User talk:PhilLiberty

Warning of Violation of three revert rule

You have now reverted a section relating to the article Nullification Crisis three times. Before you make any further reversions you should review WP:AN/3RR since you are approaching a violation of the Wikipedia three-revert rule. Tom (North Shoreman) 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus Long

You're recent addition of Lazarus Long to the List of Fictional Anarchists lacks a citation. I attempted to track down an explicit citation in which the author referred to the character as an anarchist, but was unable to find one. Please provide an explicit citation, or the character will be removed from the list in a few days. If the character is removed and you find a citation, I encourage you to add the character back onto the list, as well as the Fictional Anarchist category.--Cast 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if an explicit citation by the author exists. Lazarus Long's actions and opinions indicate that he is an anarchist, but not an overt anarchist. He is what has been called a "retreatist" or "gulcher" (depending on jargon.) Due to his long lifespan, he prefers to avoid conflict, and look for out-of-the-way planets to settle when govt gets too intrusive. PhilLiberty 17:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a character that was certainly leaning in the direction of disapproving of government, but without an explicit citation the character just can't be included in the list. If we operated by the criteria that the character just had to loosely seem like an anarchist, we'd have a lot more non-anarchists in the list. This happened a while back, and is why the Fictional Anarchist category was nominated for deletion. It's only by monitoring it like this that there have been no complaints raised against it. If you ever find a citation, please do add the character back onto the list --- and if you should ever find any other fictional anarchists with a proper citations, please add them onto the list as well.--Cast 01:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi Phil, thanks for finding those references for the individualist feminism section of Feminism. I am slightly concerned that www.fff.org and www.ncc-1776.org are not what wikipedia describes as reliable sources - as they seem to fall within the area of self-publishing. Do you know if these articles were published elsewhere (ie a printed book, journal or magazine)?--Cailil ^talk 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both FFF (Future of Freedom Foundation) and The Libertarian Enterprise seem to qualify as reliable sources. Wendy McElroy is an established and respected author. If need be, we could alternatively cite one or more of her books, e.g. Sexual Correctness: The Gender-Feminist Attack on Women, or Liberty For Women: Freedom and Feminism in the Twenty-First Century. It seems better to me to cite an article available online rather than a book. PhilLiberty 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, it would be better to use the books. WP:RS - the policy on reliable sourcing has a number of specific criteria for what is and what is not a reliable source. Web magazines generally don't make the cut because they are self published. I'll make a notice at WP:RS/N about it. Its possible that they're fine - I'm just trying to keep the article to a high standard. Thanks for finding the refs anyway--Cailil ^talk 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the permanence of the Union

You are quite right about presenting both views of this historical debate. I´ve tried to improve on this information, but moved most of the discussion out of the summary and into a separate section in the main body, to allow a fuller presentation.Odin 85th gen (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert Rule

You have already violated the rule (see top of this page for specific links) on at least one of the four articles that are under debate on the identical issues regarding secession. Consider this a warning, as required by Wikipedia procedures, of my intent to either refer the next violation or to otherwise proceed under the procedures in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I thought I did only three reverts. I notice you didn't cite the three, or even which article. Is this merely an attempt at intimidation? PhilLiberty (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PhilLiberty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The blocker counted normal edits as reverts, and lied about my not responding in discussion.

Decline reason:

I see no indication that the blocking admin made any comment about your response to discussion. In reviewing your edits, I note that you were engaged in an edit war at United States Declaration of Independence, and that the block is justified. Your first revision in the sequence was to remove a passage that you described as a "...bullshit paragraph", here. Once reverted, you then took three edits to add a new paragraph, here, which was then reverted here. You re-added it here, and were again reverted here by North Shoreman, with an admonition to discuss the matter on the talk page. You did respond on the talk page, here, with what could be termed as a mild personal attack (questioning another user's professional competence). Two minutes later, you reverted the article for a third time here. Though you discussed the matter on the talk page, you do not appear to have been willing to do anything other than note the ways in which other editors were wrong, as evidenced by the fact that you reverted only two minutes after posting on the talk page, which would not give any other editor time to refute or discuss your point. You noted your third revert by indicating that it was your third in the edit summary, which shows that you were fully cognizant of the 3RR policy, and were deliberately approaching its limit. WP:3RR reads, in part, "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive..." Emphasis here is my own. So, the block is valid, and I advise you to stop edit warring in the future, even if you're right on point, because you will be blocked for longer periods of time. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring: and disruptive editing directly after release of block. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per these edits and report by a user on my talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 20:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing

