You have now reverted a section relating to the article Nullification Crisis three times. Before you make any further reversions you should review WP:AN/3RR since you are approaching a violation of the Wikipedia three-revert rule. Tom (North Shoreman) 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You're recent addition of Lazarus Long to the List of Fictional Anarchists lacks a citation. I attempted to track down an explicit citation in which the author referred to the character as an anarchist, but was unable to find one. Please provide an explicit citation, or the character will be removed from the list in a few days. If the character is removed and you find a citation, I encourage you to add the character back onto the list, as well as the Fictional Anarchist category.-- Cast 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Phil, thanks for finding those references for the individualist feminism section of Feminism. I am slightly concerned that www.fff.org and www.ncc-1776.org are not what wikipedia describes as reliable sources - as they seem to fall within the area of self-publishing. Do you know if these articles were published elsewhere (ie a printed book, journal or magazine)?-- Cailil talk 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You are quite right about presenting both views of this historical debate. I´ve tried to improve on this information, but moved most of the discussion out of the summary and into a separate section in the main body, to allow a fuller presentation. Odin 85th gen ( talk) 12:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You have already violated the rule (see top of this page for specific links) on at least one of the four articles that are under debate on the identical issues regarding secession. Consider this a warning, as required by Wikipedia procedures, of my intent to either refer the next violation or to otherwise proceed under the procedures in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
— slakr\ talk / 06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
PhilLiberty ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The blocker counted normal edits as reverts, and lied about my not responding in discussion.
Decline reason:
I see no indication that the blocking admin made any comment about your response to discussion. In reviewing your edits, I note that you were engaged in an edit war at United States Declaration of Independence, and that the block is justified. Your first revision in the sequence was to remove a passage that you described as a "...bullshit paragraph", here. Once reverted, you then took three edits to add a new paragraph, here, which was then reverted here. You re-added it here, and were again reverted here by North Shoreman, with an admonition to discuss the matter on the talk page. You did respond on the talk page, here, with what could be termed as a mild personal attack (questioning another user's professional competence). Two minutes later, you reverted the article for a third time here. Though you discussed the matter on the talk page, you do not appear to have been willing to do anything other than note the ways in which other editors were wrong, as evidenced by the fact that you reverted only two minutes after posting on the talk page, which would not give any other editor time to refute or discuss your point. You noted your third revert by indicating that it was your third in the edit summary, which shows that you were fully cognizant of the 3RR policy, and were deliberately approaching its limit. WP:3RR reads, in part, "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive..." Emphasis here is my own. So, the block is valid, and I advise you to stop edit warring in the future, even if you're right on point, because you will be blocked for longer periods of time. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
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.
— slakr\ talk / 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm noticing that you appear to again be editing in what seems to be a disruptive manner, as on United States Declaration of Independence and elsewhere. I'm going to have to ask you, as I did when reviewing your block two blocks ago, to let discussion proceed on the talk page before reverting the article or editing it in a manner that is in dispute. The entire point of the talk pages is to permit discussion, which is thrown right under the bus when you discuss the matter but revert to or edit to your preferred version anyway. Please stop editing the articles themselves, take a few days, and discuss the issues on the talk pages. There is no deadline, it doesn't have to be done right now - but if your edits are disruptive, You may be Blocked from editing. Please, discuss the matter before changing the article, especially if others disagree with your points. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Long time, no see. The article has become pretty biased and one-sided. 75% of the article is spent discussing the philosophy of anarcho-capitalists and the article implies that anarcho-capitalism is supposedly a modern form of individualist anarchism which has "replaced" the "outmoded" Tuckerite and Stirnerite branches. In particular, two users, Operation Spooner and Richard Blatant (both of whom have a POV very, very reminiscent of User:Anarcho-capitalism) seem intent on drawing a wedge between social and individualist branches of anarchism. They also seem intent on implying that no branch of individualistic anarchism is socialistic and trying to link it solely with libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. You can see my discussion about it on the discussion page for the article here:
Do you think that page needs to be edited? Best regards. Full Shunyata ( talk) 09:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I gather you understand that we have a policy against revert warring; nonetheless, you have now reverted to a strongly opposed text four times in 24 hours. 3RR is an absolute limit, not a quota.
