![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
For some reason I was kind of surprised that Born2cycle had no problem with BigK HeX deleting my comments until I remembered that Born2cycle himself had deleted most of my arguments for excluding anarcho-capitalism from the article on libertarianism. Here's what I initially posted on the scope subpage.
-- Xerographica ( talk) 19:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Just because Rothbard had to come up with a separate term for A-C does not tell us whether A-C is a separate ideology or a variant of the same ideology. Are minarchism and libertarianism and right-libertarianism all separate ideologies, variants, or synonyms? How do we find out? You guessed it. Reliable sources. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Instead of writing off someone who you've largely agreed with for months, you may want to consider the strong possibility that it's not everyone else's mindset that is the problem. An ANI report that goes quite a different way from what you expected may also be a huge sign that some review and introspection could be useful. BigK HeX ( talk) 18:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
19:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Xerographica ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
None of my recent or past behavior remotely resembles anything described on the WP:DE page... *disrupting progress toward improving an article Nope *disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia Nope *tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material Nope. Haven't added any material to an article *tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. Nope. Haven't deleted any material *have I tried to add original research to articles? Nope *have I failed to cite my sources? Nope *have I improperly tagged articles? Nope *repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests Nope *repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits Nope *Rejects community input NOPE. I was seeking community input! *Campaign to drive away productive contributors Nope
Decline reason:
You missed one: WP:POINT. In this case, your attempts to "seek discussion" amounted to spamming multiple talk pages with walls of text, which you were blocked for previously. There are less disruptive ways to discuss things. Jayron 32 05:58, 1 October 2010 (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.
Jayron, WP:POINT is completely irrelevant because I wasn't trying to prove a point. My comment in the file deletion discussion indicated that I would seek the feedback of uninvolved editors as to whether it was against Wikipedia policy to draw diagrams for use on talk pages or personal pages. It was nothing more than an informal request for comments.
The first block I received was for offering numerous relevant sources to an article that specifically requested additional sources. The whole "disruptive editing" allegation loses any credibility when my "disruptive editing" is left on the talk page.
Look, I'm a relatively smart guy and if there's a better way to seek comments from uninvolved editors then all you have to do is tell me. If there's a limit to the number of relevant sources that a single post should contain then all you have to do is tell me. -- Xerographica ( talk) 09:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
(My response to Yworo's comment)
Your allegation that my quotes were cherry picked is somewhat correct. The question is...why did I give "short-shift" to left-libertarianism? For the answer to that question we can take a look at the sources that you provided.
Libertarian theories can broadly be divided into "rights" based and consequentialist. Let's first take a look at the "rights" approach. From the The encyclopedia of libertarianism...
On one hand we have capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and on the other hand we have socialism (public ownership of the means of production). Capitalism is associated with individualism while socialism is associated with collectivism. Where does Ronald Hamowy stand?
The "rights" approach means it's wrong for the state, or anybody else, to take your property. However, in order to effectively protect your property, it's justifiable for the state to collect taxes solely to fund the organizations that help ensure that your property is sufficiently protected. Redistribution of wealth is only legitimate in terms of wealth protection.
The consequentialists also want to limit the state...but for different reasons. Their view is that the free-market is more efficient at producing goods than the state. As such, the state should only produce goods that the free-market will under-produce.
Who are the most significant proponents of each approach? In terms of the "rights" approach...Robert Nozick was, by far, the undisputed theorist. In terms of the consequentialists...your source, Liberalism: Rights, property and markets mentions Milton Friedman, Mises and Hayek. Let's note that my "cherry picked" quotes include all of their views.
Establishing the basic concept of libertarianism in terms of those two main approaches is essential to understanding why I did not include left-libertarianism. Left-libertarianism is, at its very core, a criticism of libertarianism. From Liberalism: Rights, property and markets...
Left-libertarian theories, and obviously Libertarian socialism, all attempt to justify redistribution of wealth beyond what is necessary to protect wealth. Their goal is to refute libertarianism and demonstrate its "contradictory nature". To define libertarianism in terms of left and right...and/or...to say that some libertarians do not extend full self-ownership to external objects...is to define libertarianism in terms of its most popular criticisms.
Let's take a look at your sources that define libertarianism in terms of left and right...
Without a doubt there are more academics who oppose libertarianism than support libertarianism...so it's no surprise that opponents of libertarianism are frequently allowed to define libertarianism using their terms. Therefore, with regards to cherry picking, my sources were cherry picked from proponents of libertarianism while your sources were cherry picked from opponents of libertarianism (with a couple exceptions). The introduction of a Wikipedia article is not the place to include criticisms of the topic being discussed. That being said, I highly encourage you to create a section for the Criticism of Libertarianism within the libertarianism article.