I'm noticing that you appear to again be editing in what seems to be a disruptive manner, as on United States Declaration of Independence and elsewhere. I'm going to have to ask you, as I did when reviewing your block two blocks ago, to let discussion proceed on the talk page before reverting the article or editing it in a manner that is in dispute. The entire point of the talk pages is to permit discussion, which is thrown right under the bus when you discuss the matter but revert to or edit to your preferred version anyway. Please stop editing the articles themselves, take a few days, and discuss the issues on the talk pages. There is no deadline, it doesn't have to be done right now - but if your edits are disruptive, You may be Blocked from editing. Please, discuss the matter before changing the article, especially if others disagree with your points. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individualist Anarchism Article

Hey! Long time, no see. The article has become pretty biased and one-sided. 75% of the article is spent discussing the philosophy of anarcho-capitalists and the article implies that anarcho-capitalism is supposedly a modern form of individualist anarchism which has "replaced" the "outmoded" Tuckerite and Stirnerite branches. In particular, two users, Operation Spooner and Richard Blatant (both of whom have a POV very, very reminiscent of User:Anarcho-capitalism) seem intent on drawing a wedge between social and individualist branches of anarchism. They also seem intent on implying that no branch of individualistic anarchism is socialistic and trying to link it solely with libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. You can see my discussion about it on the discussion page for the article here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Individualist_anarchism#Bias

Do you think that page needs to be edited? Best regards. Full Shunyata (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my comments on the IndAnarch talk page. I didn't find the article biased, but maybe it's changed since you wrote the above. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

I gather you understand that we have a policy against revert warring; nonetheless, you have now reverted to a strongly opposed text four times in 24 hours. 3RR is an absolute limit, not a quota.

You may explain further here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I should have waited two hours. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should have avoided edit warring and tried to get consensus on the talk page, just like I always do :-). 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have violated the 3RR on fascism, plz revert. Soxwon (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. I've done only one revert in the last 24 hours. All edits are not reverts. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring previously removed material is in fact a revert. You made 4 reverts: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Soxwon (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 15 April 2009, 15:43, 15 April 2009, and 15:39, 15 April 2009 are all one revert. The 15:45 covers all edits in the previous two. Reverting myself to get the correct previous version doesn't count. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at WP:EAR

Helllo PhilLiberty. Your editing is being discussed at WP:EAR#Progressivism in the United States. A user has complained that you are '“gaming the system” by making repeated edits on the same issue w/o violating 3RR.' EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Collect

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Fascism (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heathian anarchism

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Heathian anarchism, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Heathian_anarchism. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Heathian anarchism

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Heathian anarchism, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://eng.anarchopedia.org/heathian_anarchism. As a copyright violation, Heathian anarchism appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Heathian anarchism has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Heathian anarchism and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Heathian anarchism with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Heathian anarchism.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Yourname (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Heathian anarchism. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. Yourname (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Look at this kind of wikiwarriorning: [5]. He is a user that is trying insistently to sabotage or include personal oppinions in a essay style and pass it like enciclopedycal articles, all against market and anglo-saxon anarchism. I believe is a kind of ideological troll for a leftist political correctness, but I'm not so sure. Have a good day! --Nihilo 01 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are cordially invited to save the world

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Capitalism Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2011

Aggression move

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I had to undo your changes to Aggression. You should never move a page with cut-and-paste; revision history is lost. Also, whenever a move might be controversial, it should be discussed first. If you want to move the page to Aggression (psychology), you will need to place a move request at WP:RM. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

PhilLiberty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

72.204.15.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Hogeye". The reason given for Hogeye's block is: "Has really exhausted the community's patience, evading blocks, huge block log, etc. per discussion on [[WP:

