscape for free, the software is Free Software per the FSF definition. I don't know if it is official Wikipedia policy but SVG is a good standard for charts, graphs etc. Sorry, but I'm a bit of a free software zealot. If you need it in PSD you can probably download The GIMP, and convert from SVG to PSD using that. - FrancisTyers 21:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hey! Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! SYCTHOS ^talk 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Karl Marx article, but the edit summary "He had a wife you dumb bitch" is not necessarily going to prevent the user from vandalising again. Edit wars are fatal... haz ( user talk) 19:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Yup, ditto what he said. Most vandals are attention-seekers, and allowing yourself to be provoked like this simply gives them what they want. android 79 19:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Bah... :( it's not like they know how to read the history anyways... Infinity0 ^talk 19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I really don't think you're giving them enough credit. android 79 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC) reply

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

It seems that this table is just perpetuating a very stupid debate which avoiding dealing with the objections made repeatedly by several people who see any chart or tree beyond Sarge Baldy's nutshell as inherently POV. Chart's and tables may be useful in some areas, but not when dealing with such a diffuse topic as anarchism. Harrypotter 14:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Good work! Infinity and beyond !! -- max rspct leave a message 21:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, maybe I'm mistaken.. You are caving in on the tables now? I agree with what h.potter says - far too simplistic for politics articles - u rarely see them used in higher education . Tables seem to be right-wing American phenomena/take - and often seem to originate in USA/US media-- max rspct leave a message 14:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

What is your rationale for moving physical cosmology? I chose that title because it is the name actually used for the field, although it is often contracted to just cosmology. – Joke 01:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

It is? I'd never heard of it being referred to that... Infinity0 ^talk 01:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, for example, there is the textbook by Jim Peebles entitled Principles of Physical Cosmology. – Joke 01:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm going to try to move back, but I will ask on the talk page to see if people would prefer the move. Thanks! – Joke 01:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I've done it and left a note on talk. It seems worthwhile to have a discussion first, since physical cosmology is so heavily linked and it is an often-used term in the articles I've edited. – Joke 01:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Could you help me with an on List of Pure Pwnage episodes where it was unspecified whether it is Standard Mandarin or dialects of Mandarin that was meant at the last continuity error? =) -- 84.249.252.211 18:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Done :) Infinity0 ^talk 18:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply

:o! <3 Here's two presents for you (two cookbook pages I did by myself today and yesterday!!)

• Döner kebab
• Pita

I hope you like them! =) -- 84.249.252.211 18:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Ooo, thanks :) Infinity0 ^talk 18:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I have protected Anarchism due to the edit history yesterday which appears to show repeated removal and insertion of the same information. Be warned that such behaviour is not productive, and that we have policies in place, such as the three revert rule and edit warring which proscribe against such actions and allow admins to block people in violation of such policies. Please continue to discuss the issue on the talk page, being mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. In order to build a consensus it might be wise to advertise at the pump, WP:RFC or pages related to the dispute or the article in question. Once a consensus is established, please respect it. To request the page be unprotected, either contact me or use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Steve block talk 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I've responded at Talk:Anarchism#Re: Citing infoshop. Steve block talk 22:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm going to go to bed now. I'm going to leave the page protected, if you want the page unprotected, please request it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I'd rather here more voices on the issue before I see a demonstrable consensus. I hope that's okay, and thanks for the good natured help and responses. Steve block talk 23:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I would like to unprotect the page, but I want to check their will be no more conflict regarding the infoshop sourcing. Are we all now happy that the opinion being sourced from infoshop can also be sourced from other reliable sources, and that it is now acceptable to use infoshop as a source in this instance, given the direction at WP:RS, which allows partisan sources if used only to source opinion and if not used as sole source? Do we have an agreeable compromise on that issue? Thanks for your good natured debating of this issue. Steve block talk 15:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I copied RJII the same message I left for you, so at some point I will hope for a response. Steve block talk 18:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Left responses on your talk page. Infinity0 ^talk 18:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Ack. I meant I was hoping for a response from RJII that he would accept the position before I unprotected the page. Steve block talk 19:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• I want to get your take on this comment from RJII: And, they're referring to "capitalism," rather than anarcho-capitalism. [8] Am I right in thinking that the text you are supporting is arguing against anarcho-capitalism because they support capitalism? To me it seems to say that anarchists at the anarchist FAQ reject anarcho-capitalism because of its support for some form of a capitalist market, and since those at Anarchist FAQ believe capitalism to be a coercive state, it is not in line with their definition of anarchism and so they reject anarcho-capitalism as an anarchist movement, or something like that. Is that what is trying to be said? Steve block talk 20:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC) reply