You may explain further here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You have violated the 3RR on fascism, plz revert. Soxwon ( talk) 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Helllo PhilLiberty. Your editing is being discussed at WP:EAR#Progressivism in the United States. A user has complained that you are '“gaming the system” by making repeated edits on the same issue w/o violating 3RR.' EdJohnston ( talk) 02:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Fascism (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon ( talk) 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Heathian anarchism, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Heathian_anarchism. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Heathian anarchism, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://eng.anarchopedia.org/heathian_anarchism. As a copyright violation, Heathian anarchism appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Heathian anarchism has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Yourname ( talk) 23:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Heathian anarchism. Please use the {{ hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. Yourname ( talk) 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at this kind of wikiwarriorning: [5]. He is a user that is trying insistently to sabotage or include personal oppinions in a essay style and pass it like enciclopedycal articles, all against market and anglo-saxon anarchism. I believe is a kind of ideological troll for a leftist political correctness, but I'm not so sure. Have a good day! -- Nihilo 01 ( talk) 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Capitalism Byelf2007 ( talk) 11 September 2011
Hi, I just wanted to let you know I had to undo your changes to Aggression. You should never move a page with cut-and-paste; revision history is lost. Also, whenever a move might be controversial, it should be discussed first. If you want to move the page to Aggression (psychology), you will need to place a move request at WP:RM. Thanks, -- JaGa talk 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Hogeye". The reason given for Hogeye's block is: "Has really exhausted the community's patience, evading blocks, huge block log, etc. per discussion on [[WP:
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, PhilLiberty. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, PhilLiberty. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, PhilLiberty. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fallon Fox. Per the Manual of Style, Wikipedia gives precedence to gender self-identification as reported by reliable sources. This includes the use of appropriate pronouns corresponding to the identity (e.g., trans women typically use she/her and trans men typically use he/him). Further, per this part of the Manual of Style, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out. Your edits were counter to the one or both of these aspects of the Manual of Style and have been reverted or removed. Repeated vandalism like this can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not saying your concerns are unfounded, but that is a very substantial article to delete via the redirect mechanism. Please gain a wider consensus either at the talk page, or perhaps better yet at a formal AfD discussion. Thanks! 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Please do not erase the article —thereby hiding its editing history— by redirecting. Please work instead on launching a proper move request which, if you get the consensus for it, will result in moving the article and its accompanying edit history to the new title and will create the redirect automatically. Sorry it's a bit complicated, but those are the steps that are needed. Thanks. El_C 00:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll leave Right Libertarianism alone, and just work on Libertarian Capitalism. PhilLiberty ( talk) 20:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Libertarian capitalism .
While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.
If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.
If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.
Continued edit warring on Libertarian capitalism or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 21:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Right-libertarianism a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Polyamorph ( talk) 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, as you did at Right-libertarianism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. There was a consensus not to move the page. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Oath Keepers, you may be blocked from editing. Do not whitewash the article. Do discuss your edits on the talk page and get consensus before making them. — C.Fred ( talk) 23:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
C.Fred (
talk) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Citation [8], dishonestly used to show white supremacy (there is absolutely nothing about white supremacy there) says:
This is from the author of the article, not "what the organization claims about itself." I'm sorry you want to maintain such a biased article. Asshole. PhilLiberty ( talk) 23:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Reverting back and forth on an article (to a years-old version, no less!) is
edit warring. Please take your objections to the talk page for discussion and consensus before re-adding changes that have already been recently contested. Per the above blocks, I would hope that you're aware of this procedure (and
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) by now. (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar 22:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Oath Keepers, you may be blocked from editing. You used a misleading edit summary here. Don't do that. VQuakr ( talk) 03:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Libertarian Capitalism, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies ( talk) 19:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Just so you know, PhilLiberty, any further redirect nonsense and you will be indefinitely blocked for edit warring and disruption. Thanks. El_C 19:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, PhilLiberty,
Editor Davide King, with the help of Pfhorrest, has anointed himself editor-in-chief of the Right-libertarianism page, and is reverting all edits by North8000 and myself - including my last one, which moved the sentence stating that the term is used for disambiguation, making it the topic sentence. He also removed the POV template, which was placed there because the wording implied that "right-libertarianism" is the common term for the ideology described in the article. The template can stay off as long as the article makes this important clarification in the topic sentence, IMO.