Regarding your search for a common thread...consequentialists and rights theorists do not have full-self ownership in common. The only thing they do have in common, as you can tell from my quotes, is advocacy of a minimal state.
Your response to my minimal state quotes was..."There is no contradiction. There are conflicting beliefs within many ideologies. These are presented in articles by stating that this subgroup believes X, and this other subgroup believes Y. X and Y need not be consistent with each other."
Whether to justify a minimal state based on rights or the free-market is an example of a conflicting belief within libertarianism. Whether a minimal state is necessary is an example of a conflicting belief between two ideologies...libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Whether equality should be an ideological goal is another example of a conflicting belief between two ideologies...libertarianism and socialism. -- Xerographica ( talk) 13:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That certainly is an odd statement. You really think the tenets of libertarianism are so.... perfect(??) that the philosophy has never been criticized? BigK HeX ( talk) 07:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I don't know if you've noticed, but your block has expired. Have at it... Yworo ( talk) 20:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Tax choice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divine authority ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I wanna know why when I added the following to Power Rangers Samurai which any observer of said program can see for themselves to be fact but Acalamari and Ryulong claim it to be a personal opinion and blocked me for a period of 24 hours and threatened to make the block permanent if I ever re-added it to Wikipedia, I suspect them to be bullying me but I am not sure. Could you please help clarify the situation, thanks: Strangely enough for a group of samurai, they are all basically gaijin even their sensei/shogun is portrayed by a New Zealander, for none of them are full blooded Japan-born Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D34throse Darklight ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
You've added "See also" items to a number of articles where the item you added was totally irrelevant to the subject of the article: such as tax choice and electoral fusion, two concepts completely unrelated to each other. Please stop doing this, as it is disruptive and confusing. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did to
Actions speak louder than words, without
verifying it by citing
reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Eeekster (
talk)
02:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The article Put your money where your mouth is has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Eeekster (
talk)
02:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The article The customer is king has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
WWGB (
talk)
13:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The customer is king is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The customer is king until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WWGB ( talk) 05:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tax choice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defense ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Other people's money, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2190-milton-friedman-on-the-four-ways-you-can-spend-money.
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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot ( talk) 13:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Friedman ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Scope of government has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
DGG (
talk )
22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kludgeocracy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kludgeocracy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE ( talk) 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scope of Government Diagram.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SmartSE ( talk) 10:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scope of government is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scope of government until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm writing a bitof a critique here not because I oppose what you are tryinig to do but because I support what you are trying to do. You are creating articles with titles/topics that are borderline (for survival) at best, and then the article are just a collection of thoughts, quotes and reflections, i.e. not encyclopedic articles. Personally, I'd suggest picking a more viable route so that you can really develop what you are working on rather than just have all of your work get deleted and you get frustrated. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Xerographica, it looks like you are having a frustrating time with Wikipedia. Starting off you got into some protracted debates, and now your proposed articles are facing deletion. In looking at your edit count, you are actually spending more time on talk pages than article pages.
I hope these events do not deter you from making contributions. At the same time, I hope you'll step back and consider how to be a more effective editor.
The other editors are correct when they criticize your new articles for being (mere) collections of quotes. Such efforts do not impart much useful information to the reader. Similarly, you're attempting to create articles simply based on the phraseology and idioms that we see in different sources. An example is
Kludgeocracy. Teles coins the term, writes a short article on it, and immediately you are seeking to develop the term into a WP article. But you've got to consider
WP:UCN. The term is not common. (Indeed, the term was created just days ago. No one else uses it (as yet), let alone commented on it.)
With this in mind, I suggest adding "kludgeocracy" into other articles as an aspect of the particular topic. You'd simply say "Blah, blah, blah, ...the term 'kludgeocracy' has been coined by economist Keles to describe blah, blah, blah.....[1] [reference]" That way you get the term and Keles' thoughts into Wikipedia without having other editors beat up on you for your efforts.
Same idea applies with
Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Only 5 of the 13 quotes uses the term "concentrated benefits". Take Boaz for example -- we don't learn exactly the context in which he uses it because we don't know what "this problem" (Boaz's term) is. What follows are his examples to illustrate the phrase, but we are left hanging. It would be far better to use the Boaz material, refined into a concise paraphrase, in other articles which deal with "the problem" he referring to. (Perhaps these sources could be used in the article about
special interests.) But when you take the term (or phrase) and endeavor to say that the other 8 sources were talking about concentrated benefits/diffuse costs, you are engaging in improper
WP:SYN.