The page is now currently semi-protected, the state I found it in. I have amended the text to address a spirit of compromise I saw exhibited. I would ask you to respect that text in the short term, and also not to engage in edit warring. Any reversions you wish to make, please use the talk page first to get agreement before making them. Steve block talk 14:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your continued effort at reaching a balance here. Thanks -- Gnetwerker 02:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree. Keep up the good work. However, when it comes to our anon friend, always remember the mantrum: "don't feed the trolls." Sunray 06:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply

That template was redundant. You can either use {{user|Username}} or write [[User:Username|]] (note the presence of the "|" character). -- MarkSweep  (call me collect) 18:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

If you want something without the extra links, use the second form. Cheers, -- MarkSweep  (call me collect) 18:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I thought it rather unwise to continue using my real name on wikipedia... Call me paranoid. :) -- Nikodemos 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Just so you know, I've replied to both your postings (the .js stuff and the posting about Chuck0) to my talk page there, since I'm a "reply in place" sort. You may also want to review the back and forth between Steve Block and myself... no need to reply to this message here, but I wasn't sure you knew that...) ++ Lar: t/ c 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply

In Canada and the USA, "practice" is the spelling for the nound and the verb. This is a Canadian article, so... Nawara Ven 13:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=practicing&word2=practising

I'd agree with you on advise/advice, but practice is a different case. :)

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=adviced&word2=advised

Oh, and I actually thought this so and then google tested afterwards-- 84.249.252.211 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hmm... practice says "practicing" is the American version, and "practising" is the english version, not the other way round like you said. :P Infinity0 ^talk 22:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Darn, I always thought Cs would be the ones used in UK English over Ss. Anyways, I'd consider it proper to use the US one due to the larger audience of Americans on Wikipedia. And as the user's post before this post said, Canadians use "practice". I'll let you decide it. :) Oh, and I think the reason why most AmE speakers (myself being one, although from Finland!) feel "uncomftorable" with practise because it "feels" like it would be pronounced "pract-ICE (as in "ice") or "pract-EES (as in "easy", with a slight Z). -- 84.249.252.211 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Ah well, I'd always been taught it was s verb, c noun. Infinity0 ^talk 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello. I have decided to write you here first because the comments I am making are very tentative and may require some preliminary discussion before being presented to a more general audience. Comments of any sort are welcome.

"This article is newly created from the jumble of criticisms within Capitalism, so atm the ordering of the sections is a mess. I'm done for today, will work on this tomorrow, but in the meantime anyone is welcome to help. Infinity0 ^talk 22:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)" reply

moved to Talk:Criticisms of capitalism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

You are blocked becasue of your violation of WP:3RR, specifically your reinsertion of the following text:

Similarly, individualist anarchists were also opposed to this split between the separate classes of labourers and employers in capitalism (but were not opposed to private ownership of the means of production). For example, Benjamin Tucker argued for this distinction to be "wiped out" so that "every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers" ^[1]. He advocated a deregulated market where he felt wages would be driven up to their "natural rate" on four occasions. The violation occurred over the following edits: [9], [10], [11], [12]

I would also ask you to respect WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with regards recent edit summaries and comments on the talk page. If you continue edit warring on this page longer blocks will be considered. Steve block talk 13:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Tbh, I have followed WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Infinity0 ^talk 13:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't consider this edit summary on the right side of WP:CIVIL, [13]. Granted, I can find no other immediate example, but I am attempting to be even handed. Steve block talk 14:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

pfft... the guy accuses me of distorting facts and "injecting communist POV". Surely I'm allowed one reaction :( Infinity0 ^talk 14:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Look, if you don't believe you have broken WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA then you have nothing to worry about regards my minding both you and User:RJII to respect them, do you? Steve block talk 14:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for correcting the template. I apologise for that error. Steve block talk 17:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

NP; Could you help mediate the discussion when it resumes? Infinity0 ^talk 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Um. I'm in two minds. Let me think on it. I'd prefer it if you worked out your issues on the talk page rather than constantly reverted the article. Steve block talk 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Quick note, just to give you a heads up, its considered bad form to contact people on their talk pages about RfA proceedings. I'll abstain from this one, sorry! :) - FrancisTyers 20:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Infinity, I am abstaining from voting on your adminship because I couldn't give you anything but a neutral. This is because, one, I am more interested in consensus than delegation, although I do believe delegates are necessary at times. And two, because despite your general ability to remain calm, you have occasionally behaved in a manner that does not reflect working toward consensus. Here is an (anarchist) list of red flags to look for in yourself that indicate a violation of consensus (I'm no exception here). [14] Look under individual behaviours. I think your main shortcommings are ocasionally violating numbers 1 and 17. If you work on those I will consider giving you a positive. In solidarity, CJames745 05:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply

If the edit warring does not cease at Anarchism I will have no option but to block the two participants. Do not blindly revert: discuss and build a compromise at the talk page. Steve block talk 22:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• testing ∞ 0
• testing ∞ 0
• testing infinity 0