User talk:Harry491/Archive1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 06:25, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Nice work on the first sentence of chick flick--your version captures the essence better than mine did. ---

Libertarianism
Thanks. RJII 02:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think a picture should be in there. One of the Statue of Liberty would be good, as a common symbol used by libertarians. RJII 04:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't put in the party logo. They already have a web page for that anyway. I think the article should focus on the ideology and not make explicit reference to a party. RJII 05:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still in the process with many of these edits, but thanks for the input. I look forward to working with you on whatever parts you find problematic. Kev 07:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been giving some thought to the radical criticisms portion of the libertarian article since you first asked. In part, I think many of these criticisms (at least from anarchists) are already present in wikipedia.  Some are in the anarcho-capitalism article, some are spread across a few other articles, and a few are actually represented in the AC criticisms of non-AC libertarianism.  So once I get around to it I might just throw in a link to another article or part thereof that has these criticisms to avoid redundancy.  Other than that I think the brief arguments outlined already are sufficient, though all of it could use a good round of citations and quotes, which is the pain I've been avoiding.  Anywho, I'll get around to it eventually unless someone beats me to it.  Kev 10:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I put just some changes in that seem NPOV to me. But yeah, maybe a quote would be good in addition. RJII 22:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment - I do what I can to help. I'd really like to spend some time fixing the wordiness of the article. There are an awful lot of long sentences with many parts that, while grammatically correct, don't make for an easy read. However, given some of what I've read on the Talk page, it sounds like practically everything has to be qualified as "most libertarians think" or "some think this, while others think that", lest an edit war break out.

I'll also keep an eye on the footnotes - chopping up the text and re-ordering it doesn't work well with those auto-generated references. CKlunck 03:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

looks like there's a missing word in your latest edit. or would that be that there's not a mis... there's a word missing from your latest edit. ; ) SaltyPig 22:06, 2005 May 6 (UTC)


 * re your reply on my talk page, if i knew what word was missing i would have supplied it and not bothered you. as to "Which edit are you talking about", i said it pretty clearly: your latest edit. might want to read it -- slowly. check the diff page. SaltyPig 23:17, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
If it's quotes by Reagan himself, there's an implicit and acceptable POV: Reagan's own POV. You don't have to worry about removing quotes that not everyone would agree with. The important thing is that the quotes are the individual's justification for a statement and a belief. Quotes of this sort would be useful in an encyclopedia article, though I think the quotes were too long and didn't make sense in the context of the article. You might want to re-evaluate the quotes you removed to see if they do indeed shed light on the personal beliefs of Reagan, and if so, re-include the pertinent quotes in the article. --ABQCat 08:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

capitalism
Hey, if you ever get the chance you might want to help out getting a better intro in the capitalism article. It sucks as it is. Some of us are trying to get a definition of capitalism in there, while a couple other people that write horribly are trying to prevent that from happening. Look at it now --it's attrocious. Good work on the libertarian article. RJII 04:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cult(ure) of Life
I agreed with what you wrote on the Culture of Life entry. However, I felt I had to move the better part of your edit to the talk page for POV. I'm working hard to keep the page balanced, in spite of the administration. Please give me a hand; you write strong stuff. I have kids in school, and I want them to eventually be able to us Wikipedia as a resource. You may also wanna jump in on Culture of Death and Code word (propaganda)--ghost 05:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the April Fool's joke. LOL (wipes egg from face)--ghost 05:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Dave, I apologize for my part of our misunderstanding concerning your efforts on Culture of Life. I made a more public apology on Talk: Culture of Life.  Oh, User: ChrisO added italics to some of the quotes you put in.  This does make them significantly easier to distinguish from the body of the article.  Thanks for your efforts.--ghost 18:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hey
Hey, thanks a lot man! RJII 13:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Maybe call it "Philosophy" as a catch all? RJII 03:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) Sorry, but i don't use the messenger programs. Not sure. I'll try take a look at it tommorow or the next day though and see what I can do. Don't hesitate to just delete stuff if it's already covered elswhere. No one seems to care about the old badly worded stuff.

