Jump to content

User talk:Rothbardanswer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DPL bot (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 28 December 2012 (dablink notification message (see the FAQ)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Liberalism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Liberalism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. -TFD (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring. Go to talk:Liberalism, make a new section, and make the case for your changes there. This is starting to waste everyone's time and patience. de Bivort 01:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard

While I agree with your edit here please note that it is wrongly marked as minor. Such an edit might be disputed, so it is not minor. Only mark trivial edits as minor, such as typos, ext. All the best and Gmar Hatima Tuva, if you happen to be Jewish, as Rothbard was. --MeUser42 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the edit & my reason for reversion. The sentence deals with Rothbard's influence on American style liberalism, not from where he was influenced. Moreover, what does the supporting reference say? That is the critical editing question. --S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to reformulate to make the intention clearer. --MeUser42 (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism

You are again edit-warring on "Liberalism" and if you continue, may be blocked. Please refer to the earlier warning posted above. TFD (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you have original views on liberalism and are knowledgable about the subject. You should however become acquainted with the policy of WP:WEIGHT which requires that the most commonly held views in reliable sources receive most attention. That means that articles on liberalism should read more like what would find in an introductory politics textbook than in an Austrian School website. TFD (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nazi book burnings, 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) 11:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits on political philosophy articles

Thanks for helping to improve the articles on Libertarianism and Georgism! I have noticed, however, that you seem to be unfamiliar with the Wikipedia policies on editorializing and lead construction. In order to provide a neutral point-of-view, we refrain from using words like thoroughly and debunked in our articles. Also, leads should summarize the article instead of presenting tangential or contradictory information. If there is information not present in a particular article, please add this material to the body (with reliable sources for verifiability); the lead can be altered afterward to appropriately reflect these changes. Thank you again for your input! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits on 'market anarchism'

Please do not make edits based on unsupported claims, on issues already discussed and settled on the talk page in Market Anarchism. If you believe that the conclusions are wrong, some evidence to the contrary and discussion would be much appreciated. This is, once again, resembling vandalism and I have reverted your changes. For the third time now, please see the talk page instead starting an edit war. Finx (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification for my edit is explained here.

The QUALITY of a good or service being predicted by supply and demand means that if someone is selling a product (Such as chicken sandwiches or a toy) it is pivotal that the product should meet the consumer's demand of exceptional quality to establish an appropriate rapport between the seller and buyer. If there is a failure in establishing excellent quality for a product, then according to Adam Smith's concept of the invisible hand, nobody will want to buy the product, therefore the self regulating features of the free market will either compel the seller to adjust the quality of a good in the context of excellent value to increase consumption and profit, or consequently, he will lose his business. If you still aren't convinced of my explanation, maybe we can add our notions to the talk page. Thanks for your time. Signing off. Nashhinton (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marxism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gary North (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) 12:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rothbardanswer&oldid=530136995"