Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
You had removed the term "most" from the definition of capitalism so that line 1 now reads "Capitalism is an economic and social system in which trade and industry are privately controlled for profit rather than by the state" instead of "...in which most trade and industry...". Your reasoning was that I had cited the US as a capitalist system while you argue that it is a mixed economy. I agree that it is mixed, however, a mixed economy such as the US lies toward the capitalist end of the spectrum so the argument is not one of kind but one of degree. Regardless, your opening line now gives the impression that there is no government production in a capitalist economy which is untrue and is inconsistent with the rest of the text. Moreover, you argue that the article is about how capitalism is defined in the field of economics, while much of the field does not use capitalism as a specific term. I looked through 5 macroeconomic textbooks by Mankiw, Blanchard and Romer and there is no mention of it in those texts. I have yet to break the old comparative systems text from storage, but that may be the only place it is defined. Marx is the economist who is credited with the first rigorous studies of the system, but other than that, the term is much more widely used in common language than in the field of economics itself.
Finally, a definition of capitalism can be found at:
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
So, again the phrase “..mainly by competition in a free market” captures the reasoning behind including “most” in the opening line. If not, I believe there may be some npov issues going on here.
MoralMoney (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Dictionary.com is not a reliable source for Wikipedia standards. The statement is cited by the compact version of the Oxford English Dictionary as well as an economics textbook. These are reliable sources. The compact OED definition says "a noun an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/capitalism?view=uk) A mixed economy is not a capitalist economy. It's a mixed economy. If you really think the U.S. is a mixed economy, I think the most you could say is that it's a "capitalist mixed economy." Just saying it's "capitalism" with no modifiers wouldn't be correct unless you're just using the word in a very colloquial, non-encyclopedic sense. Socialism is defined as social or government ownership of the means of production. It's not defined as "mostly" this type of ownership. Definitions of economic systems are ideals. It doesn't mean there has to be any existing system that represents the ideal. All the economics around the world are mixed, some closer to capitalism, some closer to socialism. Introman (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Actually no dictionary, including the OED, is a good source for definition of words as used by specialists in the field -- OED specifically uses how a word is commonly used by the public and not how experts use terms, as the OED makes clear. As I know, for example, of no society which has private industry running its armed forces <g>, perforce all economies are "mixed" in that sense, making any use of the word impossible if we hold such a strict standard. Rather, experts call economies where private capital dominates as "capitalist" as a matter of simple logic. Thus the US has a "capotalist economy." Collect (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Although, the above dictionary cite is from Merriam-Webster and not Dictionary.com, but moving on....
The problem with defining capitalism is that there may not only be a difference between theory and practice, but also one between the experts and the general public. But before discussing expert opinion, it should be noted that, as a matter of pure logic, even a minimalist capitalist system must have a state that provides the service of legislating and enforcing property rights. One could make a leap of logic and argue that, in theory, enforcement could possibly be conducted by the market, but legislation? This one exception necessitates the role of the state in the provision of some services.
But capitalism is, at its root, a Marxist term. The current definition does not capture this and is from a side discussion in a chapter entitled “Price Determination” from a fairly unknown introductory economic principles textbook. A more rigorous discussion can be found in Frank Stilwell’s “Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas”. This is a graduate textbook for a Political Economy course by a well-known expert. He argues that:
“Capitalism may be defined as a system based on the unfettered operation of the competitive market mechanism.”
This seems to be what is being done in the base definition without the small, yet significant, inclusion of “most” in the definition. Yet, in the next sentence, Stillwell proceeds with:
“This fits in with the most commonly held notions about capitalism as the ‘free-market’ economy. However, it interprets capitalism so narrowly as to make it almost non-existent.”
Instead, Stilwell states that Marx’s original distinctions bridge the gap between “technical” and “social” aspects of capitalism. The definition is:
the separation of labor from the ownership of the means of production
the concentration of the ownership of the means of production in the hands of a single class-the bourgeoisie or capitalist class
the appearance of a social class dependent for its subsistence on the sale of labor power-the proletariat or working class
Maybe we could go ahead with this definition instead of the one from a little-known economic principles text.MoralMoney (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please try using the Talk page to discuss the "collectivist" bit you insist on in the lede for Fascism. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Why don't you try using the talk page if you don't like my change? Introman (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Did you not see the talk page? I did, indeed, start a section on your proposal. Collect (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Using old versions of a page or section is not proper under WP:WQA and may be regarded as vandalism while discussions are ongoing on the Talk page, and not a single person suggested going to the old version, including yourself. Collect (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
LOL. The new version was put there by a single person, just recently. Call it vandalism if you want. It's just a word. I call it improving the article. Introman (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Improving an article starts with the body of the article. It does not work when you call everyone else a "loser" on your userpage. Really. And imporoving the article works better if you at least try to discuss matters. At this point, I am unsure that you really understand how the project works, and is supposed to work. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Can't take a joke? I'm just not interested in working on bodies of articles. I chose to specialize. You can't make me work on bodies. Introman (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Introman! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! The NewMikemoral♪♫ 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey. I did notice your message on his talk page about his tendentious editing on Fascism. I will be filing a RFC about Collect, can you sign it? Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. That guy is unbelievable. Introman (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Stand by. I'll be posting it in 30 min maybe? Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Will Bebacktalk 03:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I believe I owe you an apology, I had assumed some bad faith when it looked like we were about to head for an edit war. However, I think the latest edit of Fascism is probably the most NPOV yet. Soxwon (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Apology accepted. It did seem like you thought I was up to some kind of POV pushing, which wasn't my aim at all. Thanks for the apology. Introman (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am contacting you because you commented on this topic a while ago.