So, if you agree that my edit is necessary and correct, I am asking you to restore it for me. I am hoping to avoid an edit war. In Wikipedia, there is strength in numbers. It would be better if the truth were enough, but, unfortunately, majoritarianism is our only hope in this case.
Sincerely,
JLMadrigal @ 11:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I had to remove your addition to my edit. We've been working hard at coming up with a compromise lede that covers all bases in a gentle way, and I think we have it. It may be reverted again by Pfhorrest or Davide King. If you can come up with a good source for "libertarian capitalism" being a more objective term, or one demonstrating that the term is mainly used by anticapitalists (which it probably is), I will be delighted to see it included in the article. JLMadrigal @ 22:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
They're at it again. JLMadrigal @ 03:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku ( talk) 02:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I don't understand if this is some sort of joke but clearly free-market anarchism isn't also known as free-market capitalism. Could you please stop changing the article please? BeŻet ( talk) 16:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:AnarchismTree10.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 00:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BeŻet ( talk) 12:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Get a life ancrap; your ideology is nothing more than neo-feudalism, and anarchocapitalism is a fridge ideology, not "the most popular form on anarchism" 5.151.22.144 ( talk) 23:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Anarchism, you may be blocked from editing. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 19:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 00:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)You have now reverted a section relating to the article Nullification Crisis three times. Before you make any further reversions you should review WP:AN/3RR since you are approaching a violation of the Wikipedia three-revert rule. Tom (North Shoreman) 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You're recent addition of Lazarus Long to the List of Fictional Anarchists lacks a citation. I attempted to track down an explicit citation in which the author referred to the character as an anarchist, but was unable to find one. Please provide an explicit citation, or the character will be removed from the list in a few days. If the character is removed and you find a citation, I encourage you to add the character back onto the list, as well as the Fictional Anarchist category.-- Cast 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Phil, thanks for finding those references for the individualist feminism section of Feminism. I am slightly concerned that www.fff.org and www.ncc-1776.org are not what wikipedia describes as reliable sources - as they seem to fall within the area of self-publishing. Do you know if these articles were published elsewhere (ie a printed book, journal or magazine)?-- Cailil talk 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You are quite right about presenting both views of this historical debate. I´ve tried to improve on this information, but moved most of the discussion out of the summary and into a separate section in the main body, to allow a fuller presentation. Odin 85th gen ( talk) 12:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You have already violated the rule (see top of this page for specific links) on at least one of the four articles that are under debate on the identical issues regarding secession. Consider this a warning, as required by Wikipedia procedures, of my intent to either refer the next violation or to otherwise proceed under the procedures in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
— slakr\ talk / 06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
PhilLiberty ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The blocker counted normal edits as reverts, and lied about my not responding in discussion.
