User talk:MeUser42

Welcome

Hello, MeUser42, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Mr. Stradivarius

Happy editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

My edits were not vandalism. As demonstrated by my source, Hans-Hermann Hoppe is clearly a Monarchist and not an anarchist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.165.245 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not waste my time on someone who comes to vandalize, Iv'e seen you'r other contributions and see your agenda. I have read all of Hoppe's books, and probably all of his English articles. He is without question an anarchist and, without question, not a monarch. If you do not agree- use the talk page, and if your position will reach consensus it will be accepted into the article. I would also suggest you register to wikipedia. Best, --MeUser42 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentation ethics

Hi MeUser42! I just noticed that you split the "Argumentation ethics" section of Discourse ethics to a new article, Argumentation ethics. Thanks for your work. I noticed, however, that you didn't copy over the sections on "Related Libertarian Approaches" or "Roger Pilon", and that these are now absent from both of the articles. Did you have any particular reason to do this? Not that I'm saying it was bad necessarily, it's just that normally we prefer to find a better home for well-sourced content rather than deleting it. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, thank you very much for your feedback. The section contained a lot of original research and irrelevant content, so I thought it was best to remove it until I can find the correct place to put it. I can assure you that non of it will be simply deleted and I will find all of it a place. Perhaps a new article regarding value-free ethica justifications for libertarian rights is also in order. Thank you again, and any further feedback would be much appreciated! --MeUser42 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you familiar with a template I can use to suggest some content in a section needs to be moved?--MeUser42 (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Looking at the article again, I think it might have been an exaggeration to call the content "well-sourced". It's not really my subject area, so I'll leave you to work out which parts you can use, which would be better off in a different article, and which parts should be deleted. (Remember that it is perfectly ok to challenge and remove unsourced or poorly-sourced material per Wikipedia:Verifiability.) Maybe you could ask at WikiProject Libertarianism for some recommendations? I was really asking because I wasn't sure what your intentions were - removing lots of material from an article could look like vandalism to someone who didn't check that it had been moved somewhere else. Also, it is actually a requirement to list the source article when you split a page - have a look at our essay on copying within Wikipedia for more details. Next time, it would really be a good idea to leave a descriptive edit summary. :) As for the template, sounds like you might be talking about {{split section}}, but if not, you can see a list of all the templates for sections at Wikipedia:Template messages/Section. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've put some templates on the talk pages of both articles showing when the splits took place, so that should take care of the requirements for copying within Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what was relevant I incorporated, the rest is indeed not sourced and I deleted it for now. Thank you very much for placing the templates!--MeUser42 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey meuser! I was looking at the article, like you asked, and I noted you have good sources, although I would like to see a couple in the first section or two. Good objectivity, and I like the facts presented. It probably could be elaborated on more, but I'm not entirely familiar with this subject. When im on my computer(I'm on my phone atm) I will do some research. About the table, I don't remember exactly were, but there is a page listing the wiki markup for the different tables. Again, I'll try to find it on the computer. Good luck! Oh, If some of it is orignal research, as long as you source it, I think it's fine. Irrelevancy is kinda frowned upon, but if it clarifies the article, it's often overlooked to some extent. Libertarians Will Rule (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LWR, thank you very much for your feedback, offer to help and kind words! I will have to think about the related approaches section, its good stuff, but as said, only somewhat relevant. Again, thank you for taking the time, any further feedback is always appreciated.--MeUser42 (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I read your post slghtly wrong. I Still don't know the template, but you meant to have the content reviewed, not just re-checked and sourced.. Sorry about that. Either way, I'm gonna take a little time to look for those templates tomorrow. You're welcome, and thank you for asking me! :) Libertarians Will Rule (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MeUser42. You have new messages at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions.
Message added 02:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

jonkerz ♠talk 02:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi again! I noticed on your user page that you are seeking adoption. While I have never adopted anyone, I would gladly give it a try and adopt you. I have been active on Wikipedia for about 2 years and edit in many different areas. Are you interested in Austrian School of economics and libertarianism? I am :) The second article I created was Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. Just give me a shout and I will formally adopt you, best wishes, jonkerz ♠talk 02:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonkerz, thank you very much for the offer to help per my "adoption" request. Any such help I greatly appreciate.--MeUser42 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great ;) I'm not sure how this adoption thing is usually done, but I think a good way is if I take a look at your contributions once in a while and make sure your edits are following the content and style guidelines and so on. You should not take any offence if I change anything you've done; it is just a part of the learning process. I'll try to leave a descriptive edit summary with links to guidelines if needed, but always feel free to contact me by writing here on your own user page or on my user page if you have any questions. Of course, you can still ask for help on any of the help pages (such as Wikipedia:Help desk) or noticeboards (such as Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard).
You seem to already have a firm grip on editing, but there is one guideline you need to know of to become an experienced editor in no time; it is: be bold! jonkerz ♠talk 03:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. :) I take no offense at any change or feedback. Thanks for the tip. --MeUser42 (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonkerz, if you need help starting as an adopter, User:Banaticus is a good guy to get help from.Libertarians Will Rule (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip. Advice taken and message posted :) jonkerz ♠talk 20:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First update!