Following a recent RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".
Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Liberalism in the United States. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Social liberalism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Can you not see how irrational it is of you to post that? If I'm in an edit war then you are too. Too funny. Introman (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please note that I have reported this dispute to the Edit Warring Notice board where you may discuss the issue.[1]The Four Deuces (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks but not interested. It's more productive to discuss on the talk page of the article. No need to split the conversation up in multiple venues. Introman (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
You both should do as tentatively agreed here and sort out the issue on the article's talk page before doing any further reverts. Otherwise, both of you may end up being blocked to prevent further disruption. Nja247 10:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Block me for disruption? I haven't been disruptive. The fact that someone else gets upset at me for putting sourced information in article that he doesn't want there doesn't mean I'm "disruptive." Introman (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Reverting edits several times is disruptive and leads to blocks. Again, if you sort it through discussion then that won't happen. Nja247 20:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how it's preventable in some cases. If someone just doesn't want the information in, he'll keep taking it out, no matter how many additional sources you add and no matter how much you talk to him. So all you can do is revert back. I also don't see how reverting itself is disruptive. Can you expain? Introman (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
If a user is warned about dispute resolution and the situation doesn't change they're blocked; that's how it's stopped. It's usually prevented by discussing and seeking consensus together. It's disruptive per policy, see the disruptive editing and edit warring policies. Nja247 20:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ok well that Disruptive Editing article says Disruptive editing is when a pattern of edits over a long period of time has "the effect of disrupting progress toward improving an article, or disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." My reversions were not disrupting the process of improving the article, but improvements to the article. Well it's nice to see that "disruptive" is defined. Introman (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Note how "may" is italicised in the policy? If you read both policies it's clear it doesn't need to be long term. Several reverts can be disruptive and an edit war. Anyhow, I'm unsure on why you're arguing this as it was you who told the other party to discuss further changes. Thus if you adhere to that there won't be any issues, unless of course you continue an edit war or violate WP:3RR. I won't be back to reply any further as I'll be busy the next week, so do stick to policy and your plan and discuss. Best wishes. Nja247 07:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please note that you have reached 3rr on this article and that you should really try to obtain consensus on this issue on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Surprise, so have you. Introman (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please note that I have posted a report on the Administrators' notice board about you recent edits to Capitalism.[2]The Four Deuces (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Who do you think you're fooling? You revert my edits then if I revert them back you go complain to daddy that somebody is edit warring against you. It's ridiculous. Everybody can see through that. Grow up, man. If you have a problem with someone's edits, change them and discuss them on the talk pages, like everyone else. Introman (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You appear to be edit-warring on Conservatism in the United States. Please discuss changes on the talk page and work toward consensus. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, lots of things "appear" to be things to you. I've learned to discount what you think "appears." Introman (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Sorry, I've not looked at their source, I was only commenting on Tormley - bit of an odd POV claim, considering I agree with his def. Anyway, Like I said, I've had my say, so lets see if any more neutrals walk in...--Red Deathy (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's ok. I figured that. Introman (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Introman. Please be aware that a User has raised an Alert here related to some of your recent edits. You are encouraged to add your own comment at WP:WQA. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi again Introman. I think the work at WP:WQA in relation to the complaint by The Four Deuces has now run its course and will shortly be wrapped up. I can see that, in the past, you have come up against some determined Users who are most reluctant to see their view of things altered. You have attempted to move them by telling them what you think, and matching their toughness. Unfortunately this is not particularly successful and such Users usually just stick to their guns and become even more determined.
In my experience a more successful strategy in dealing with stubborn and difficult Users is to enlist the assistance of a third party. Wikipedia is supported by many Noticeboards at which Users can ask for assistance in dealing with difficult situations and difficult Users. These Noticeboards are listed at WP:DR#Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard. For example, there is a Noticeboard dedicated to third party assistance in cases of disputes about content. Another one is dedicated to disputes about reliable sources. And there are many others.