Blocking administrator: The Moose (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Autoblock removed. Bug. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this down to keep things in order. OK. What is your connection with Hogeye? You're obviously sharing an IP address for a start. Peridon (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any blocks or autoblocks on this or any account. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Hogeye has been blocked for seven years, so the only way this autoblock was triggered, I think, is that someone accidentally logged into the blocked account. —DoRD (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this occasionally; there's a bug somewhere. But: I've unblocked. I missed the autoblock thing (have to remember to click on the #12345678 "blocklist" link.)--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PhilLiberty. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PhilLiberty. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PhilLiberty. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fallon Fox. Per the Manual of Style, Wikipedia gives precedence to gender self-identification as reported by reliable sources. This includes the use of appropriate pronouns corresponding to the identity (e.g., trans women typically use she/her and trans men typically use he/him). Further, per this part of the Manual of Style, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out. Your edits were counter to the one or both of these aspects of the Manual of Style and have been reverted or removed. Repeated vandalism like this can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right-libertarianism‎

I am not saying your concerns are unfounded, but that is a very substantial article to delete via the redirect mechanism. Please gain a wider consensus either at the talk page, or perhaps better yet at a formal AfD discussion. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not deleted. It was renamed to a non-POV title. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to pardon the confusion. this edit most definitely "deleted" the article. What was not clear from the edit summary was that the article was re-created under a different title, which some editors including yourself consider a more NPOV title. That is all well and good, but the problem is we seem to have (or had) two article covering the same topic, or WP:CONTENTFORKING off and on. It also creates attribution problems when text is copied from one article to another, and then no credit is given to the original editor. I think in this case a merge and re-name (move) would be best, but I'm not sure consensus has been reached that the two topics are indeed identical. I hope that helps a bit. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That edit redirected the article. It did not delete it. Nor was it difficult to find the new version, since people are redirected to it. Anyway, I guess it's just you and me interested. Are you ready for me to redirect it again? You seem to agree that the term 'right libertarian' is POV, and used almost soley by detractors. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the article where Rothbard calls the term right libertarianism "bewildering" and repeatedly puts it in scare quotes: https://mises.org/library/left-and-right-within-libertarianism

Please do not erase the article —thereby hiding its editing history— by redirecting. Please work instead on launching a proper move request which, if you get the consensus for it, will result in moving the article and its accompanying edit history to the new title and will create the redirect automatically. Sorry it's a bit complicated, but those are the steps that are needed. Thanks. El_C 00:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until that gets worked out, I'll just put in a disambiguation note. PhilLiberty (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Some asshole locked both articles. After changing everything to the shitty version, of course. My new idea is to have a disambiguation at the top of the Right Libertarian article, with a link to Libertarian Capitalism. Something like:

This is a disputed POV title. For the NPOV version of this article, see Libertarian capitalism.

The only people who can "lock" articles are administrators. These are highly experienced editors who have been placed in a position of trust by the community. Calling them names doesn't help your position at all. May I gently suggest and request you cease any further personal attacks? You have a number of editors (and administrators) sympathetic to your position. It's not the content that's particularly a problem, it is a matter of attribution, which is why move request is necessary. However, if you are antagonistic towards those who are trying to help explain why certain actions are necessary according to Wikipedia's policies, you will soon run out of people who are willing to help you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin is more concerned with emotional bullshit than accuracy, he is an incompetent editor. I will rely on logic and evidence, thank you, not sucking up to admins. Now back to the subject: Anyone have any thoughts, pro or con, about putting in the disambiguation that I suggested? PhilLiberty (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is being discussed at the talk page, where the discussion belongs. Good day. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave Right Libertarianism alone, and just work on Libertarian Capitalism. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Libertarian capitalism

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Libertarian capitalism .

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Libertarian capitalism or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PhilLiberty I'm with you in spirit, but you gotta stop doing that. Aside from the above, it appears that you are creating the article from a giant cut-and-paste from another article. There are many problems with that (loss of/ no editor history for the development of the material, loss of attribution etc.) and that should not be done. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilLiberty:, your more recent work has the same problems as I discussed in my 6 August post. You gotta quit that stuff! Your opinions are valuable, please participate in the main discussion. They aren't going to get heard if you get blocked which is what is going to happen if you continue doing that stuff. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ds alert post-1932 politics of the United States

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Right-libertarianism a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just tried moving, and it worked wonderfully. PhilLiberty (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, as you did at Right-libertarianism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. There was a consensus not to move the page. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Oath Keepers, you may be blocked from editing. Do not whitewash the article. Do discuss your edits on the talk page and get consensus before making them. —C.Fred (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am correcting biased and unsupported claims. E.g. The citation says that there is a broad spectrum of members. The org is pro US Constitution, so saying that it is "anti-government" is very POV unless it is also pointed out that this is an opinion of detractors. PhilLiberty (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We go with what neutral sources say, not what the organization claims about itself. —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation [8], dishonestly used to show white supremacy (there is absolutely nothing about white supremacy there) says:

"The group’s membership, which reportedly spills across racial and regional lines, suggests common ground among fringe groups on either side of the political spectrum."