Decline reason:
I see no indication that the blocking admin made any comment about your response to discussion. In reviewing your edits, I note that you were engaged in an edit war at United States Declaration of Independence, and that the block is justified. Your first revision in the sequence was to remove a passage that you described as a "...bullshit paragraph", here. Once reverted, you then took three edits to add a new paragraph, here, which was then reverted here. You re-added it here, and were again reverted here by North Shoreman, with an admonition to discuss the matter on the talk page. You did respond on the talk page, here, with what could be termed as a mild personal attack (questioning another user's professional competence). Two minutes later, you reverted the article for a third time here. Though you discussed the matter on the talk page, you do not appear to have been willing to do anything other than note the ways in which other editors were wrong, as evidenced by the fact that you reverted only two minutes after posting on the talk page, which would not give any other editor time to refute or discuss your point. You noted your third revert by indicating that it was your third in the edit summary, which shows that you were fully cognizant of the 3RR policy, and were deliberately approaching its limit. WP:3RR reads, in part, "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive..." Emphasis here is my own. So, the block is valid, and I advise you to stop edit warring in the future, even if you're right on point, because you will be blocked for longer periods of time. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
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.
— slakr\ talk / 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm noticing that you appear to again be editing in what seems to be a disruptive manner, as on United States Declaration of Independence and elsewhere. I'm going to have to ask you, as I did when reviewing your block two blocks ago, to let discussion proceed on the talk page before reverting the article or editing it in a manner that is in dispute. The entire point of the talk pages is to permit discussion, which is thrown right under the bus when you discuss the matter but revert to or edit to your preferred version anyway. Please stop editing the articles themselves, take a few days, and discuss the issues on the talk pages. There is no deadline, it doesn't have to be done right now - but if your edits are disruptive, You may be Blocked from editing. Please, discuss the matter before changing the article, especially if others disagree with your points. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Long time, no see. The article has become pretty biased and one-sided. 75% of the article is spent discussing the philosophy of anarcho-capitalists and the article implies that anarcho-capitalism is supposedly a modern form of individualist anarchism which has "replaced" the "outmoded" Tuckerite and Stirnerite branches. In particular, two users, Operation Spooner and Richard Blatant (both of whom have a POV very, very reminiscent of User:Anarcho-capitalism) seem intent on drawing a wedge between social and individualist branches of anarchism. They also seem intent on implying that no branch of individualistic anarchism is socialistic and trying to link it solely with libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. You can see my discussion about it on the discussion page for the article here:
Do you think that page needs to be edited? Best regards. Full Shunyata ( talk) 09:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I gather you understand that we have a policy against revert warring; nonetheless, you have now reverted to a strongly opposed text four times in 24 hours. 3RR is an absolute limit, not a quota.
You may explain further here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You have violated the 3RR on fascism, plz revert. Soxwon ( talk) 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Helllo PhilLiberty. Your editing is being discussed at WP:EAR#Progressivism in the United States. A user has complained that you are '“gaming the system” by making repeated edits on the same issue w/o violating 3RR.' EdJohnston ( talk) 02:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Fascism (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon ( talk) 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Heathian anarchism, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Heathian_anarchism. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Heathian anarchism, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://eng.anarchopedia.org/heathian_anarchism. As a copyright violation, Heathian anarchism appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Heathian anarchism has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Yourname ( talk) 23:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Heathian anarchism. Please use the {{ hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. Yourname ( talk) 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at this kind of wikiwarriorning: [5]. He is a user that is trying insistently to sabotage or include personal oppinions in a essay style and pass it like enciclopedycal articles, all against market and anglo-saxon anarchism. I believe is a kind of ideological troll for a leftist political correctness, but I'm not so sure. Have a good day! -- Nihilo 01 ( talk) 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Capitalism Byelf2007 ( talk) 11 September 2011
Hi, I just wanted to let you know I had to undo your changes to Aggression. You should never move a page with cut-and-paste; revision history is lost. Also, whenever a move might be controversial, it should be discussed first. If you want to move the page to Aggression (psychology), you will need to place a move request at WP:RM. Thanks, -- JaGa talk 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Hogeye". The reason given for Hogeye's block is: "Has really exhausted the community's patience, evading blocks, huge block log, etc. per discussion on [[WP:
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, PhilLiberty. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, PhilLiberty. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, PhilLiberty. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fallon Fox. Per the Manual of Style, Wikipedia gives precedence to gender self-identification as reported by reliable sources. This includes the use of appropriate pronouns corresponding to the identity (e.g., trans women typically use she/her and trans men typically use he/him). Further, per this part of the Manual of Style, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out. Your edits were counter to the one or both of these aspects of the Manual of Style and have been reverted or removed. Repeated vandalism like this can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I am not saying your concerns are unfounded, but that is a very substantial article to delete via the redirect mechanism. Please gain a wider consensus either at the talk page, or perhaps better yet at a formal AfD discussion. Thanks! 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Please do not erase the article —thereby hiding its editing history— by redirecting. Please work instead on launching a proper move request which, if you get the consensus for it, will result in moving the article and its accompanying edit history to the new title and will create the redirect automatically. Sorry it's a bit complicated, but those are the steps that are needed. Thanks. El_C 00:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll leave Right Libertarianism alone, and just work on Libertarian Capitalism. PhilLiberty ( talk) 20:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Libertarian capitalism .