There is also facility for requesting general comment about a difficult editing situation. This can be seen at WP:RFC. Further information is also available at WP:RFC/A.
In a case where one or more Users are behaving poorly the matter can be raised as a problem of etiquette at WP:WQA.
So, my advice for dealing with difficult Users in the future is to remain ice cool, remain perfectly civil (so you can blow the whistle on any incivility from the difficult Users) and enlist the assistance of an independent third party. It has worked for me in the past. Good luck. Dolphin51 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Good advice. Thanks a lot. Thanks for taking this whole episode seriously and putting a lot of thought into it. Introman (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Introman. I wanted to reply to something you said in the TfD discussion, but my point is a "philosophical" one that isn't particular to that discussion, so I thought it better to bring it here. You wrote, "I don't think you give enough credit to the human mind. Whether this template is deleted or not, I think it's inevitable that more specialization in templates will happen. I think it's a natural evolution. You can only hold back technology for so long." Of course if such developments are inevitable, it doesn't matter much what we say in this discussion! But I don't think they are, and if you'll pardon a bit of long-windedness, I'll explain why.
There is a recognizable problem with excessive complexity in general-use technology. I see it all the time with software tools that have all sorts of amazing capabilities, but which are fully usable only by dedicated experts due to their complexity. I think this happens because in the typical development process for commercial software, there is a great deal of input from expert users who find the additional complexity less daunting precisely because they are so immersed in it. In contrast, those who find the complexity off-putting get little say in the design, and there is a strong pressure against rolling back any complexities once they have been introduced. So gradually the design gets ever more complex -- not so complex that it cannot be understood (the human mind does indeed deserve a great deal of credit), but complex enough that it is not readily understood. The result is that these complexities become the domain of specialists, and more casual users either avoid the tool, use only a tiny fraction of it, or worst of all, misuse it due to their lack of understanding of its intricacies.
This could happen with the POV (and related) templates. But I think it would be bad if it did happen. Fortunately, on Wikipedia there is a much greater range of input available regarding how things are developed. Someone such as myself, who worries about the downsides of excess complexity, can participate at an early enough stage to put a damper on at least some of the creation of that complexity. Because of this, I think the "natural evolution" you expect will be more restrained. Doesn't mean it won't happen in at least some areas (it exists in some already), but it can be fended off to a degree. So, in conclusion, nothing personal about my "delete" !vote; I just think this particular template, although well-intentioned, is a move in the wrong direction, and I'm doing my small part to push back against that. --RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You have now reached the 3rr limit on this article. Could you please discuss your edits on the talk page and work toward consensus. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
You have reverted back in information that was obviously not represented by the source. Could you refrain from disruptive editing? Introman (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have filed a report on the administrator's noticeboard. You may respond here: [3]The Four Deuces (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ok, and I'll file one about you too. Introman (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
You have now reached 3rr on this article for today. The lead is still under discussion and you have not obtained consensus for your changes. Could you please continue to discuss the lead on the talk page and not continually revert. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Gee thanks. There is no policy that forbids people from editing articles while a discussion is going on, so I'll continue editing the article. By the way, the last edit a revert, but the one before that was a significant modification. You don't have consensus for your edits either, so please don't be hypocritical. Introman (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have filed an edit-warring report that you may reply to here: [4]. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
First of all, I wasn't "edit warring," which is obvious from my detailed edit summaries and extensive discussion the talk page. Secondly, I did only ONE revert in the 24 hour period, and one partial revert that included a major rewrite of a paragraph and addition of several sources. Other edits include deleting things that were not sourced, or not sourced for what they were being presented as. The administrator who put on the block is mistaken.
Decline reason:
No, it definitely looks like you were edit warring. Due to the number of edits you made, I can't be certain you broke 3RR, but that doesn't really matter. You were repeatedly restoring your edits even after being asked to stop doing so. Your comments on the talk page also don't seem to be working towards a consensus either. Hersfold(t/a/c) 17:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
First of all, I wasn't "edit warring," which is obvious from my detailed edit summaries and extensive discussion the talk page providing sources when asked. Secondly, I did only ONE revert in the 24 hour period, and one partial revert that included a major rewrite of a paragraph and addition of several sources. Other edits include deleting things that were not sourced, or not sourced for what they were being presented as. The administrator who put on the block is mistaken. The previous administrator who declined to unblock admitted that "I can't be certain you broke 3RR." He also used as justification for the denial of the unblock that I was "repeatedly restoring [my] edits even after being asked to stop doing so." But that justification is nonsense, because Wikipedia editors aren't authorities over other editors unless they have some type of administrator privileges. An editor does not have to refrain from making an edit just because another equal told or asked him to do so. Defying the wishes of another editor is not a violation of policy or edit warring. Please look into this in more detail than the previous administrators did. Thanks man.
