User talk:Max rspct/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2004 - October 2005

Thanks. If you haven't already done so, you can also request reattribution so your previous contrib.s show under this account. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for creating an account here! -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 21:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Undeleting articles

Hi, you left this request on WP:RfD:

Bolivarian Revolution and Revoluci�n Bolivariana seems to be a talk page on this but no actual article - is this normal? The talk page has some very anti-chavez sentiments on it ... Is this the reason the Bolivarian revolution links don't work in Hugo Chavez? I would like the article (if there is one) reinstated and linked to Hugo Chavez

This request needs to be put on WP:VFU, which is the place to ask for things to be undeleted. (BTW, the first doesn't have a Talk: page; also, earlier versions of the first page have more content.) Noel (talk) 20:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome; I'm pleased it was restored for you, and glad to help. Noel (talk) 22:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science fiction

If you feel you can do a good job of a rewrite I'd say go ahead! Yes it'd better to keep articles reasonably short <32kb so that all browsers will display ok. Plus it's just better to keep them reasonable is size, for the readers sake. The way we deal with this is to split the article up into smaller atilces and link them from the main page. For example Hard science fiction which links from the SF article. But as long as you do this, and make sure a rewrite doesn't lose any info then certainly you should do it. I'd write something like "complete rewrite - please review" in the edit summary so as to alert other people that is is a major edit, then I'd just be bold (safwe in the knowledge that people can just revert you if you make the article worse rather thqan better). To sign you name type 3 tildes ~~~. To sign and timestamp 4 tildes, to timestamp without a signature 5 tildes. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signing your name

Hi, you do know that if you type four tildes (~~~~) wiki syntax automatically nters the date for you when taking part in discussions and polls? Just that I saw your comment about accidentally putting in the wrong date and wanted to make sure you were aware. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is often a time delay in the database, which is why in one place you'll see one thing, but when you go to edit the page you'll see something completely different. It makes for fun editing. By the way where in the fens are you? -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh i'm not fussed so much now - too much bother : its all a bit Time consuming.. Where am i? Between Lower and Bottom Drain. ---- max rspct

I have no idea where that is, I have friends in Chatteris, that's all. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 22:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see

good 4 you

[edit] Thanks

No the stresses are still there but the wikibreak did me good. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holotrolls

Yeah, come to think of it, anyone who posts that stuff anonymously is pretty clearly not a seeker for truth.. Gzuckier 01:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Pic

Hi! I found your recently and, as part of the image tagging project, I'm going to go ahead and list that it's yours, and that you've released it into the public domain. If this is at all inaccurate, please feel free to correct me. --InShaneee 16:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry I'm slow in replying . The photo of myself is the main one on my userpage. i wouldn't mind having a contact me tag >> next up from fair use??. I couldn't find the tag on wikipedia specialpages .. Maybe you can apply it for me on the original. Is your project out to tag specific photos?

Cheers - max rspct 01:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Hm....perhaps this tag or this one? I'm actually fairly new at this, so I'm not sure which one would be best. No, I'm not targeting anything specific as such, just the ones I know what to do with. --InShaneee 02:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimeet transport arrangments

Hi, great to hear that i'm not the only poor fool stuck in british hicksville :-) Have you had any luck arranging a car pool down to london yet? I don't know any other wiki[pm]edians in real-life, unfortunately, but I might be able to shepherd some interested folk down. Also just noticed that Thryduulf asked the price for a train ticket from Ipswich to London - maybe we have another Wikipedian. Yours, nsh 01:42, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) :Addendum: Thryduulf was just asking out of curiosity, and lives in Somerset, however Theo is currently planning to take the train from Ipswich. nsh 01:53, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Do you hold a driving licence, or know someone who does, and would like to spend Saturday (at the wikimeet | in london)? I believe I could secure a free-insured (correct term?: anyone is insured to drive) car for the day, and would be willing to chip in a tenner/whatever to the petrol money. User:TheoClarke is also willing to contribute up to £26 (the train ticket price) for a lift to+from Ipswich. nsh 13:58, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Missed you at the meetup, did you not make it down in the end? nsh 01:30, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free speech

