User talk:Infinity0/old

Archive 01 2005-09 to 2005-11
Archive 02
Archive 03

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]

Deletion of template

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

Phil nav tool

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]

Nice catch, but...

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

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]

Careful with wording

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]

encouragement

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]

Markets

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]

Portal:Scientific method

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]

Found a cool portal (Portal:Middle-earth)

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]

Your edit button markup doesn't seem to work

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]

Averting an edit war

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]

Custom browse bars at Portal:Australia and Portal:New Zealand

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]

Socrates icon not transparent

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]

Color variables

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]

Argument from morality

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]

From the Talk: Capitalism page

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]

We made it to the Main Page!!!

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]

Mediator response

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]

Capitalism

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]

To do

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]

Your page markup expertise is needed on the Main Page Redesign Draft

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]

markup bug

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]

cell spacing problem

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]

Class

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]

Should I go for adminship?

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]

Category:Contemporary philosophers

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

Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including keeping, merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. Also, please remember to stay civil even to those with whom you disagree and to those who are not civil to you. -- Jonel | Speak 03:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

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]

3RR block on 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.

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]

Results of the TfD on Philosophy (navigation)