Decline reason:
You were clearly edit warring. And considering you were blocked for edit warring 2 weeks ago as well...you clearly know what edit warring is. Smashvilletalk 18:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If multiple editors are asking you to stop, then that means there is a consensus you should stop. In any event, repeatedly reverting one editor is still edit warring. I think you could use a closer look into what edit warring is. Hersfold(t/a/c) 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
TWO editors. A team of TWO editors, The Four Deuces and Rick Norwood, that work together to revert each other's edits, incessantly delete sourced information that I add, and add original research on multiple articles. Introman (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Just throwing the claim of "edit warring" around means nothing. Respectfully, none of you have given any legitimate justification for the claim. And with the quickness of the decisions, it's hard to imagine that you conducted an adequate investigation. But Wikipedia is free, and I guess you get what you pay for. Introman (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't take a whole lot of investigation to see 4 groups of reversions over a 27 hour period here. Reverting someone on the same thing more than once is enough to constitute edit warring. --Smashvilletalk 18:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
What you're counting as a reversion is a PARTIAL reversion with a subtantial rewrite of a whole paragraph with addition of many sources after much research. It's not a reversion, and it's certainly not edit warring. Introman (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The edit warring noticeboard defines edit warring like this: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically explemified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism." So, first of all, I wasn't "edit warring," which is obvious from my detailed edit summaries and extensive discussion the talk page providing sources when asked. Secondly, I did only ONE revert in the 24 hour period, and one partial revert that included a major rewrite of a paragraph and addition of several sources. This latter edit was done in response to someone disputing my one source in Talk. So, rationally and constructively, I added more sources and made modifications. Other edits include deleting things that were not sourced, or not sourced for what they were being presented as. The administrator who put on the block is mistaken. The first administrator who declined to unblock admitted that "I can't be certain you broke 3RR." He also used as justification for the denial of the unblock that I was "repeatedly restoring [my] edits even after being asked to stop doing so." But that justification is nonsense, because Wikipedia editors aren't authorities over other editors unless they have some type of administrator privileges. An editor does not have to refrain from making an edit just because another equal told or asked him to do so. Defying the wishes of another editor is not a violation of policy or edit warring. The second administrator brought up that I was blocked for breaking the 3RR before, as if that is evidence, which it is not. Apparently it created bias in his decision. Most revealingly, the decisions from both administrators were almost INSTANTANEOUS after I made the requests, which makes it clear that they did not conduct a thorough investigation. They apparently just wanted to dispose of the case and go back to whatever it is they're doing. Please look into this in more detail than the previous administrators did. Thank you.
Decline reason:
I've reviewed the edits in question, in the context of this request, and I'm forced to decline to unblock at this time. Your request hinges upon the contention that you were not edit warring. It is clear, however, that you were asked to discuss the changes before reverting again (here), and failed to do so. You contend above that you are not required to refrain from making an edit "just because another equal told or asked" you to. While technically accurate, WP:3RR provides clear guidance that Edit Warring includes " reverting rather than taking due consideration of the points made by others", which is what happened here. Disrputive editing, and editing against consensus, or where an editor is aware that consensus is unclear (as you were, given your participation on the article's talk page), is still block-worthy, even if three strict byte-for-byte reversions did not take place. So, the contention that it did not meet the strictures of 3RR is irrelevant; it was still edit warring, and the block stands. I note further that WP:AGF applies to blocked editors as well as unblock editors, and questioning the judgement of the reviewing admins only because of the timing of their review is problematic. When you post your unblock request, it appears immediately in the category for such requests, which many admins monitor routinely. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 20:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
13 minutes and 11 minutes are not "instantaneous". --Smashvilletalk 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I didn't say instaneous, I said "almost instantaneous." That's very short, considering that are others appealing blocks too during that time frame, I'm sure. So I suspect my case was a fraction of that time. I don't see how else anyone could conclude that I was edit warring, rather than just run of the mill editing. If THAT'S edit warring, my God...then what's not edit warring? Introman (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Look at the definition of edit warring, from the edit warring noticeboard: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically explemified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism." I defy anyone to show how my edits fit that description. Introman (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