Despite what you may think, Wikipedia is not here as a vehicle for your personal attacks. Nevertheless, I lack the motivation to continously revert your addition of that kind of stuff, so I guess it will stand. - Nat Krause 15:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Good question, see my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive/April_2005_3#Political_Biases. Cheers,

Sam Spade 22:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) - i asked this 'DICK' what he thought of Pim Fortuyn

[edit] Whatchoo know about

Kissel, and his nice big store? You wanna put a hairpiece on a fella you got workin for ya? 66.57.105.182 04:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like someone vandalized your user page

Sorry if I reverted that incorrectly. millerc 15:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh I just looked at what it linked to, I'm seriously guessing you didn't want that there... millerc 15:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism

For deletion of an article as a result of a VfD debate, there must be a "rough concensus". The definition of "rough concensus" is very loosely defined. (I consider that a good thing but others disagree.) The general rule of thumb is that a 2/3 supermajority is the lowest level that can be considered a rough concensus.

I counted that particular deletion debate at 8 to 4 - exactly at a 2/3 count. However, I also saw that the article was rewritten after most of the voters had commented but before the discussion was formally closed. The rewrite attempted to address some of the concerns raised by the "delete" voters. In my opinion (and that was a judgment call), it was rewritten just enough to cast doubt on a few of the delete votes. That dropped the decision below the necessary level of "rough concensus".

Remember that despite the name, "Votes for deletion" is not about voting. (See m:polls are evil.) Votes are merely a tool for gauging the degree of concensus that has so far been achieved through the presentation of facts, evidence and logical argument. VfD closers are expected and required to exercise considerable discretion in the interpretation of the comments made during the discussion. We do sometimes get it wrong but overall I think our track record is pretty darned good.

Let me further note that lack of concensus is not necessarily a permanent "keep" decision. It may be an indicator that we should give the article a chance. If some of the "keep" voters take the article under their figurative wings and significantly improve it over time, we can end up with a good article. On the other hand, if the article sits neglected or if the changes fail to solve the underlying problems noted by the "delete" voters, then it can be appropriate to renominate the article. There is no hard and fast rule about how soon an article can be renominated but I've noted that renominations earlier than about 3 months tend to get shouted down as premature. I hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 21:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] National Anarchism

You seem to have more experience listing articles for VfD (given that I have none), and national anarchism would seem to be a prime example of an insignificant soap-box given that it is associated with all of one person. Would you be interested in tackling this or instructing me on the produce? Kev 21:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Don't revert the page Hungarian Soviet Republic without discussion. Thanx. Gubbubu 22:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See these resources belove:

The Fáber-Apáti criminal case (in Hungarian)

• About the proletardictature (in Hungarian)
• Data about Red Terror (in Hungarian)

Gubbubu

You wrote:

Too pov I'm afraid! and yer spelling bad while your at it .. You are to edit out your pov "in a minute"? There has been no discussion since march - max rspct 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I said:

Then correct it and don't revert please. If you can tell me what sentences are pov, I think we should reach a concordance. Copy - please don't cut - to its talkpage those sentences what are pov and give me advices how could we correct them. I know only one sentence (about money :-) what is pov. Gubbubu

OK, you didn't do that, only revert. I think this is not a friendly and constructive behaviour. I left a message to you on the Talk:Hungarian Soviet Republic page. Gubbubu 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Vandalism

The user in question linked to the NAMBLA web site. millerc 03:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ha! Well, I already have a pet chinchilla - max rspct

[edit] Mr. Martinez

I put a question on his talk page for you to answer. Can you, or anyone else, try?? Georgia guy 18:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ArbReq

Against Hogeye. Are you game? --albamuth 6 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

[edit] AHHH!!!

Thanks for the note, my net is down for now, so I'm trying to get on once in a while, do a shitload of editing, then get back to life. I'll try to be around more often, and I'll check the anarchism page now. Thanks for the note.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana July 7, 2005 19:44 (UTC)

[edit] Wendover

Just realised I never responded to your message. Wendover is a lovely place though I've never felt the need to go there for conkers. Some nice pubs though. If you ever feel the need to go to Talk:Wendover and join in the controversy over whether it's a town or a village please feel free (although I think it's been resolved for a while now). -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent revert

I'm referring to this. When you were reverting you also reverted what i had put in as you didn't say that you were reverting my content intentionally, i'm going to put it back in. If you intentionally removed it please let me know and give a reason. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

[edit] Lenin

No. Why?