Don't get me wrong -- I applaud your efforts and contributions. But there are better ways to skin the cat.--
S. Rich (
talk)
05:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I detect a certain willingness to learn. (It can be difficult for us when our brains are cluttered with great thoughts of Spencer, et al.!) Start off simple. Incorporate Keles' new word into Kludge as a variant or interesting use of the word. Use his article as the reference. Look around for other articles where the kludge concept, and Keles' term, can be expanded upon without injecting POV. For the longer (and bigger) concepts, look around for articles where the various sources you like can be used to improve the article. For example, take some of the ideas (not necessarily the quotes) from Scope of government and use them in the Justification for government article. Provide proper referencing! Be sure that you are not adding redundant material. WP:SAA has lots of good advice. Also, keep in mind that WP has 4,126,191 content articles. Those articles (and their creators) all faced the same problem and process of article development. The articles survived and were improved upon. (As a side thought, I wonder how many articles have been axed through the AFD process?) Four Million Articles! Eighteen Million registered users! Twenty-nine Million pages! Tens of Thousands of regular editors and contributors! They – and you – have made 581,588,546 edits! You get to be a part of the process (and can enjoy it) as long as you realize we are not picking on you.-- S. Rich ( talk) 18:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't want to learn or contribute constructively. You continue to add "articles" that are simply listing of various long quotes. This is not the way to construct an encyclopedia. Even your quotes lack basic reference other than who said them! You are just posting these quotes here and there because you like them. You make minimal effort to actually write something that is helpful to readers. Here we are, Xerographic, with editors who have made 100,000+ edits over years and years verses your 1,107 edits over 18 months, and you think you know more about writing an encyclopedia than them. Disappointing to say the least.-- S. Rich ( talk) 15:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Legal plunder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libertarian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion about deleting "Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs" was closed. The result was to redirect to ToC. Arthur Rubin was correct WRT to the redirect and your efforts to revive the article were disruptive. Please stop.-- S. Rich ( talk) 15:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
When you disparage the efforts of editors to improve WP with ad hominem arguments ("you don't understand" [paraphrase]) you are not adding anything that helps improve particular articles. Moreover, you weaken your own arguments. Finally, you have not looked at the prodigious contributions that AR has made over the years. Please stop such personal comments. -- S. Rich ( talk) 04:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
If you think I'm following you around, you're correct. If you want to point to any other editors who are primarily creating articles consisting of quotefarms, with "See also" sections pointing to all articles in a topic, such as public choice theory, I'll follow them around, too. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Posted by: -- S. Rich ( talk) 20:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at You can't have your cake and eat it shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, your addition may qualify as a revert, as you reverted the previous deletion of the opportunity cost sentence, even though you added references. But, yes, I'm subject to WP:3RR, as well. If you read it carefully, you'll see that the "automatic" block is only if you go over 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. I'm just pointing it out, and you haven't yet provided justification of the quotefarm. Also note that consecutive edits count as at most one revert, and reverting one's own edit does not generally count as a revert. I've attempted to get clarification on some edge cases, but with no success. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Please remember to
assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Additional comment: When you label other editors as "VDE"s, or say "you don't understand" or say "discussion with these editors has been unfruitful would be an understatement", or say "Oh wait, I remember why...it's because you're a VDE." etc., you indicate you are not assuming good faith. Moreover, the snide remarks are
uncivil. Remember, please, that unless there is "strong evidence to the contrary" you must AFG and make your comments with this guiding principle in mind. Please focus your comments on the editing process, and not the editors.
S. Rich (
talk)
00:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You repeatedly use the "VDE" acronym as a personal attack --
[1]. This is wrong, so please stop. (Repeating the "slur" does not verify your opinion. It only weakens your argument and standing as an editor.) It is not an issue of what RS you supply in the raw form; editing and contributing means incorporating the source in helpful prose. Please consider
WP:RF.
S. Rich (
talk)
19:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. I do wish you'd drop this VDE tagging. It does not contribute to article improvement. This edit:
[2] is only the latest in your persistent series of
personal attacks.
S. Rich (
talk)
19:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you make
personal attacks on other people, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Again you persist with these needless and feckless attacks.
[3]. Would you look at
WP:TE and ask yourself which of the characteristics you display? Alas, you are about to get your wish that you be reported. This is sad because you do have potential worthwhile contributions to offer. But this will not happen until and unless you look at WP guidance and how your comments fail to comport with that guidance.