In response to the last decline. First of all there was not a consensus. Secondly, if there were, there is no policy against "editing against consensus." Every Wikipedia editor is entitled to make an edit even if every other person disagrees he should make that edit. For example, a falsely sourced statement should be removed even if 10 others want it there. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is simply what is necessary for a stable article. So an editor should work toward finding consensus. It's nothing more than that. An editor doesn't have to agree with the consensus at any given time and only make edits that a group of some other editors that have come to a consensus agree with. So, I reject that basis of your decision and your reasoning. But, I respectfully accept the judgement. Introman (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Apparently there are quite a few people that don't understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy. There is a Wikipedia administrator, Dolphin51 from the Wikiqette alerts noticeboard, who DOES understand it. I quote him: Two or more Users agreeing on text to be used in an article is commendable. However, such agreement does not confer ownership on those two or more Users. If the agreed text is subsequently amended to delete a statement, the deletion can be reverted or challenged, especially where the deleted statement was supported by in-line citations and references. If the agreed text is subsequently amended to add a new statement, the new statement should be assessed on its merits. The statement can be deleted if it does not enhance the article, and especially if it is not supported by an in-line citation or if it contradicts or is incompatible with the agreed text. Most importantly, if the agreed text is amended to add a new statement, the statement must not be deleted for no reason other than it differs from agreed text. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There is no intention that Wikipedia articles will be frozen when a group of Users agree that the article is as good as it can be made. Inevitably, many articles will reach a high level of maturity to the point that large numbers of Users agree that the articles are as good as they will ever be, but then new Users will edit those articles in such a way that the original large numbers of Users will not approve. Consequently, if edits have been reverted solely on the grounds that the article is being returned to a version previously agreed by a small group of Users, I am unable to condone those reversions. When an edit made in good faith is being reverted, the reversion must be accompanied by an explanation, either in the Edit summary, the Talk page or a post on the editor’s User talk page. That explanation must be based on something more substantial than that the article is being returned to an agreed version." [5]Introman (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. Just a continuation of your pattern of trying to delete everything I do on Wikipedia. You're on a personal crusade. That's pretty obvious. Introman (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Libertarianism. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Exactly my point. Thanks. Introman (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Libertarianism. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.
You're the one trying to claim ownership of the article by some alleged "consensus." Nobody may own a Wikipedia article, not even a few people who have arrived at a "consensus." You need to have a more of a justification than that in order to challenge edits. Introman (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I refer you to the extensive commentary I made regarding my edits on Talk:Libertarianism about source quality for the statements quoted. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Now that's more reasonable. Introman (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Social liberalism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
You again. Why are you so focused on me and follow me around to whatever I do on Wikipedia and try to challenge or delete everything I do? What's with you? Introman (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
You have now reached 3rr on Liberalism. Please discuss your changes on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
You better check that again. I haven't reverted even once. Those were all different edits that you reverted. So you're the one that's been reverting. Seemingly automatically, you simply revert EVERYTHING I do when you know it's me that made the edit ..like a reflex. This proves that you don't even look at the content of the edits, otherwise you would know I wasn't reverting. You've been following me around Wikipedia trying to eliminate everything I do for quite awhile now. What gives? Can I help you somehow? Need a friend? Introman (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have filed a report on the administrators's noticeboard that you may respond to here: [6]The Four Deuces (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I filed one against you too. It's right below and you can respond to evidence of your disruptiveness. Introman (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Per this complaint at WP:AN3. You were previously blocked for edit warring on the same article. This should lead you to be more careful about finding consensus for your changes. There is no reason why the status quo should be considered sacred. But once you knew that several people opposed your changes, you should have waited to persuade them. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Several people did NOT opposed my changes. There are two people, The Four Deuces and Rick Norwood who works as a team to monopolize. Dude, you need to be more careful in determining if someone is edit warring. I did not even do ONE revert! It's unbelievable that you did not block The Four Dueces that was actually doing reverts against me for four DIFFERENT edits! I didn't do ANY reverts. This is ridiculous! There is NOTHING I did that would constitute "edit warring." Introman (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