About the featured article, I'm not sure. It looks pretty close though, I think. In a way the length restrictions are a good thing ..forces you to be pithy and get at the essence of things. I haven't really studied the entire article. I'm going to look over the economic section ..something doesn't look very organized about it. RJII 15:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what's up? Do you know how to make the (A) Anarchism symbol smaller? To someone not familiar with libertarianism, I'd think when they see that big A as the first picture in the article they're going to think it's anarchism. I'd do it but I don't know how off hand. Thanks. (or maybe even remove it, not sure) RJII 15:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put in some final points I thought were important. As far as I'm concerned it look about ready content-wise for featured article submission. RJII 17:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your ANPR addition
Hey there. I've removed this addition you made to automatic number plate recognition. The content is very good but that article is about the recognition technology and your addition would be best suited to the road-rule enforcement camera article or something similar. Thanks for the contribution, violet/riga (t) 19:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ANPR is a technology that gets the licence plate details from an image taken by a camera of some sort. The ANPR technology itself doesn't cause the problems you noted, it's the road-rule enforcement cameras.  ANPR is about the getting and using the licence plate alphanumerics whereas road-rule enforcement cameras are the speed cameras that we all hate and causes accidents. violet/riga (t) 19:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The data protection and FOI legislation is noted briefly (and perhaps could be expanded) because the storage of personal information that can identify idividuals is covered under those acts - the licence plate could be used to identify people and store details about their driving habits and daily life. The reference mentions this in a little more detail.
 * Your addition is simply about how drivers react to road cameras and how they are used to generate revenue - it doesn't make a difference if that camera is linked to an ANPR system or not, and ANPR is not mentioned in the quote. ANPR is more specific than the road-rule enforcement camera article and your quote would best be placed in the latter. violet/riga (t) 20:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As for the comment about it being Brit-centric (which it is) is because those were the best details I could find. I've avoided giving other examples of how police use it because I think that'll lengthen the article without providing further information.
 * Thanks for your comments about this - I very much appreciate your input on the article. violet/riga (t) 20:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not just "mutually acceptable", it's a brilliant addition! Thanks! violet/riga (t) 20:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

user page edit
Thanks for taking care of the vandalism, I wouldn't have noticed. Philwelch 00:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Milton Friedman
Thanks. He was being a real ass. What's the best way to handle people like that? Dave 01:11, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not the person to ask :) I'm not good at such things myself. Philwelch 01:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately you get a lot of people that have strong (wrong!) views coming here, and not all are as polite! It was certainly wrong of him to call the vote bullshit - it was the best way to try and reach a compromise. The best thing to do is try and avoid revert wars and engage in discussion - at least he responded by giving you his opinion, others will just revert without saying a word! Looking at the recent edit history can be useful to allow you to look at other people that may be knowledgable in the subject and contacting them for their input may help. In the end you can just go to Request for comment, which will always end up with a result and isn't as much hassle as it first seems. Obviously though it's good to try and resolve it yourselves first and I think you've handled it very well.

As for the vote itself I've explained my vote on the talk page. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 08:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Parasites
Hi there, I see you've taken an interest in the parasite pages. Nice one. I'll help you fill in some of those redlinks when I get back. Off on holiday for two weeks - how will I cope without my daily wikifix!?! Cheers Anilocra 20:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek Insignia Images
Hello. In regards to your question on: Featured article candidates/Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet the insignia pictures are public domain becuase they are incredibly common on the internet and have been copied, recopied, and recreated dozens if not hundreds of times. Indeed, on my own computer, I made about one fourth of the images. The stripes, especially, are public domain because ahyone can draw a picture of a stripe. The pips are the same, as they can be recreated by anyone simply by drawing a colored circle. The only questionable area is the movie era rank pins, but these are assumed public domain becuase of the high degree to which they can be found in publications both hardcopy and internet. Also the pins were invented in 1982, over 23 years ago, and as far as I know can be used wihout permission.

I hope that answers your question and we can get your vote changed to approve. Thanks in any event. -Husnock 17:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

