Hello, Byelf2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Mushroom (Talk) 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be such a humorless drone. We can keep the affiliation section in the arrticle but lets put his affiliation as himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.115.120 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You stupid cunt, stop changing it.130.166.115.120 (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a Move button at the top of every page. This allows you to move one article to another name. So before the other article had been created, we could have moved the previous named article to the new name, but now we'll have to just get one of them deleted. In the future, please discuss on the talk page (in this case, the talk page of the List of Episodes page, since not everyone watches the individual episodes) and wait for input from other editors before making extreme moves like creating a new page when it might be possible to just rename the old one. Thanks! Nique talk

Please sign your talk page comments. It's easy to do, and it lets others know who said what on the page. Thanks! Nique talk 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that writing a summary based on the manga is a bad idea. There are significant differences in plot detail between the anime and the manga from what I can tell. The major events are all the same, but look at how fast the last couple of episodes have been - they are skipping over a lot of dialogue. The events surrounding the Shinigami who came to get back his notebook were also very different (ep 29 I think). etc etc. --Darkbane 03:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must have misunderstood then. Sorry. The edit was extensive, but in the end, you weren't adding anything new were you. ^_^ --Darkbane 11:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. --EEMIV (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your recent deletion of the section on The Matrix page and would be grateful if you would see my rationale at the talk page. "Shameless promotion" or not, Wikipedia invariably helps to promote new fim releases. The interests of promotion should not by themselves disqualify the subsection in question.Rachel0898 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please base your contributions on reliable, published sources. An pseudonymous blog doesn't count. http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/weebies/weebies7.html See WP:V.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there--could I ask that you please stop feeding the IP troll, as it is only encouraging him and not accomplishing anything useful. Also please remember that Talk pages are not general discussion forums. Lastly, could I ask you to indent your responses per WP:INDENT? It will make them easier to keep track of. Thanks. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edits to the lead section of Dark City (1998 film) which substantially changed the factual accuracy of the history of the film, failing to note the stated difference between the mixed reviews it received during its initial release and the positive reviews it received much later. It appears you did not even read the subsequent paragraph. Please feel free to use the talk page to explain why your edit should be reinstated, and make sure to cite a reliable source in your defense. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had a contentious history (better now) and some of the material in here is the result of much discussion. I'm sure that you have some good ideas. And yes, the article does need a lot of work. But the approach of re-writing half of the article (including mass deletions) during one night and without prior discussion is too much by a mile. Please slow down and talk more. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you have good ideas. Take the most important change 1st, make a section in discussion 24 hr before your edit. some will challenge, others will support. my guess is most if not all of your edits will stand. apologies for the laborious process we have been reduced to using because of the edit warring here. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you can help-me ? Gurabidon (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what is the next edit you have in mind? maybe we could discuss a few ideas here. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i take back my earlier advice about you going slow and discussing the edits first, you seem to have a firm grasp of guidelines and will not be reverted again by me. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still say go slow, and am butting heads with you on a few items, but I'm happy that you are there. :-) North8000 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I'll consider myself a charter member. WP:GNOME tasks are enjoyable for me, so I'll do the noble Nobel lobeling (labeling). --S. Rich (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Byelf, this edit [1] is inappropriate. You must AGF everyone who wishes to put in their two bits to improve the project, even if they are not members. So even if the notation you added is not a standard warning template, posting it is close to template abuse.--S. Rich (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fear the Boom and Bust has been nominated for speedy deletion. I invite you to make comment on its' talk page.--S. Rich (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks. 06:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in violation of WP:CANVASS? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO: "However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate." I'm not trying to influence a discussion. "Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand." "Excessive" is incredibly vague. Also, each user I notified has posted on their user page that they are a capitalist/classical liberal/adherent of Austrian School. Finally, I'm done with notifications--there is no one else who has user page info that makes me think they would be interested.

OK, just curious. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for invite me,but I'm a Chinese,I'm afraid I can't contribute or improve a artice for English Wikipedia,but I already and still will translate Capitalism artice into Chinese Wikipedia.Free will (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

The idea with these categories is that if it is already within a category tree, then there is no need to duplicate it. I.e if it's in category Category:Existentialists, then it is not necessary to also have it in Category:Philosophers because "Existentialists" are within "philosophers". You just use the most specific category that applies.