1=FIrst of all, I did not do ANY reverts.Secondly, I explained all my edits and thoroughly sourced them. I did not "edit war" in any shape or form. I was in fact going out of my way to avoid edit warring. Here is my first edit, where I deleted original research [7] Note the I fully explained the edit in the edit summary. Then editor "The Four Deuces" reverts it back in: [8] telling me to discuss it on the talk page, as if I wasn't clear enough in the edit summary. But, to avoid edit warring, I move on to do edit SOMETHING ELSE: [9] , again explaining this NEW edit in the edit summary. The Four Deuces that edit as well: [10] telling me to "disuss major changes on talk page" as if one sentence is a major change. He explains why he does't like the edit on the talk page. I then proceed to reply by explaining why I disagree: [11] But, again, to avoid edit warring, I don't revert it back in, but move on to see what else should be improved in the intro. So I make a NEW edit: [12] , a one sentence addition thoroughly sourced. The Four Deuces then reverts away that one as well, telling me to "discuss major changes on the talk page": [13] But then again, to avoid edit warring, I move on to do something ELSE [14] . Note how HEAVILY I sourced it. This is because The Four Deuces had objected to a source earlier, so I made sure I put plenty of sources. This is very constructive editing. Then The Four Deuces goes and reports me for "edit warring" claiming that *I* was reverting. But HE was the one doing the reverting. Amazing the adminstrator agrees with him that I was edit warring, and instead of blocking him he blocks ME. It make no sense at all. I did absolutely NO edit warring. I don't WANT to edit war with anyone. I've been trying my best to avoid it, because I had violated the 3rr in the past trying to get information in articles against the wishes of Four Deuces and his partner Rick Norwood who work together to monopolize. I decided to do everything I can do avoid edit warring. I think that's pretty clear. But I'm blocked again for edit warring? If this is edit warring then what's not?! Please unblock. Thank you. Introman (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's pretty hard not to agree with Introman here. At least in his telling: and looking at the edits, it seems to me that he was simply being forbidden to change the introduction to the article. It wasn't edit warring as much as doing completely different things in sequence attempting (but failing) to satisfy the objections to the previous edit. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Introman's claim that he 'did not do even one revert' does not appear consistent with the language of WP:REVERT. Nothing prevents him from following the steps of formal dispute resolution, especially when he was previously blocked for reverting the same article. If he will agree to abide by consensus, any admin may lift this block. EdJohnston (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty much in agreement with Introman and Jpgordon. I see what you're saying, Ed, and I do feel there was some reverting going on here, but I think Introman was trying hard to avoid edit warring and this block is draconian. Introman: there is some merit to what Ed is saying here. You made several edits that effectively had already been objected to. You know that the position of the others is not to try to focus on the disagreements within Liberalism in the lead. Three of your edits were new, but they were new implementations of an old idea there was clear and recent resistance to. To speak in legalistic terms, you don't always have to repeat a previous version of the page in order for your edit to be considered a revert - it may also be considered a revert if it has the effect of undoing another editor's edit, and I do see the argument that this is what you were doing in some of your edits. That said, this is a fine point of policy and greater efforts should have been made to explain this to you before blocking, especially for 4 days, and especially considering your good-faith efforts to avoid warring. And Introman -- please do seek dispute resolution here. It's not the specific text you're writing that is being objected to, it's your plan for what the introduction covers, and writing new drafts without settling that underlying dispute is not going to be very productive. Mangojuicetalk 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you'll note, it's only two people that keep objecting to EVERYTHING I put in Wikipedia articles. If you look, you'll see I'm being harassed and stalked by "The Four Deuces," along with help of "Rick Norwood." They follow me around from article to article deleting whatever I do. Those are the ONLY people who opposed my edits, which are well sourced. So yes there is "clear and recent resistance" to my edits but it's certainly not widespread. It's from two unreasonable people. And why doesn't MY "clear resistance" count? Why take their desire to keep my edits out more important than my desire to put them in? I know what's happening here, because I experience it every time I get on Wikipedia. These two guys just don't want my edits in articles. And they will accept NO SOURCE that I give for my edits, no matter how explicit the source. That's why I attach so many sources. But they still delete it. They just don't want the information I have put into articles. There is apparently no way to get around them. I think I may just quit editing Wikipedia, because apparently its much easier to censor information and succeed at fraudulent cases against well-meaning and constructive editors than to get information IN. I've been railroaded by someone who knows how to game the system and manipulate administrators, it's not hard to to see. Introman (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
"If he will agree to abide by consensus, any admin may lift this block." What does that even mean, in regard to this? There IS NOT A CONSENSUS, unless you're calling a team of two editors a consensus. Is that what you're saying? Whenever two people don't want you to make any changes to the articles they're watching, you're not allowed to defy them? Introman (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
There seem to be more than two editors working on the Talk page. You could propose some new wording there, and ask people to support or oppose your change. If you think that not enough people are looking at the problem, open an WP:RFC. You are making changes that don't seem to have any support at all, at least we can't tell from the Talk page whether anyone supports them. Even if you would wait until *one* other person supported your edit, before making a change, it would probably help a lot with the current edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I would have to do an RFC for every one of my edits, but I guess I could try that. But my question is if two people don't want your edit in an article and no one else has said they want your edit in, either because they're not paying attention or you haven't asked, then you're not allowed to make that edit? There's some policy you would be violating? (Note that here, I wasn't even doing that. I was moving on to a new edit when my edit was reverted.) Introman (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Semi-uninvolved editor here.