New section
Dude, you deleted the "Libertarian movement" section I was working on. I added the blank section so I could get a smaller editing window. I had a reason for that, don't revert that sort of thing until I'm done with it. Philwelch 23:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the new section. I tried to fix everything. I'll put it back in if you want. Dave (talk) 23:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's fine, I fixed it. Philwelch 00:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DYK
Here you go! I've copied the template from Template talk:Did you know and used the code   to have it include a permanent record of the current template. On the other hand,   would change with every update. Alternatively, you could simply list your item and the date it was featured, or create a screenshot. Thanks for the interesting article. Mgm|(talk) 19:57, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Human nature dispute on libertarianism
Sounds good to me. Kev 17:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism (again)
I personally have no problem with referance to libertarianism's common meaning in the U.S. The referance is difficult to prove or demonstrate, but just being reasonable it seems clear that at least in that one country it is the most common use of the term. The problem I have is that I used the exact same evidence you used (a google search which overwhelming indicated that "anarchism" most commonly means what the anarchism article suggests it does), and it was rejected by several different individuals who have expressed negative feelings about traditional anarchism. That in itself is frustrating, but it just so happened that these individuals (Sam Spade, Dtobias, Philwelch) were the exact same people that absolutely insisted on the insertion of the "most common" phrase in the libertarian article. It rankled, and I felt that if they were going to insist so strongly then an indentical standard needed to be used in both cases. ATM at least one of these people seems to have taken a step back and admitted that yes, anarchism most commonly is not taken in the "anarcho-capitalism" meaning. At this time that first sentence of the libertarian article is tied, for me, to the disabuagation portion of the anarchism article. If referances to "common" usage are not used in one, they should not be used in the other, and if they are used in one, they ought to be used in the other. Kev 03:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't refering to the new disambuagation page, which is another can of worm entirely. Rather, I was refering to the intro to the anarchism page, which in the last few days has been changed many many times including being removed altogether in favor of that disambuagation page.  Anyway, the current text of libertarianism silence by objection, I just doubt that it will last as there have been several people who have really insisted that it be labeled the "most common" usage.  And again, I wouldn't even object to that anymore, if the same folks simply left alone the "most common" phrase in the anarchism intro.  Kev 14:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kennan
Thanks for the reply. I'll try to get around to emailing you shortly. Apologies for the tone of my comments yesterday. I was a bit too brusque. 172 22:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that.
Hi - sorry I wiped your edit in Phenotype in my vandalism cleanup. That user had vandalized a number of pages & I was going down the list - and missed your subsequent edit, I'm blind at times I guess. Cheers :-) -Vsmith 11:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rockwellites
I agree that the Rockwell axis sometimes makes personal attacks against other libertarians. And there is a lot of overlap between their targets and supporters of minarchism. And yet, I think it is inaccurate to cite that as the cause or motive of the conflict. Simply put, the Rockwellians are against those who they are against, and they are for those who they are for. The reasons are not always totally clear, although the fact that ones lives in Washington, DC is a warning sign, i.e. they are much more likely to be favorably inclined to minarchists who don't work at Washington thinktanks. As an example, Rockwell often publishes articles by Gary North, who is more of a theocrat than a minarchist, let alone an anarchist. He was probably also publishing Joe Sobran even before Sobran became an anarchist. For that matter, Ludwig von Mises wasn't an anarchist; and they seem pretty keen on Hayek, who was hardly even a minarchist. At the same time, one occasionally sees attacks by LvMI people on the Anti-State.com scene, even the ASC'ers are, if anything, more radical libertarian anarchists. - Nat Krause 03:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joint functional what?

 * Little is known about the Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare, or JFCCNW, whose existence was only revealed to the public in 2005. One of its goals is defending sensitive networks like that of the Department of Defense, which hackers attempted to enter nearly 75,000 times in 2004 [1] (http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,67223,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1). Another mission is

The first sentence above does not say whether this is


 * A group of graduate students in the computer science department at MIT, or
 * A new religious cult, or
 * A branch of Microsoft that contracts with the Defense Department, or
 * A computer program now being marketed, intended to prevent identity theft, or
 * A terrorist organization closely allied with al Qaeda, or
 * An anarchist movement, or
 * An agency of the federal government, or .....

etc. The second sentence causes one to think it's probably an agency of the federal goverment. I don't like saying "probably" when I've already finished two sentences of the article. If this is an agency of the federal government, the first sentence should say so right away.


 * I'm not sure why you wrote a long (and seemingly angry) note on my talk page about this stub being incomplete, rather than fixing it yourself. It's now fixed.  Dave (talk) 16:15, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

There was no anger in my note, but I thought the article as written omitted what obviously needed to be said in order for the reader to understand it. I could not finish it myself since I don't know anything about the topic. Michael Hardy 18:59, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Re:Parasites
Yes, thanks, I had a good break. Hope your test went well too. I see Myxobolus cerebralis is up on peer review. I'll have a look at it later today, and try to plug some of the redlinks as well. Here's hoping we can get it through FAC and get fish parasites the recognition they deserve :) Cheers. Anilocra 11:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: minor changes
Y'know, I think you're on to something there...looking at my contributions I've just noticed I habitually think my edits are "minor", even when they're quite clearly not. Something I'll have to work at anyway. I've just picked up my copy of "Protozoan Parasites of Fishes" by Lom and Dykova from work, which is the bible for this sort of thing, and has a nice section on M. cerebralis, so I'll try and work some quotes in to the article from it. Anilocra 21:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