If you want my opinion, I can take a look.

If you are referring to any discussion of "Vladimir Lenin", I decided to retire from all popular political wikiarticles. I've done my share. Any further activity is waste of time. mikka (t) 20:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no illusions as to Russian Revolution and Civil War. However I am against applying modern understanding of the sticker "violation of human rights" to past times, and especially to times of war, revolution, etc., and thus indiscriminately labelling some people as "murderer", "tyrant", etc. This is a very shaky area and requires careful phrasing to avoid slipping into POV pushing. Like I said, I have no desire to participate in struggles with new and new generations of teenagers. I will contribute only solid facts, but will not fight about formulations of various generalizations and descriptions. The only thing I will attempt to enforce is drawing clear line between descriptions of what happened and modern evaluations of what happened.

So I still did not receive an answer: Why do you want me to read he book? Just because you think it is worthy reading? mikka (t) 15:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prison labour

I notices the red link Prison labour in your to-do list. You may want to take a look at Penal labour article I am starting slowly, after cutting a stub out of unfree labour. I'm starting to think that I gave a wrong title to the article. mikka (t) 21:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism mediation

When you get a chance, could you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/anarchism? The history of anarchism isn't always one of my strong points. Thanks. Sarge Baldy 05:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup

Heya,

Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'possible', so you'll be definitely coming then, won't you? ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We have met!

Sorry to leave early.... LoopZilla 08:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? -max rspct 11:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well maybe :-) I was the chap in the WikiPedia t-shirt! LoopZilla 10:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] deleting ancap

About you deleting the section, I was mistaken. Sorry about that. RJII 16:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Loopzilla Woz here!

Image:LoopZilla_at_Wikimania.jpg speaks volumes... LoopZilla 10:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anarchism talk page

I did revert the anarchism talk page. IF you didn't know, there's a bug. I put in an edit and the page screwed up, so i had to revert it back to fix it. RJII 14:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not "plugging" anything. I don't know anything about the anarchism.net site. Regardless, national anarchism should be represented in the Anarchism article, for reasons of NPOV. That reminds me, I should start putting that section back in. RJII 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

James J. Martin did not found the Institute for Historical Review. He had a temporary association with them in the 80's. RJII 13:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

MMMMMMMMMMMMM

What does it matter? His history of individualist anarchism was written in 1953. RJII 18:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stalingrad

Hiya, I've been trying to expand this article as well it definitely needs information on the HIWI (Russians in German uniform) issue. Beevor gives good figures on this as well. I am away for a couple of weeks so I can't check my own copy of Beevor. If you got chance to check the HIWI numbers when you're checking the casualties it would be very useful. Also I think maybe there needs to be a section dealing with the civilian experience/casualties, although I should probably float this on the talk page. --Sf 16:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Sorry! My internet is still down, and school/work is eating up my time. This place takes alot of commitment, so I haven't been able to participate much.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free market

Hi. You moved Free market to free market (economics), via free market (Economics), with the edit summary "present content is about the abstract economic model rather than looking at actual free markets". [1] Apart from leaving a double redirect, you didn't even explain your move on Talk after doing it, never mind propose beforehand to ensure others might agree. The move back to free market has been requested on WP:RM, but I thought I'd give you a chance to explain. Rd232 16:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, on content, "actual free markets" surely are just as much about economics as the "abstract economic model". Rd232 16:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cooperation?

Hi. This is NWOG. Che y Marijuana is a friend of mine. He said you might be able to help me out. I am trying to improve the Cuba-article and counter much of the rightwing bias. Yet, there are too many right-wingers there, so it oftentimes get reverted. I revert back, but because of the revert rule, I can only revert so much. Therefore I was wondering if you could help me, or at least revert back to my edit(s). And since you are involved in many leftist articles, I thought you might use the same help at different articles. We all have our limitations due to the rules at Wikipedia and due to our nature as human beings, and I thought we might be stronger working together. - NWOG, 16:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

your having a laugh aren't you? u think i want to parachute ito cuba - i ain't gonna do it. if its so under threat why hasnae admin page protected it? -max rspct 18:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course I don't think you would "want to parachute ito Cuba". Pussy's never parachute. - NWOG

By parachuting i mean two things - I'm not familiar with the tooing and frowing of the article or what position folk are taking over it. The second meaning is > if you want someone to defend the record of the Cuban government or provide a sanitised history of Cuba >i ain't gonna do it! -max rspct 19:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Goal of Orania.