S. Rich (
talk)
20:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Put your money where your mouth is has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Presidentman
talk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
16:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- S. Rich ( talk) 20:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. (
✉→
BWilkins
←✎)
21:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Even if you are correct in your content edits, you cannot go around attacking other editors. Your VDE acronym is an attack. Referring to others as incompetent is an attack. You may (or may not) be correct in your content edits, but if you attack other editors, you are going to end up blocked. Such as has just happened. Please use this as a learning experience about how to get along with other editors around here. There are correct ways to interact. Using disparaging acronyms and labels is not one of them. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Xerographica ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why am I blocked? Let's review the circumstances that resulted in my block.
Having read numerous reliable sources in the field of public choice theory...I created an entry for concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Why? Because clearly I believed that there were sufficient reliable sources to support its notability and that creating the entry would add value for Wikipedia. Was it a perfect entry? Of course not, it was nothing more than a stub with a few relevant passages, some relevant "see also" items and several relevant references. So obviously there was room for improvement.
Arthur Rubin nominated the entry for deletion... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs Why? Because he is incompetent. More specifically, he was editing outside his area of expertise and he never bothered to read the RS sources that I provided. Even if he did read them...it's doubtful that he would understand them anymore than I would understand RS that had to do with physics.
The result of the vote was 2 keep, 2 delete and 1 redirect. So what did BWilkins do? He redirects to tragedy of commons. Why? Maybe he made a mistake. Maybe he knew of some RS that I had missed.
So I posted on his talk page and asked him to shed some light on the reasoning behind his decision. Did he do so? No. Why? Because he's not competent enough to admit that he had made a mistake. If he had simply looked over the reliable sources and based his decision on the reliable sources then perhaps he would have given Rubin and Rich a clear message that RS are important. But perhaps he did look over the RS and he couldn't make heads or tails of them. Even if that is the case...it's still evidence of incompetence to edit outside your area of expertise. Plus, the fact that he's the one who blocked me...despite being clearly involved in the dispute...is additional evidence of his incompetence.
I posted on the talk page of tragedy of the commons and asked Rubin to provide reliable sources to support the redirect. He offered one source...which had nothing to do with concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Therefore, he simply provided more evidence of his incompetence.
Where does Rich fit in with all of this? He's just as incompetent as Arthur Rubin. Neither have any interest in any RS that are relevant to the pages that they edit. So who ends up being blocked? The editor who makes edits based on reliable sources...or the editors who ignore reliable sources and/or make extensive edits well outside their areas of expertise? Obviously I'm the one that ends up being blocked...yet it's their edits which destroy value and harm Wikipedia by destroying its credibility and trustworthiness.
Do Rubin and Rich destroy value? Yes. Why? Because they are incompetent. Therefore, they are Value Destroying Editors (VDEs). Can there be any greater threat to Wikipedia? No. Yet, here I am the one who is blocked simply because I have done the most to try and protect Wikipedia from its greatest threat.
Also, just to be clear...the behavior of these two VDEs is not isolated to just this one entry. The damage that they have done is very extensive...and there's absolutely no reason to believe that their behavior doesn't extend far beyond the entries on my watch list.
Decline reason:
By repeating the same insults you've been blocked for in this unblock request, you've just earned an extension of your block to one week. Another insult, and you might also lose the ability to edit this page. Max Semenik ( talk) 23:05, 28 December 2012 (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.
Max Semenik, oh man, I really don't want to lose the ability to edit this page. So could you please clarify exactly what you mean by insults? For example...I don't think that your response to my concern was reasonable...so would it be an insult if I said that your response was unreasonable? What if you burned a book...would it be an insult if I referred to you as a book burner?
When I looked over the Wikipedia entry on personal attacks...it states that comments "should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Referring to somebody as a book burner clearly is directed at content (books) and actions (burning) rather than the person. It's not a matter of who they are...it's a matter of what they are doing.
In my situation...I've simply described the actions of these two editors in terms of how it relates to the content. It's one thing if you were to argue that my description of their behavior was inaccurate...but that's not what you did....you simply said that I had insulted them.
What would I have to gain from insulting them? I'm a really reasonable guy. I absolutely love reason...I respond really well to it. Are you a reasonable person? If so, then please share the precise reasoning behind your decision to deny my request to be unblocked. What would really help is if you could copy and paste exactly which rules/regulations that I've violated. I've looked over both the entry on personal attacks and the entry on harassment and can find nothing that specifically matches my own actions. -- Xerographica ( talk) 09:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
For some reason I was kind of surprised that Born2cycle had no problem with BigK HeX deleting my comments until I remembered that Born2cycle himself had deleted most of my arguments for excluding anarcho-capitalism from the article on libertarianism. Here's what I initially posted on the scope subpage.