ps. this is going to be a major edit :)

user:80.4.224.6
Hi Dave,

Thanks for the alert on user:80.4.224.6. I've been through their contributions and reverted some more vandalism. Unfortunately, that IP is shared by a large number of users on an NTL proxy and blocks on those IPs can also affect a significant number of signed in users (avoiding this problem is a feature request for a future MediaWiki). We can still block them, but we need to catch them at the time they are actively vandalising. -- Solipsist 20:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism template
The Reason article links to libertarism, so more information is just a click away. If the template linked to the article, I would agree with you, but it doesn't. Frankly, I find the template to be somewhat obnoxious - it resembles advertising, complete with a logo.

The point of the image is not to show that particular cover. Any cover would do to show what the magazine looks like. Mirror Vax 16:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek Images
Hello. In regards to your question on: Featured article candidates/Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet the insignia pictures are public domain becuase they are incredibly common on the internet and have been copied, recopied, and recreated dozens if not hundreds of times. Indeed, on my own computer, I made about one fourth of the images. The stripes, especially, are public domain because ahyone can draw a picture of a stripe. The pips are the same, as they can be recreated by anyone simply by drawing a colored circle. The only questionable area is the movie era rank pins, but these are assumed public domain becuase of the high degree to which they can be found in publications both hardcopy and internet. Also the pins were invented in 1982, over 23 years ago, and as far as I know can be used without permission.

I hope that answers your question and that we can have an approval as your vote. Thanks in any event. -Husnock 17:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Do you have any other questions about the images?  They really d apepar in order with no copyvio problems.  Can we get your vote for support?  Thanks! -Husnock 02:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?
 Did you know has been updated and a fact from the article Myxobolus cerebralis, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

WMBarnstar
Thanks very much for the award. It was something that I'd meant to do for ages as well. Hopefully it should be easier to keep trimmed now. If you're ever having trouble sleeping, I can recommend recategorizing 50-odd articles! Thanks again. Anilocra 15:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Changes to Libertarianism template
I tightened up the template considerably. I hope you can accept the changes, because in my opinion it's much less intrusive, and just as useful. Mirror Vax 12:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, I looked into providing an option to put the template on the left, but found out that the wiki software doesn't support default template parameters. :-( Mirror Vax 13:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm using IE6...what browser are you using? "Padding" does nothing here. What about the auto size, does it work okay for you? Mirror Vax 15:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Military history of Puerto Rico
How are you Harry? I read what you wrote and to tell you the truth, I was completly clueless as to the inline references. I'm not making excusses, because live is a learning process. I now made the inline references but, I'm having one some problem. Only some are "invisible" but, the others are very visible in the main article. Could you be kind enough and help me solve this problem?. Thank you very much. Tony the Marine

I was able to figure out the problem and fix it. I hope that the article now receives your approval. Tony the Marine

Nuclear option
Look pal, I don't know where you get off coming in out of the blue and gutting an article that I've been working on for weeks, but you're pissing me off. I don't give a rat's ass what excuse you give about "organization" or whatever, your edits are crap, you're burying stuff I've worked on for a long time, and you're rewriting stuff that has been debated for weeks by the people that have been sweating through the article until we finally reached some sort of agreement. go rip up an article about Legos and do a complete rewrite of that. FuelWagon 21:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Harry. Sorry for being an ass. I'm getting too worked up about this and flamed you for no fault of yours. my apologies. If you're willing to take a look, my version of the rewritten article is here. I tried to cut it down a bit. And I also tried to keep the intro and beginning sections focused on the importance of the current events, followed by the history/tradition. some of the tail-end stuff can probably get cleaned up yet, but I think it starts out as a pretty good draft. FuelWagon 03:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

FAC
Hey hey! Myxobolus cerebralis was "made" this morning. Good work there. Hope you have a good weekend happy in the light of a job well done. Anilocra 08:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see Template talk:Libertarianism re new comment. Sinreg -SV|t 04:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

geolibertarianism
thanks for the bug in the ear. i'll try to look at it tonight in light of the changes that were made. i had been hoping for more input from others. i do think that he should've asked for input before tagging the libertarian template for an article out of the blue. if it lacks consensus, i'm probably going to argue still that the template be removed -- but i don't want to be the only one, fighting a pointless battle. was hoping more people would see that the supposed "exception" is a core violation of the tenets of libertarianism. shame about the name. heh heh. anyway, i'll look at it in the next 24. if you have an opinion before then, please let me hear it. SaltyPig 20:11, 2005 May 28 (UTC)