I came across Introman’s edit war report on the ANI and after reviewing the article’s history, I cannot safely say he was edit-warring.
Yes, there’s was a content dispute, and yes he was trying to (perhaps) push a heavily sourced sentence into the lead, which as far as consensus goes, was initially opposed by two other editors. But, it’s not unambiguous to me that he was edit warring, not from the article's edit history at least.
As an outside spectator in this dispute, I think the block and the investigation that should precede it comes across as uneven-handed and not very throughout. Perhaps, a warning from an admin would have sufficed, After all a block is a preventive measure, not a punitive one.Likeminas (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
You appear to be edit-warring on classical liberalism. Please remember the 3rr rule. You may already have exceeded it for today. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I have filed a report for edit-warring which you may reply to here: [15]The Four Deuces (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
FYI I have added additional detail to the report. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Note that making several changes to push to same point that obviously isn't supported by consensus without discussing the issue on talk pages is edit warring, for which you've been blocked. This wasn't a 3RR vio block. I hope you all can discuss the issue here or on the talk pages once your block is up and avoid this type of disruptive behaviour in the future. Nja247 06:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
First of all I'm dealing with a team of two guys The Four Deuces and Rick Norwood who delete pretty much everything I put in Wikipedia. You can see on my talk page evidence of all the conflict with them, mainly The Four Deuces who make this complain. With that said, I'd like to show you how I was not " edit warring." Here, I'll show you every edit I made that was in the complaint and explain each one and the relevant edits that surrounded them: This is my first edit in the list of edits that was listed in the complaint against me, by my The Four Deuces. Note that I explained in the edit summary what I was doing, which was adjusting the statment out of concern that it was misrepresenting what the source was saying. [16] Rick Norwood then reverts what I did, explaining in the edit summary why [17] Apparently, he missed the point of my edit. So I reverted back with further explanation in my edit summary: [18] Note the communication between the other editor and I in the edit summaries. This is not edit warring, but reverting then discussing. Then The Four Deuces comes back and reverts it. So, because it looks like a revert war may be brewing, instead of reverting back, because I don't want to get in a revert war I put a dispute tag on the statement. [19] (Note that putting this tag on was reported by The Four Deuces as evidence of me edit warring). That's all of my edits for September 13th. What follows is for September 14th. User Rick Norwood comes and deletes the tag! [20] I think it's disruptive editing to remove a tag that is supposed to help prevent revert warring and helping to bring other parties in to help resolve the issue. So, in response, I just delete the statement to be safe instead of altering it [21] , planning to explain the issue in more detail on the talk page (which you'll see I proceed to do in a couple minutes). Rick Norwood then puts the statement back in: [22] , so instead of reverting, I surgically delete only the part of the statement I believe is not supported by the source. [23] Someone else then reverts that part of the sentence back in. So instead of edit warring, I don't revert it back in, but make what I think any rational person would find to be a benign NPOV edit, by just naming the source: [24] Amazingly, even that is reverted away. So, I see obviously this is going nowhere, so I just drop the editing of that statement. Then I go and explain on the talk page try to explain exactly what's wrong the statement: [25]. I decided to simply stop making changes to the statement again beging a lot of discussion on it, as you can see by the number of edit on the talk page history: [26] I'm no longer editing that statement. I then move on to other things in the intro that I think need improvement. I simply note a synonym for "classical liberalism" and source it by two sources: [27] Rick Norwood, then even reverts that! [28] So, instead of revert warring, I move on to edit something else: [29] Incredibly, that's reverted as well: [30] Then I'm reported by the Four Deuces for edit warring. But, his claim is untrue. What happened is I saw revert wars brewing so I made a series of steps to forestall an edit war. I made edits, engaged in dialogue in edit summaries, and tailored my edits in response to them, trying to fine tune them to avoid conflict. I even put dispute tag on a statement to prevent edit warring, and even that was deleted by the complainant and claimed to be edit warring. I engage in active discussion of the issue on the talk page. I even dropped editing the main statement in contention, and went on to make other edits. The editing portion of that "war" that was starting to brew was over, because of my actions. I was the one that took the high road and stopped first, after every other attempt to make edits that the reverters would find platable was exhausted. There was no reason to block me. I had moved on to make other types of edits, not related to that issue. And even those were claimed as evidence of edit warring. Please unblock. Thanks.
