Jump to content

User talk:Sageo

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Melt core (talk | contribs) at 12:29, 27 October 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Sageo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down there, cowboy!

Your edits to the Libertarianism article are likely to be undone. Please discuss, in great detail, why you object to any individual source on the talk page. Each source (not citation, but source) should probably have its own subject header so it will be easy to archive the discussion for reference, because people will inevitably try to insert it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasteading and Libertarianism

Though the founder of the Seasteading Institute is himself a libertarian, Seasteading is not a libertarian project. See also The FAQ. Members range from ancap, environmentalist to communist. I'm reverting your edits. Joepnl (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

Look, if you insist we need this article on top of "Libya under Gaddafi", make sure your new article

  • focuses on the actual topic, which would be the history of Libya 1977 to 2011, and not the ongoing civil war
  • treat it as a WP:SS split off Libya under Gaddafi
  • make sure the has new page as at least as much, or in fact more information about the 1977-2011 period than the article you are splitting it from.
    • read this at least to see what content your stub was missing to even begin deserve the status of standalone article

Otherwise, what is the puropse of having a topic on "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" which does not in fact discuss the 1977-2011 period, but the ongoing conflict, which has already excellent coverage on pages that are actually dedicated to it.

If you decide you do want to split the entire 1977-2011 period off the existing Libya under Gaddafi article, you will want to respect WP:BRD and seek consensus on the article talkpage first. I for one will argue against such an approach, as it happens that the 1977-2011 period accounts for 34 out of 42 years of Gaddafi's rule, or in other words your new article will have an 80% scope overlap with the existing article. In general, creating articles with 80% scope overlaps is not a good idea under WP:CFORK and you will need excellent reasons to argue why it should still be done. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Research Advice re General People's Committee Article

Dear Sageo,

I am writing a research paper on the history of Libyan political personnel and came across a wiki article you contributed to, which I translated from Arabic to English using google. The article is entitled “General People’s Committee” and can be accessed as follows: http://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/اللجنة_الشعبية_العامة This article is exactly what I’m looking for, but there is a historical hole from 1990 – 2006. Do you have any idea why these dates are missing from the article? Do you have any information on this topic pertaining to 1990 – 2006 or know of any other sources I can consult to find the missing information? I have to submit my paper to my professor by Monday morning, so if you could prove any help at all, I would truly appreciate it! Please feel free to contact me directly via e-mail at agreen789@yahoo.com.

Thank you in advance for your time and hope to hear from you soon!

Sincerely, Ann Green --AGreen789 (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zeitgeist

Category:Zeitgeist, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. jonkerz ♠talk 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2011 Barcelona Sporting Club season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Cuenca, Ibarra, Carlos García, Loja and Ambato
2012 Barcelona Sporting Club season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Quevedo, Loja and Ambato

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Treasure: Book of Secrets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cíbola (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) 11:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Barcelona Sporting Club season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cuenca, Loja and Ambato (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) 21:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NEE-01 Pegaso, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Comercio (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) 11:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ancap Redirect

Howdy. Could you please stop altering the page 'market anarchism' to redirect to 'anarcho-capitalism'? There is already a page for market anarchism -- which is mostly an anti-capitalist branch of anarchism with well over a century of history. If you want to nominate that 'free market anarchism' page for deletion, you have my support -- on the condition that the redirect goes to the main 'anarchism' page, considering that ancap is extremely marginal and arguably hardly worth a mention in the grand scheme of pro-market anarchist tendencies. There's discussion about this on the 'anarcho-capitalism' talk page (no one's addressed the objections in many months), 'free-market anarchism' talk page and the 'libertarianism' talk page. Otherwise, if you keep reverting, I'm afraid I'll have to file a report for edit warring. Thanks much. Finx (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppe

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Sageo, Please undo your last reinsertion of the reverted content on Hoppe and seek consensus on talk. Please review WP:3RR and WP:EW. If you continue to reinsert content without consensus on talk, you may be blocked from editing. Please demonstrate good faith collaboration by undoing your last edit. Thanks, and I look forward to working with you on the Talk page. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated WP:BLP by reinserting the Habermas association on Hoppe

It is not permitted to make unsourced assertions about living people such as the association of Hoppe with Habermas which you have repeatedly reinserted. This policy has been explained to you twice and you should undo your reinsertion of Habermas in Hoppe's article unless you can provide a secondary WP:RS citation for that assertion. This violation must be removed immediately. Please review WP:RS and undo your re-insertion of the violation. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

Please consider the warnings I have written to you regarding the Hoppe article. If you have RS for the Habermas assertion, place it in the article. If not, the Habermas assertion cannot remain per BLP.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Do not make personal attacks on other editors, as you have been directing at me on Hoppe. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppe talk page comment -- inappropriate