This is from the author of the article, not "what the organization claims about itself." I'm sorry you want to maintain such a biased article. Asshole. PhilLiberty (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Anarchism

Reverting back and forth on an article (to a years-old version, no less!) is edit warring. Please take your objections to the talk page for discussion and consensus before re-adding changes that have already been recently contested. Per the above blocks, I would hope that you're aware of this procedure (and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle) by now. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred, this user has returned and is already back at making the same edits. czar 02:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C.Fred, there are also clear problems at Oath Keepers and Secession. Warnings don't seem to make any change. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC) And the lack of good faith at Talk:Secession#The American Revolution was a Secession. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Oath Keepers, you may be blocked from editing. You used a misleading edit summary here. Don't do that. VQuakr (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Libertarian Capitalism, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Just so you know, PhilLiberty, any further redirect nonsense and you will be indefinitely blocked for edit warring and disruption. Thanks. El_C 19:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right-libertarianism page may need your help

Hi, PhilLiberty,

Editor Davide King, with the help of Pfhorrest, has anointed himself editor-in-chief of the Right-libertarianism page, and is reverting all edits by North8000 and myself - including my last one, which moved the sentence stating that the term is used for disambiguation, making it the topic sentence. He also removed the POV template, which was placed there because the wording implied that "right-libertarianism" is the common term for the ideology described in the article. The template can stay off as long as the article makes this important clarification in the topic sentence, IMO.

So, if you agree that my edit is necessary and correct, I am asking you to restore it for me. I am hoping to avoid an edit war. In Wikipedia, there is strength in numbers. It would be better if the truth were enough, but, unfortunately, majoritarianism is our only hope in this case.

Sincerely,

JLMadrigal @ 11:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I had to remove your addition to my edit. We've been working hard at coming up with a compromise lede that covers all bases in a gentle way, and I think we have it. It may be reverted again by Pfhorrest or Davide King. If you can come up with a good source for "libertarian capitalism" being a more objective term, or one demonstrating that the term is mainly used by anticapitalists (which it probably is), I will be delighted to see it included in the article. JLMadrigal @ 22:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're at it again. JLMadrigal @ 03:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the current lede is a bit more subtle. If you do an internet search for "right-libertarianism", only the topic sentence comes up in the description. Relegating the use of the term as a disambiguator to the second sentence renders it moot, giving the appearance that "right-libertarianism" is the standard term for the philosophy - which it is not. JLMadrigal @ 11:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some help

Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Free-market anarchism

Hi. I don't understand if this is some sort of joke but clearly free-market anarchism isn't also known as free-market capitalism. Could you please stop changing the article please? BeŻet (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free market anarchism clearly includes both anarcho-capitalism and the "socialist" (pro LTV) forms of individualist anarchism that support markets. Please stop vandalizing the article to make it socialist only. That's clearly POV. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop vandalizing articles? You can't force your world-view onto articles without consensus. BeŻet (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that anarcho-capitalism is a type of free-market anarchism is undisputed - except by a few sectarian anarcho-socialists. Ancap satisfies the definition of anarchism, being opposed in principle to all rulership aka political authority. (I wonder how an illogical ansoc sectarian clique captured this article?) At any rate, anarchists can have any position consistent with statelessness. Anarchists range from primitivist to vegetarian to nudist to greenie, from collectivist property systems to sticky property systems and everything in between. Anarchism is about absense of rulership, not consensual property norms. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:AnarchismTree10.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AnarchismTree10.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BeŻet (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop

Get a life ancrap; your ideology is nothing more than neo-feudalism, and anarchocapitalism is a fridge ideology, not "the most popular form on anarchism" 5.151.22.144 (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Anarchism, you may be blocked from editing. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Hogeye per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hogeye. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]