I noticed that in the Afrikaner section concerning the settlement of Orania, you wrote that it represents a revival of Apartheid practices when in reality the goal of Orania is merely to create an Afrikaner majority in the region -on par with Xhosa majority in the Eastern Cape or the Zulu majority in KwaZuluNatal or the Twsana majority in the North West province or the so called Coloured majority of the Western Cape- with the possible though not certain goal of secession from the Republic of South Africa which was artificially created by the British Empire following the Ango-Boer War.

Furthermore: one could also certainly claim (& many have) that the Communal Land Rights Act represents a revival of Apartheid practices as well as it reserves certain land to specific Chieftans.

The Oranians are not attempting to reinstitute Apartheid -at least not in the horizontal sense as was the case in the old South Africa due to the fact that that British created an artificial macro state which lumped many different nations / peoples under a common administration. The establishment of horizontal Apartheid will not be possible in a place which will be composed of only those who are associated with its founding. Though I suppose one could certainly refer to Orania as a form of vertical Apartheid (the type of which was elusive in the past as many White businesses & quite a many White people in general in the old South Africa relied far too much on Black labour) the type of which is observed in Lesotho (for the Sothos), or in Botswana (for the Tswanas) & in Swaziland (for the Swazis) though the Swazi royal family appears to benefit the most. There had existed to a great extent a balance of power in the region prior to the British annexations of the region. Remember: the two main Black groups were found in the Cape (the Xhosas) & Natal (the Zulus). The Boer Republics in the north were only home to small numbers of the Venda & Pedi peoples in the north & some Tswanas & Sothos in the west prior to the discovery of gold. There are those who claim that the type of Apartheid as envisioned during the Separate Development stage was aimed at creating the very type of vertical Apartheid in which non White labour would have been stopped & the territory of South Africa would have been truncated at the expense of the White population (the Transkei had already effectively negotiated for more land & the large German community of the eastern Cape was resettled to make more room for the Ciskei) in order to reflect a more proportionate land distribution. Though certainly there was still a long way to go, but the government was hesitant at incuring political fallout from resettling the required various White farmers from their land in order to truncate the size of territory under White control.

More on the Resettlement of the eastern Cape Germans.

The fact that many White businesses & people in general did not want to give up their use of Black labour ensured the continuation of horizontal Apartheid with its inherent injustices & the ultimate un-viability of maintaining such a series of repressive laws in the face of growing opposition & shifting demographics. This is precisely what the Oranians are planning to avoid (by doing their own labour & restricting non Afrikaner settlement in this sparsely populated area) in order to create a safe haven for the increasingly beleaguered Afrikaans speakers -otherwise there would be no point to the settlement. Genocide Watch has noted that the Boer farmers are at stage six for genocide in the face of escalating attacks & killings of Boers in the RSA region.

More on the evaluation of the genocide against Boers at Genocide Watch.

The Oranians are seeking create an Afrikaner majority in the region. The Northern Cape & the Western Cape for that matter- already has an Afrikaans speaking majority (mainly Griquas, San & other groups formerly classified as Coloured) therefore the location of Orania is already situated in an area of linguistic compatibility as opposed to say Pretoria for example which is surrounded by non Afrikaans speakers (mainly Sotho & Pedi speakers). A number of South Africa's diverse national groups have enclaves or majorities within the various provinces ie: the Xhosa have the Eastern Cape, the Zulus have Kwa Zulu Natal, the Tswana have the North West, the Sotho have the Free State & the so called Coloureds have the Western Cape: while the Boers & Afrikaners in general do not have a majority in any province not even in the former Boer Republics.