Decline reason:
I bought this argument before but the fact that you've continued to make so many edits knowing other editors were opposed to them indicates you are not behaving appropriately. I don't see you taking steps to forestall an edit war, what I see is you attempting to carry out a discussion, in large part, through edit summaries while you edit to counteract the other editor's change. I think it's telling, for example, that so many of these edits that were objected to are justified by you because you felt your argument wasn't understood. For all you know, only a small part of the counterargument is being articulated, and they understand your argument perfectly well. That doesn't mean the issue is settled, but you keep making these changes first and trying to get the understanding later, but this is a disruptive approach. All it's doing is destabilizing the article and raising tensions. So I think the block is justified, you've certainly been warned about this kind of thing before. Absent any promise to adjust your approach, the block must stand. Mangojuicetalk 18:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
LOL. You have no clue what I'm dealing with. I'm dealing with two disruptive editors, The Four Deuces and Rick Norwood. If I try to get clearance through them first before I put in information, NOTHING I want to contribute would be put an article. It would be the same thing whether I put information in first and discuss, or discuss first. These two are monopolizing articles. They reject EVERY source for information that I offer no matter how explicit the source. They just don't want certain information to be in articles, especially if I'm the one that's bringing it. I think you're declining the block on good faith, but I know you're just not aware of the whole picture. Maybe I have to do some kind of arbitration thing against them. Introman (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Trying to make the situation more combative isn't going to help. This might: I note that you've been mainly arguing on the level of whether the information you're adding or removing is accurate, sourced, or reflects the sources. All that is important, but you're also dealing with text in the introduction, which means it has a special level of emphasis. Try talking about issues of balance. One thing I'm not seeing addressed much is whether the text you want to add is appropriate for the intro. And please don't say they are disruptive: if you think of them that way the situation will never improve. Assume good faith. They must have some reason to oppose your edits -- try to find out what it is, what the core of the problem is. Then talk about it. Maybe their opinion isn't representative -- there are techniques described at WP:DR for soliciting opinions. Maybe you can agree to disagree. If you at least understand each other, maybe you can compromise. But you've got to slow down and let that discussion happen at its own pace. It's a slow process when people have differences, and it gets slower and harder if people fight with each other. Mangojuicetalk 21:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I completely agree with MangoJuice. Pushing a certain POV into the intro of an article is definitely no the same as placing it somewhere else in the article, especially when you're attempting to change highly visible ones.
Needless is to say that continuing with kind of behavior will either get him an indefinite or topic block. Likeminas (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
You don't know what you're talking about. I haven't been pushing any POV. I'm putting in information that sourced by multiples sources, and not some fringe information, but mainstream information. The POV pushing is coming from The Four Deuces and Rick Norwood. For example, look at this latest source statement that Rick Norwood deleted in another article: [31] Another user then came and reverted back in [32] and then none other than The Four Deuces comes back to delete it again: [33] . Look on the talk page for the full quotes from those sources. Those two users will deny that sources say what they say in plain English in sources. Those two users are highly disruptive. They work as a team deleting sourced information. THAT's the POV pushing. And there is nothing that will convince to allow information in, no matter how explicit the sources are and no matter how many are presented. I don't deserve to be blocked at all. Those two do. Introman (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with nothing be allowed to stand that Introman has inserted. Some of it looks to be reliable and well-sourced, yet it keeps getting removed. I have observed this conflict from a distance, and may start becoming more active. Soxwon (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks you for noticing. Those two are unbelievable. Introman (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
One thing is allowing reliable and well-sourced content into the article, such as a specific section, and another completely different is allowing it into the lead, which for obvious reasons gets the most attention.
I believe this is a matter of due weight and balance. Placing content that's is being disputed by other editors into the lead may amount to Tendentious editing. Again, the best solution to this problem is to discuss, or request mediation before adding challenged content into such a prominent place as the intro. Likeminas (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I understand that, believe me. I take that into account when I edit intros. One of the reasons for putting the sentence above in the intro, is because the body of the article speaks of classical liberalism being a large influence on American conservatism (I think it's mentioned 8 times in the body) yet it wasn't mentioned at all in the intro. It's proper that it be mentioned. It was not detailed, but just a simple mention. What you're saying is not an objection those two have voiced, for obvious reasons. Those two editor are completely obstinate to certain kinds of information being in articles, no matter how well sourced and no matter how well justified. The above is just one small example of what they do all the time on other articles I try to edit. They just refuse the information. I think you may be assuming good faith on their part. I did as well at first, but I've learned otherwise. By the way why are you saying, putting in information that is disputed by other editors may be "tendentious editing," while not acknowledging that DELETING information that others want in may be tendentious editing as well? Introman (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
If anyone wants to join with me in an arbitration against The Four Deuces and/or Rick Norwood, let me know. Thanks. Introman (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected to be a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.
Haha that's pretty funny. Ok if that's what you want to believe. As I posted the other day, I'm pretty much done editing Wikipedia anyway. I figure the public knows nothing on it can be trusted, so there's really no point in editing it. It's a waste of time. Introman (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Liberalism in the United States. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Libertarianism. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