-- Xerographica ( talk) 19:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Just because Rothbard had to come up with a separate term for A-C does not tell us whether A-C is a separate ideology or a variant of the same ideology. Are minarchism and libertarianism and right-libertarianism all separate ideologies, variants, or synonyms? How do we find out? You guessed it. Reliable sources. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Instead of writing off someone who you've largely agreed with for months, you may want to consider the strong possibility that it's not everyone else's mindset that is the problem. An ANI report that goes quite a different way from what you expected may also be a huge sign that some review and introspection could be useful. BigK HeX ( talk) 18:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
19:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Xerographica ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
None of my recent or past behavior remotely resembles anything described on the WP:DE page... *disrupting progress toward improving an article Nope *disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia Nope *tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material Nope. Haven't added any material to an article *tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. Nope. Haven't deleted any material *have I tried to add original research to articles? Nope *have I failed to cite my sources? Nope *have I improperly tagged articles? Nope *repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests Nope *repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits Nope *Rejects community input NOPE. I was seeking community input! *Campaign to drive away productive contributors Nope
Decline reason:
You missed one: WP:POINT. In this case, your attempts to "seek discussion" amounted to spamming multiple talk pages with walls of text, which you were blocked for previously. There are less disruptive ways to discuss things. Jayron 32 05:58, 1 October 2010 (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.
Jayron, WP:POINT is completely irrelevant because I wasn't trying to prove a point. My comment in the file deletion discussion indicated that I would seek the feedback of uninvolved editors as to whether it was against Wikipedia policy to draw diagrams for use on talk pages or personal pages. It was nothing more than an informal request for comments.
The first block I received was for offering numerous relevant sources to an article that specifically requested additional sources. The whole "disruptive editing" allegation loses any credibility when my "disruptive editing" is left on the talk page.
Look, I'm a relatively smart guy and if there's a better way to seek comments from uninvolved editors then all you have to do is tell me. If there's a limit to the number of relevant sources that a single post should contain then all you have to do is tell me. -- Xerographica ( talk) 09:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
(My response to Yworo's comment)
Your allegation that my quotes were cherry picked is somewhat correct. The question is...why did I give "short-shift" to left-libertarianism? For the answer to that question we can take a look at the sources that you provided.
Libertarian theories can broadly be divided into "rights" based and consequentialist. Let's first take a look at the "rights" approach. From the The encyclopedia of libertarianism...
On one hand we have capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and on the other hand we have socialism (public ownership of the means of production). Capitalism is associated with individualism while socialism is associated with collectivism. Where does Ronald Hamowy stand?
The "rights" approach means it's wrong for the state, or anybody else, to take your property. However, in order to effectively protect your property, it's justifiable for the state to collect taxes solely to fund the organizations that help ensure that your property is sufficiently protected. Redistribution of wealth is only legitimate in terms of wealth protection.
The consequentialists also want to limit the state...but for different reasons. Their view is that the free-market is more efficient at producing goods than the state. As such, the state should only produce goods that the free-market will under-produce.
Who are the most significant proponents of each approach? In terms of the "rights" approach...Robert Nozick was, by far, the undisputed theorist. In terms of the consequentialists...your source, Liberalism: Rights, property and markets mentions Milton Friedman, Mises and Hayek. Let's note that my "cherry picked" quotes include all of their views.
Establishing the basic concept of libertarianism in terms of those two main approaches is essential to understanding why I did not include left-libertarianism. Left-libertarianism is, at its very core, a criticism of libertarianism. From Liberalism: Rights, property and markets...
Left-libertarian theories, and obviously Libertarian socialism, all attempt to justify redistribution of wealth beyond what is necessary to protect wealth. Their goal is to refute libertarianism and demonstrate its "contradictory nature". To define libertarianism in terms of left and right...and/or...to say that some libertarians do not extend full self-ownership to external objects...is to define libertarianism in terms of its most popular criticisms.
Let's take a look at your sources that define libertarianism in terms of left and right...
Without a doubt there are more academics who oppose libertarianism than support libertarianism...so it's no surprise that opponents of libertarianism are frequently allowed to define libertarianism using their terms. Therefore, with regards to cherry picking, my sources were cherry picked from proponents of libertarianism while your sources were cherry picked from opponents of libertarianism (with a couple exceptions). The introduction of a Wikipedia article is not the place to include criticisms of the topic being discussed. That being said, I highly encourage you to create a section for the Criticism of Libertarianism within the libertarianism article.