While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.
If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.
If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.
Continued edit warring on Libertarian capitalism or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 21:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Right-libertarianism a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Polyamorph ( talk) 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, as you did at Right-libertarianism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. There was a consensus not to move the page. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Oath Keepers, you may be blocked from editing. Do not whitewash the article. Do discuss your edits on the talk page and get consensus before making them. — C.Fred ( talk) 23:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
C.Fred (
talk) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Citation [8], dishonestly used to show white supremacy (there is absolutely nothing about white supremacy there) says:
This is from the author of the article, not "what the organization claims about itself." I'm sorry you want to maintain such a biased article. Asshole. PhilLiberty ( talk) 23:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Reverting back and forth on an article (to a years-old version, no less!) is
edit warring. Please take your objections to the talk page for discussion and consensus before re-adding changes that have already been recently contested. Per the above blocks, I would hope that you're aware of this procedure (and
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) by now. (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar 22:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Oath Keepers, you may be blocked from editing. You used a misleading edit summary here. Don't do that. VQuakr ( talk) 03:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Libertarian Capitalism, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies ( talk) 19:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Just so you know, PhilLiberty, any further redirect nonsense and you will be indefinitely blocked for edit warring and disruption. Thanks. El_C 19:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, PhilLiberty,
Editor Davide King, with the help of Pfhorrest, has anointed himself editor-in-chief of the Right-libertarianism page, and is reverting all edits by North8000 and myself - including my last one, which moved the sentence stating that the term is used for disambiguation, making it the topic sentence. He also removed the POV template, which was placed there because the wording implied that "right-libertarianism" is the common term for the ideology described in the article. The template can stay off as long as the article makes this important clarification in the topic sentence, IMO.
So, if you agree that my edit is necessary and correct, I am asking you to restore it for me. I am hoping to avoid an edit war. In Wikipedia, there is strength in numbers. It would be better if the truth were enough, but, unfortunately, majoritarianism is our only hope in this case.
Sincerely,
JLMadrigal @ 11:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I had to remove your addition to my edit. We've been working hard at coming up with a compromise lede that covers all bases in a gentle way, and I think we have it. It may be reverted again by Pfhorrest or Davide King. If you can come up with a good source for "libertarian capitalism" being a more objective term, or one demonstrating that the term is mainly used by anticapitalists (which it probably is), I will be delighted to see it included in the article. JLMadrigal @ 22:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
They're at it again. JLMadrigal @ 03:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku ( talk) 02:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I don't understand if this is some sort of joke but clearly free-market anarchism isn't also known as free-market capitalism. Could you please stop changing the article please? BeŻet ( talk) 16:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:AnarchismTree10.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 00:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BeŻet ( talk) 12:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Get a life ancrap; your ideology is nothing more than neo-feudalism, and anarchocapitalism is a fridge ideology, not "the most popular form on anarchism" 5.151.22.144 ( talk) 23:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Anarchism, you may be blocked from editing. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 19:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
GeneralNotability (
talk) 00:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)