Your remark about "gaming the system" at Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#BLP_Violation_--_Habermas_association is inappropriate. It is accusing another editor of bad faith. (And this is hardly the case in the discussion.) Retract it by using <s>strikeout</s> typeface. – S. Rich (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Hans-Hermann Hoppe, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The reasons for the removal of unsourced content have previously been explained to you several times. You are required to establish consensus on talk before reinserting this content. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sageo, please review WP:3RR. You have now done 3 reverts on Hoppe. If you do another revert you may be blocked from editing. Please undo your most recent edit. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you've looked at my talk page recommendations:
  • See if Daily Bell content is very similar to the version of this article published during the week or so before the interview. If there is a lot of content in DB not in Wikipedia, then that source is ok. {Later note: I stand corrected. For some reason I thought that was the UNLV student newspaper; it looks more like a self-published blog. His interview comments might be ok if they aren't too self-serving or about others. But I'm sure we can find better sources.}
  • Otherwise, do your research. I've been busy with other stuff but it is starting to get annoying enough I may have to do it, but it's better if you do.
  • Also look at his web page, especially the Curriculum Vitae. Lots of good stuff I haven't even begun to plummet.
  • Use books.google.com. Lots of references to his work there. I just haven't had time yet to put somethings together. Research is always better than reverting unless there are clear policy violations. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring on Hoppe

You have exceeded 3RR on Hoppe. Please undo your reinsertions of reverted content. Otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk 12:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 16:42 (UTC) 22 May 2013‎ SPECIFICO

Sageo, please STOP making such mass reductions to Cody Wilson until a consensus is reached on whether it should or should not be merged with Defense Distributed. The article has been "blanked" several times now and prematurely, imo. 98.70.82.5 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sageo. You are warned per the result of the edit warring case at WP:AN3#User:Sageo reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Warned). See the advice to get consensus before reverting again at two articles. Please be aware that articles like the one on Hans-Hermann Hoppe that involve possible racism and possible anti-gay sentiments will be *highly* politically sensitive on the English wikipedia. If you want to avoid being reported at noticeboards every 10 minutes try to be more cautious in your editing here. If you are reported again for edit warring the case may be handled more severely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sageo – Articles about gun politics in the United States are "hot-button" topics. Many people follow these articles, and many people are sensitive about this topic. The same thing is true for racism, anti-homosexuality, and left-wing/right-wing topics. Please use care when editing these articles. (Also, you will see the IP editor said "imo". This is short for "in my opinion".) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They let you off easy. Just count your reverts and be careful of your refs. The types of refs that many editors may let slide on some articles, may be harshly criticized and removed by other editors on other articles. That's life in the World Wide Wikipedia. ;-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EW denouncing

Sageo, I advise you not to post such messages about edit warring. What you posted was vague. The messages did not have specifics. The messages "infringed" on WP:AGF. If you wish for an opinion on EW, you should ask another editor for advice before posting such messages. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC) [NOTE: Sageo's remarks ("Good faith") were cut from my user talk page for pasting here. 15:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Good faith

Hi! One can asume good faith if there is not a systematic break of the rules. But a systemic break of rules and acusing others to do it, is a kind of sabotage of consensus (the most similar English Wikipedia policy for this seems "Gaming the system"). I will not retire the denounce, both are abusing of the pacience and time of other editors. Probably I need more "WP:Policies" links for been more clear, but I trust in the wisdom of another members of the community to understand what is happening. Thanks. --Sageo (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that you have posted a EWN. Off-hand, it is ill-advised. You might be right about gaming, EW, and other things. BUT you must do a better job, a much better job, of expressing these concerns. You cannot expect other editors to do your work for you. When you post a Notice, you must supply the WP:DIFFs to explain your complaint. (You can always post a {{Help me}} message.) Sageo, you were warned about EW yourself. And you were advised to watch out for problems in contentious subjects. Please keep that warning in mind before denouncing other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the diffs, not only of edition war, but of the discussion deny. --Sageo (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Finx (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the report at WP:AN3#User:Sageo reported by User:Finx (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. There is a risk that you may be blocked, since you have been warned previously for edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inevitable complaint

So the complaint that I called inevitable did indeed happen. After looking over your talk page, that discussion is incomplete without your input. Abel (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HHH

Good catch on that list of articles; I haven't read through lately to see the latest funny business. See you are back from a break. I took one myself and hopefully will take one again soon before I start tearing my hair out. Keeping one's cool is very necessary. Assume you know about Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions? Good to keep in mind for a variety of reasons User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 17:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

One of your friends mentioned you in the Libertarian group on Facebook. We were discussing the talk page of Libertarianism. I was just wondering, could you provide a translation for the phrases "Santiago de Guayaquil" and "Por Guayaquil Independiente" in Guayaquil? I'd appreciate it. I put {{Not English-inline}} after those two phrases. Thanks! WikiWinters (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Antal E. Fekete for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antal E. Fekete 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/Antal E. Fekete 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 notice from the top of the article.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sageo&oldid=631314525"