Regarding your search for a common thread...consequentialists and rights theorists do not have full-self ownership in common. The only thing they do have in common, as you can tell from my quotes, is advocacy of a minimal state.
Your response to my minimal state quotes was..."There is no contradiction. There are conflicting beliefs within many ideologies. These are presented in articles by stating that this subgroup believes X, and this other subgroup believes Y. X and Y need not be consistent with each other."
Whether to justify a minimal state based on rights or the free-market is an example of a conflicting belief within libertarianism. Whether a minimal state is necessary is an example of a conflicting belief between two ideologies...libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Whether equality should be an ideological goal is another example of a conflicting belief between two ideologies...libertarianism and socialism. -- Xerographica ( talk) 13:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That certainly is an odd statement. You really think the tenets of libertarianism are so.... perfect(??) that the philosophy has never been criticized? BigK HeX ( talk) 07:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I don't know if you've noticed, but your block has expired. Have at it... Yworo ( talk) 20:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Tax choice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divine authority ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I wanna know why when I added the following to Power Rangers Samurai which any observer of said program can see for themselves to be fact but Acalamari and Ryulong claim it to be a personal opinion and blocked me for a period of 24 hours and threatened to make the block permanent if I ever re-added it to Wikipedia, I suspect them to be bullying me but I am not sure. Could you please help clarify the situation, thanks: Strangely enough for a group of samurai, they are all basically gaijin even their sensei/shogun is portrayed by a New Zealander, for none of them are full blooded Japan-born Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D34throse Darklight ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
You've added "See also" items to a number of articles where the item you added was totally irrelevant to the subject of the article: such as tax choice and electoral fusion, two concepts completely unrelated to each other. Please stop doing this, as it is disruptive and confusing. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did to
Actions speak louder than words, without
verifying it by citing
reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Eeekster (
talk)
02:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The article Put your money where your mouth is has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Eeekster (
talk)
02:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The article The customer is king has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
WWGB (
talk)
13:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The customer is king is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The customer is king until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WWGB ( talk) 05:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tax choice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defense ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Other people's money, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2190-milton-friedman-on-the-four-ways-you-can-spend-money.
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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot ( talk) 13:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Friedman ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Scope of government has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
DGG (
talk )
22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kludgeocracy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kludgeocracy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE ( talk) 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scope of Government Diagram.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SmartSE ( talk) 10:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scope of government is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scope of government until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm writing a bitof a critique here not because I oppose what you are tryinig to do but because I support what you are trying to do. You are creating articles with titles/topics that are borderline (for survival) at best, and then the article are just a collection of thoughts, quotes and reflections, i.e. not encyclopedic articles. Personally, I'd suggest picking a more viable route so that you can really develop what you are working on rather than just have all of your work get deleted and you get frustrated. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Xerographica, it looks like you are having a frustrating time with Wikipedia. Starting off you got into some protracted debates, and now your proposed articles are facing deletion. In looking at your edit count, you are actually spending more time on talk pages than article pages.
I hope these events do not deter you from making contributions. At the same time, I hope you'll step back and consider how to be a more effective editor.
The other editors are correct when they criticize your new articles for being (mere) collections of quotes. Such efforts do not impart much useful information to the reader. Similarly, you're attempting to create articles simply based on the phraseology and idioms that we see in different sources. An example is
Kludgeocracy. Teles coins the term, writes a short article on it, and immediately you are seeking to develop the term into a WP article. But you've got to consider
WP:UCN. The term is not common. (Indeed, the term was created just days ago. No one else uses it (as yet), let alone commented on it.)
With this in mind, I suggest adding "kludgeocracy" into other articles as an aspect of the particular topic. You'd simply say "Blah, blah, blah, ...the term 'kludgeocracy' has been coined by economist Keles to describe blah, blah, blah.....[1] [reference]" That way you get the term and Keles' thoughts into Wikipedia without having other editors beat up on you for your efforts.
Same idea applies with
Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Only 5 of the 13 quotes uses the term "concentrated benefits". Take Boaz for example -- we don't learn exactly the context in which he uses it because we don't know what "this problem" (Boaz's term) is. What follows are his examples to illustrate the phrase, but we are left hanging. It would be far better to use the Boaz material, refined into a concise paraphrase, in other articles which deal with "the problem" he referring to. (Perhaps these sources could be used in the article about
special interests.) But when you take the term (or phrase) and endeavor to say that the other 8 sources were talking about concentrated benefits/diffuse costs, you are engaging in improper
WP:SYN.