 * comments here. thanks again. SaltyPig 02:57, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Demining
Hi, I was thinking about you're demining suggestion, it'd make a pretty neat article. As I see it it would need to cover removal of land and sea mines, and we could discuss rodents, sea mammals, and genetically modified plants in addition to the more conventional techniques. Things at the lab have finally started to work, so I will have less wiki time, so if you want to kick it off I'll be happy to help with writing and provision of subscription only journal articles :) --nixie 05:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! (Libertarian edit)
''PS Nice work with the footnotes in the libertarian criticism article. I took me a few tries to get it right at first, but you figured it out. Keep up the good work!''

I was quite surprised to see the welcome and kind words on my talk page, thanks Dave! I was not so sure I was going about things correctly with my reference there; I just tried to follow the other formatting, and tweaked a couple of things in the other entries to make them more consistent. Too bad there isn't more of a standard yet on these things.

I also wasn't sure if I would be met with hostility putting in a counter-quote like that, but I guess if you aren't angry about it I'm probably OK. ;-)

By the way, I'm trying to read relevant help articles on these things as I go along, but I'm not sure if my response method here is accepted protocol either. Let me know. akavlie 16:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template talk:Libertarianism

 * Sorry for the delay in responding. Ive read your points, and agree with some. Your point that the entire box be used as a feature on certain articles --just because it has a link on it --isn't valid because 1, that's not a proper use for the template. 2, criticism related to specific issues needs to be addressed on the specific pages - not relegated to a "criticism" section. Of course linking to a main article is proper, if enough basic treatment is given. I agree about the "see also" section being miniscule, but if you look at many articles with depth and branching topics, simply adding a short 2 pgh section with a main article link at top is a good compromise between excessive treatment and buried links. -SV|t 21:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heads up
Today's featured article/June 20, 2005 - scheduled for a weekday, as requested. &rarr;Raul654 02:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tapeworm Infection
Thank you for the correction, Dave - I based the original article on a general health publication, which contained the inconsistencies you noted.Hfwd 05:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cell (biology)
Great work on the Cell (biology) article. It's been needing a good fact check for some time now. -- Ec5618 09:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Myxobolus cerebralis
Thanks for the heads up, as geeky as it sounds I keep a screenshot of all my front page appearances :). --nixie 01:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're a brave man taking on cell (biology). In general I think there is too much repetition, which doesn't do much for clarity, improvements to the structure would help cut out repeated information. I've left anwsers to your questions on the talk page. My current pet project is the Tasmanian Devil, and an article on the plant disease citrus canker which I'm yet to put in the main namespace, and trying to get Australia featured.... --nixie 06:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks?
I've just noticed that you reprimanded for personal attacks on Petaholmes &mdash; but I can't see that he has. Where did you see this? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I would like to know. DrippingInk 18:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem
Hi - I don't know if you noticed, but I've made the changes you suggested on WP:FAC to the Monty Hall problem. BTW - you forgot to sign your comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Propertarianism
Its just kind stubbly ATP. I did rework it a bit. Maybe should merge to property if its not going to be substantial enough on its own. -SV|t 19:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alfrem
Suggest using Resolving disputes procedure... if you haven't already talked to him, then I suggest perhaps a message on his user page. If that doesn't work, then file an RFC (they aren't to attack, they are so that people can comment on what to do). If that still doesn't work, then suggest making a note on WP:AN/I, and then take to ArbCom. Hopefully it'll never get to that point! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Find a source saying it's political or go away. --Alfrem 17:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism
I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of listing a few authors who we might be able to source on that article. If you ever get a chance, see if you can look up what they wrote about and give a quick summary so we can add it to the article. My goal: be more comprehensive than the Encyclopedia Britannica. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 12:22 (UTC)

Libertarianism
Have replaced the pov tag on the article due to the concerns of User:I know who my sister is. Figured you should know why: it's because I feel that his concerns are addressable and reasonable, and there is a case that the article is not necessarily neutral (though it is still very good!). - Ta bu shi da yu 5 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)

Libertarianism farc
I appreciate your arguments on my talk page, however I still think it's a matter that should be decided by the removal procedure. If the concerns I listed are addressed, I would have no trouble voting accordingly. Steve block 5 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)