Hey MeUser42, I like what you have done to Argumentation ethics. So far, all my changes of your edits have been small changes, nothing to worry about, and I've no complaints. Only one question: are these two supposed to be a notice to other editors about redirects? Because 1. they have no real effect and, 2. this tool is much better for listing redirects. You can find it by clicking "What links here"-->"Show redirects only" in the toolbox.

That's all for now, cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 20:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As far as I can see I don't think I've put them in... Thanks for the link to the tool.--MeUser42 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You did in December, here is the proof :) jonkerz ♠talk 07:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh.. I see. Thanks!--MeUser42 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Hermann Hoppe

You are right that Hoppe has had quite an extensive impact on austrian economics and anarcho-capitalism. Not all libertarians are big on austrian economics or anarcho-capitalism.Abel (talk) 20:36, 27 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.

Homestead principle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Cone, Hungarian, Ideas, Subjective and Product
Hans-Hermann Hoppe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Libertarian, State and David Gordon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priority scale

Thank you for adding the priority scale to the WikiProject Libertarianism page. Before making any assessments, I now look at that article importance scheme. I am sure that it is already improving my decision making.Abel (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:)--MeUser42 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How you doing?

Hey brah. havent seenyou in a while. wondering whats up. Libertarians Will Rule (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum Wage

I reverted your unsubstantiated claim that, for better or worse, the American Economics Association needs to be characterized as 'left leaning' for its views to have any validity. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing populism

Hello, and thanks for editing. In right-wing populism, you deleted several whole sections, with edit summaries indicating that you didn't like the references given. It's much better to tag the section with "refimprove", and find better sources, than to just delete the section. You did post a few hours ago on the talk page that you weren't happy with perceived bias on the page, but when you make substantial changes, it's a good idea to wait a little while for discussion to move toward consensus, rather than just go ahead and delete whole sections like that. I'd be happy to help you improve the country sections, and add better references, if you're interested. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lone boatman, I removed the poorly reffed and especially the unreffed claims because I challenged them. --MeUser42 (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing populism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Right-wing populism. 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. TFD (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear... :-) I think you haven't noticed the actual content of the edits... --MeUser42 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Peltzman

If you think he deserves his own article then by all means create one, but don't just remove a redirect and leave the resulting page blank, it seems a bit pointless. :-) --wintonian talk 02:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that links are not red, which create a false impression. --MeUser42 (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem

That article is under a 1RR restriction. See the big banner at the top of the talk page. I suggest you self-revert before someone reports you at Arbitration Enforcement. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NMMNG! Thank you for your comment. To my understanding the 1RR rule allows 1 revert. Furthermore, your revert did not provide a reason, and reverts need to provide a reason. Please in the future make sure you provide a reason when reverting. There is no rule that any change in the article should be first discussed, so "take it to the talk page" is not a reason. --MeUser42 (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is under current discussion on the talk page, as you're aware since you commented there. I restored the status-quo wording. I suggest you have a look at the archives at WP:AE where you'll see similar cases have resulted in sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The change I made has no bearing on the dispute, as you surely see. Noting that the sentence is under dispute does not change the meaning of the 1RR which, to my understanding, allows for 1 rvt (something you havn't contested). Furthermore, if you wish to rvt a change- you need to provide a reason which could then be discussed, this is how we do it. --MeUser42 (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, check out the AE archives. You edited a section of the article that is under discussion, and then continued to edit war your version after it was objected to and reverted. I think I have explained the issue here quite clearly. Please self-revert or I will seek admin intervention. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your inability to plainly explain the violation you think happened (just sending to "check the AR archives" and "see your right" instead), your mischaracterization of my single rvt as an "edit war", and your continued refusal to explain your own revert (which I asked for in good faith as is evident here) does not allow me, or any reasonable good faith editor, to recognize any violation. Such threats might also be construed as bulling on your part. All the best. --MeUser42 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem mediation

Hi! You've been named as a party in this mediation due to your input on the talk page. Could you indicate on the mediation request page, if you're OK for the mediation to proceed? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK --MeUser42 (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:10, 13 January 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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MeUser42. 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 2018 election voter message

Hello, MeUser42. 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]

Important Notice

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.

Doug Weller talk 10:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Describing antifa as far left and ignoring the talk page discussion

Please don't do that again. Besides the fact that the article itself doesn't describe it as far-left and the lead is meant to summarise the article, there's a talk page discussion about how to describe it and a faq question at the top about the term. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Argumentation ethics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Argumentation ethics 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/Argumentation ethics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 19:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]