Don't get me wrong -- I applaud your efforts and contributions. But there are better ways to skin the cat.--
S. Rich (
talk)
05:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I detect a certain willingness to learn. (It can be difficult for us when our brains are cluttered with great thoughts of Spencer, et al.!) Start off simple. Incorporate Keles' new word into Kludge as a variant or interesting use of the word. Use his article as the reference. Look around for other articles where the kludge concept, and Keles' term, can be expanded upon without injecting POV. For the longer (and bigger) concepts, look around for articles where the various sources you like can be used to improve the article. For example, take some of the ideas (not necessarily the quotes) from Scope of government and use them in the Justification for government article. Provide proper referencing! Be sure that you are not adding redundant material. WP:SAA has lots of good advice. Also, keep in mind that WP has 4,126,191 content articles. Those articles (and their creators) all faced the same problem and process of article development. The articles survived and were improved upon. (As a side thought, I wonder how many articles have been axed through the AFD process?) Four Million Articles! Eighteen Million registered users! Twenty-nine Million pages! Tens of Thousands of regular editors and contributors! They – and you – have made 581,588,546 edits! You get to be a part of the process (and can enjoy it) as long as you realize we are not picking on you.-- S. Rich ( talk) 18:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't want to learn or contribute constructively. You continue to add "articles" that are simply listing of various long quotes. This is not the way to construct an encyclopedia. Even your quotes lack basic reference other than who said them! You are just posting these quotes here and there because you like them. You make minimal effort to actually write something that is helpful to readers. Here we are, Xerographic, with editors who have made 100,000+ edits over years and years verses your 1,107 edits over 18 months, and you think you know more about writing an encyclopedia than them. Disappointing to say the least.-- S. Rich ( talk) 15:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Legal plunder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libertarian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion about deleting "Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs" was closed. The result was to redirect to ToC. Arthur Rubin was correct WRT to the redirect and your efforts to revive the article were disruptive. Please stop.-- S. Rich ( talk) 15:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
When you disparage the efforts of editors to improve WP with ad hominem arguments ("you don't understand" [paraphrase]) you are not adding anything that helps improve particular articles. Moreover, you weaken your own arguments. Finally, you have not looked at the prodigious contributions that AR has made over the years. Please stop such personal comments. -- S. Rich ( talk) 04:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
If you think I'm following you around, you're correct. If you want to point to any other editors who are primarily creating articles consisting of quotefarms, with "See also" sections pointing to all articles in a topic, such as public choice theory, I'll follow them around, too. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Posted by: -- S. Rich ( talk) 20:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at You can't have your cake and eat it shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, your addition may qualify as a revert, as you reverted the previous deletion of the opportunity cost sentence, even though you added references. But, yes, I'm subject to WP:3RR, as well. If you read it carefully, you'll see that the "automatic" block is only if you go over 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. I'm just pointing it out, and you haven't yet provided justification of the quotefarm. Also note that consecutive edits count as at most one revert, and reverting one's own edit does not generally count as a revert. I've attempted to get clarification on some edge cases, but with no success. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Please remember to
assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Additional comment: When you label other editors as "VDE"s, or say "you don't understand" or say "discussion with these editors has been unfruitful would be an understatement", or say "Oh wait, I remember why...it's because you're a VDE." etc., you indicate you are not assuming good faith. Moreover, the snide remarks are
uncivil. Remember, please, that unless there is "strong evidence to the contrary" you must AFG and make your comments with this guiding principle in mind. Please focus your comments on the editing process, and not the editors.
S. Rich (
talk)
00:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You repeatedly use the "VDE" acronym as a personal attack --
[1]. This is wrong, so please stop. (Repeating the "slur" does not verify your opinion. It only weakens your argument and standing as an editor.) It is not an issue of what RS you supply in the raw form; editing and contributing means incorporating the source in helpful prose. Please consider
WP:RF.
S. Rich (
talk)
19:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. I do wish you'd drop this VDE tagging. It does not contribute to article improvement. This edit:
[2] is only the latest in your persistent series of
personal attacks.
S. Rich (
talk)
19:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you make
personal attacks on other people, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Again you persist with these needless and feckless attacks.
[3]. Would you look at
WP:TE and ask yourself which of the characteristics you display? Alas, you are about to get your wish that you be reported. This is sad because you do have potential worthwhile contributions to offer. But this will not happen until and unless you look at WP guidance and how your comments fail to comport with that guidance.