The Oranians are not seeking to recreate a race based hierarchal caste system or pass public laws reflecting this since for one thing the Oranian experiment is a private initiative which is not part of the public realm as the Apartheid laws were & the residents are committed to doing all of their own labour making a return to Apatheid impossible & a moot point. The residents have rejected any reinstitution of Apartheid as they have made clear that they are not interested in being responsible for 40 million non Afrikaans speakers again. Remember the British recruited the Afrikaners into a surrogate colonial role for the administration (on behalf of the British) of the artificial macro state of South Africa that the British had created with the South Africa Act of 1909: the legal cornerstone of Apartheid -as it created the macro state which vested political power into the hands of a White elite- which interestingly has never been repealed.

All the Oranians are seeking to do is to bring about a similar demographic result for the Afrikaners that other national groups have in other provinces. In this way they will be able to be on equal footing with the other national groups many of whom already have sway in various provinces as noted above.

Remember the Boers once had their own independent self governed republics (minimal states) which were recognized under international law. The British set aside the Sand River Convention (which had recognized the independence of the Boers beyond the Vaal River which lead to the establishment of the Transvaal Republic in 1852) & the Bloemfontein Convention (which recognized the independence of the Boers between the Orange & Vaal Rivers which lead the the establishment of the Orange Free State in 1854) when they made war on & conquered the Boer Republics in 1900 - 1902 following the Anglo-Boer War. Remember this era of Boer independence occurred one hundred years before the institution of the Apartheid laws which were passed mainly by their estranged Cape Dutch (as they were once called) cousins -relaunched as Afrikaners- whose ancestors did not trek north.

The Apartheid laws were formulated in Stellenbosch in the Western Cape. The Boers of the erstwhile republics were destitute following the Anglo-Boer War & were at the mercy of both the British Empire & their estranged Afrikaans speaking cousins from the west who were now calling themselves Afrikaners & absorbing a number of Boers of Voortrekker & Republican descent.

The following excerpt sums it up concerning the goal of Orania.

Though the preceding article does not take into account the fact that the Boers never regarded themselves as Europeans as they broke their ties to Europe during the 1600s & 1700s when they began trekking away from the authoritarian rule of the Dutch East India Co. The Boers consider themselves Africans who just happen to have white or light skin. The term European was introduced to South Africa by the British as their method of labeling the White population.

Yawn. Don't fill my talkpage with such apologist crap! --max rspct 12:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well sir- you should at least point out what I wrote that you found "apologist" & what it is that you think I am apologizing for. Last time I checked pointing out the escalating genocide against the Boers was not an attempt at "apologizing" for a single thing least of all the unjust Apartheid laws which were in fact passed by the descendents of those who remained in the Western Cape - not the republican north- & further back to the British colonial power & even furhter back to the Dutch colonial power whom the said Boers rebelled against in 1795.

Furthermore pointing out the true nature of the goal of Orania is not apologist either as they are clearly attempting to avoid the pitfalls which were inherent in not doing their own labour.

Remember: the British imposed an artificial macro state onto all the regions varied national groups. The British not only went to war with & conquered the Boers & their internationally recognized republics but also the various Black Kingdoms & nations too.

Now I have done many years of research into this matter as well as the nature of states in general to know that states are inherently unjust hierarchal structures which rarely benefit the very people the given state's claim to represent.

It is no different in South Africa (a geographic name which was given to a British colonial constructed macro state) & even more so there as it is a macro state of many diverse national groups whom the British Empire conquered on the backs of civilans who died in concentration camps. Does this sound like apologia? I do not apologize for colonialsm nor Apartheid, but I will speak out against the injustices of Statism which relegates South Africa's largest national group: the Zulus to marginal status, sidelines its so called Coloured peoples simply because they speak a version of Afrikaans & are partially descended from the aboriginal Khoisan peoples, & ignores the ongoing escalating genocide of its Boer farmers simply due to the colour of their skin.

Now I do not know if the people of Orania are on the right path to securing greater self determination for the Afrikaans speakers, but one thing I do know is that they are not trying to reinstitute Apartheid as their own actions cleary demonstrate when they do their own labour & have settled in a sparsely populated region & when they have gone on the record stating that they would not want to ever be responsible again for administrating millions of non Afrikaans speakers.

Ron7

PS: If talk pages aren't supposed to be used to call attention to erroneous information posted in articles by the author of the given talk page & to inform the given author with data relating the facts on a given subject which was raised by the said author then I just do not know what talk pages are for. Ron7