S. Rich (
talk)
20:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The article Put your money where your mouth is has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Presidentman
talk ·
contribs (
Talkback)
16:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- S. Rich ( talk) 20:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. (
✉→
BWilkins
←✎)
21:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Even if you are correct in your content edits, you cannot go around attacking other editors. Your VDE acronym is an attack. Referring to others as incompetent is an attack. You may (or may not) be correct in your content edits, but if you attack other editors, you are going to end up blocked. Such as has just happened. Please use this as a learning experience about how to get along with other editors around here. There are correct ways to interact. Using disparaging acronyms and labels is not one of them. - TexasAndroid ( talk) 21:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Xerographica ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why am I blocked? Let's review the circumstances that resulted in my block.
Having read numerous reliable sources in the field of public choice theory...I created an entry for concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Why? Because clearly I believed that there were sufficient reliable sources to support its notability and that creating the entry would add value for Wikipedia. Was it a perfect entry? Of course not, it was nothing more than a stub with a few relevant passages, some relevant "see also" items and several relevant references. So obviously there was room for improvement.
Arthur Rubin nominated the entry for deletion... Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs Why? Because he is incompetent. More specifically, he was editing outside his area of expertise and he never bothered to read the RS sources that I provided. Even if he did read them...it's doubtful that he would understand them anymore than I would understand RS that had to do with physics.
The result of the vote was 2 keep, 2 delete and 1 redirect. So what did BWilkins do? He redirects to tragedy of commons. Why? Maybe he made a mistake. Maybe he knew of some RS that I had missed.
So I posted on his talk page and asked him to shed some light on the reasoning behind his decision. Did he do so? No. Why? Because he's not competent enough to admit that he had made a mistake. If he had simply looked over the reliable sources and based his decision on the reliable sources then perhaps he would have given Rubin and Rich a clear message that RS are important. But perhaps he did look over the RS and he couldn't make heads or tails of them. Even if that is the case...it's still evidence of incompetence to edit outside your area of expertise. Plus, the fact that he's the one who blocked me...despite being clearly involved in the dispute...is additional evidence of his incompetence.
I posted on the talk page of tragedy of the commons and asked Rubin to provide reliable sources to support the redirect. He offered one source...which had nothing to do with concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Therefore, he simply provided more evidence of his incompetence.
Where does Rich fit in with all of this? He's just as incompetent as Arthur Rubin. Neither have any interest in any RS that are relevant to the pages that they edit. So who ends up being blocked? The editor who makes edits based on reliable sources...or the editors who ignore reliable sources and/or make extensive edits well outside their areas of expertise? Obviously I'm the one that ends up being blocked...yet it's their edits which destroy value and harm Wikipedia by destroying its credibility and trustworthiness.
Do Rubin and Rich destroy value? Yes. Why? Because they are incompetent. Therefore, they are Value Destroying Editors (VDEs). Can there be any greater threat to Wikipedia? No. Yet, here I am the one who is blocked simply because I have done the most to try and protect Wikipedia from its greatest threat.
Also, just to be clear...the behavior of these two VDEs is not isolated to just this one entry. The damage that they have done is very extensive...and there's absolutely no reason to believe that their behavior doesn't extend far beyond the entries on my watch list.
Decline reason:
By repeating the same insults you've been blocked for in this unblock request, you've just earned an extension of your block to one week. Another insult, and you might also lose the ability to edit this page. Max Semenik ( talk) 23:05, 28 December 2012 (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.
Max Semenik, oh man, I really don't want to lose the ability to edit this page. So could you please clarify exactly what you mean by insults? For example...I don't think that your response to my concern was reasonable...so would it be an insult if I said that your response was unreasonable? What if you burned a book...would it be an insult if I referred to you as a book burner?
When I looked over the Wikipedia entry on personal attacks...it states that comments "should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Referring to somebody as a book burner clearly is directed at content (books) and actions (burning) rather than the person. It's not a matter of who they are...it's a matter of what they are doing.
In my situation...I've simply described the actions of these two editors in terms of how it relates to the content. It's one thing if you were to argue that my description of their behavior was inaccurate...but that's not what you did....you simply said that I had insulted them.
What would I have to gain from insulting them? I'm a really reasonable guy. I absolutely love reason...I respond really well to it. Are you a reasonable person? If so, then please share the precise reasoning behind your decision to deny my request to be unblocked. What would really help is if you could copy and paste exactly which rules/regulations that I've violated. I've looked over both the entry on personal attacks and the entry on harassment and can find nothing that specifically matches my own actions. -- Xerographica ( talk) 09:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)