I wonder what you think about including this WikiProject under the Liberalism task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Political culture. The scope of that task force is liberalism in the original sense, meaning both classical liberalism (Republicans, conservatives, etc), and social liberalism (Democrats, Liberals, etc.).Greg Bard (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. I have deleted the particular material IAW WP guidelines. Your comments were directed towards the other editor and did not address the content of the article. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, ALL CAPS does not improve any discussion.--S. Rich (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Byelf, seeking to defend the AS on the Project talk page is simply spinning wheels. Hit the WP:CLOSE button and life will be more enjoyable. ;-) --S. Rich (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your recent removal of see also links from the Economic secession article. It probably does have too many links, but let's establish some criteria in the talk page first. KLP (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I agree with yer suggestion. However, I still feel that beginning of the article doesn't give the right essence of endogenous growth theory. I'm writing under India education programme, and we are getting grades for editing the articles. I'm new to Wikipedia editing. This semesters I'm studying growth theory and working the articles on that basis. I will be obliged, if you will help me edit with yer suggestion. shikha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've reported you for edit warring at WP:AN3. As you know, edit warring is not acceptable behavior, and neither is tendentious editing and refusing to accept consensus when an argument is lost. If you will agree to stop edit warring, and abide by consensus, I will withdraw the complaint. --LK (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z10 Kuru (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just my 2 cents, but you did some serious citation overkill over on theft, seen here. mysterytrey talk 02:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that, as a courtesy to other users, could you make greater use of the preview button so as to reduce the number of edits that you make on a page? I like to page through the page edits, and it get a bit time consuming and tedious when, as in your last edit session,[2] there are 15 edit versions to page through, when 2 or 3 would have sufficed. It also fills up the article's history page,[3] making it harder to view the page histories. It's of course, completely up to you what edit style to use, but I (and I believe others) would appreciate this. I believe there is also a guideline somewhere about using the preview button in order to cut down on intermediate edits. regards, --LK (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with her suggestion, and perhaps more use of the edit summary box would be beneficial. mysterytrey talk 03:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Byelf self-reverting? If that is the case then more use of the preview feature is appropriate. On the other hand, since the AS article is subject to so many debates on the various edits, making particular edits in the piecemeal fashion allows for corrections/reversion as to the particular items. When there is a major change to the article in multiple areas, editors who disagree with portions of the big edit are less likely to do a single wholesale reversion. --S. Rich (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Really agree with this as well. Looking at Austrian business cycle theory, I'm seeing 7 edits in a 6-minute time span [4]. Really, it behooves you to try to treat your fellow editors with kindness. II | (t - c) 07:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Sixteen edits in under 30 minutes to Austrian School and four in under 10 minutes to Austrian business cycle theory on 22 April 2012? All this to change only a few words. See WP:TEST if you please, as a kind suggestion. Get the same amount of work done in one singular editing entry per page. Also see WP:TYWPK and WP:PREVIEW. Thank you so much for all your meticulous attention in your editing efforts. 72.129.81.5 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that you removed the Marxism and Anarchy sections from the Government article. I think we need to discuss changes that are this drastic before they are made. So, if you like, we can have a little talk on the talk page, and you can state your reasoning, and then maybe we can have some consensus and improve on the article. As it is, you provide no proof that your editing was correct, only your personal opinion. People have worked a long time to make that article what it is, and I feel that it's disrespectful for you to simply barge in there and destroy important parts of it. Feel free to contact me. E. Novachek (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits have been reverted and modified. (While I am tempted to move this new section to the bottom of the page, I will leave that decision to Byelf2007.)--S. Rich (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts are pretty excessive. Looks like you're well over the bright-line 3RR. BigK HeX (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you, except I didn't repeatedly make the same assertions instead of new arguments when deleting material after being referred to a link that shows responses to the assertions you made. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011

Stop you two. As I understand the process, a 3RR will trigger a bot. Really, there is no need to engage in WP:PA -- either way. I am going to make the same comment to BigK HeX momentarily.--S. Rich (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring at Austrian school. You have violated WP:3RR, I suggest that you self-revert your last edits. LK (talk)

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Austrian School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Robert Murphy

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Austrian School. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

Byelf, the admin who has blocked you is following WP:PRINCIPLE. Please don't be discouraged. S/he supports Capitalism, as you do. In providing the (involuntary) WP:WB the hope is that you will become a better (and happier) WP:PEDIAN.--S. Rich (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This probably just reflects my own limitations, but in processing the phrase "Anti-property anarchists hold that liberty is incompatible with state action based on a class struggle analysis of the state" I can't decide between "They think liberty is incompatible with state action because of their class struggle analysis" and "They think liberty is incompatible with any state action if that action is based on a class struggle analysis." Don't know if it's reasonable to ask for a rephrasing . . . -- Jo3sampl (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a discussion on the issue of mentioning anarcha-feminism under the "influenced" section of the infobox in the Emma Goldman article. As you have been involved in the issue, I'd like to mention that the discussion is ongoing; and invite your participation. — Life in General (Talk) 02:31, 3 January 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.

Austrian School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Murphy

Austrian business cycle theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Murphy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WEASEL. Words such as 'some' are to be avoided, except in cases where the attribution is given later in the text, this is not the case in the article you edited. Citations are not enough, the article should specifically address who has said what. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand was certainly more influential in the world at large than a philosopher like Nozick, but: (1) she had very little influence on analytic philosophers (expect through Nozick's substantial influence on anaylytic philosophers, (2) she never engaged with analytic philosophy or philosophers when she was alive nor would I think she would consider herself an analytic philosopher.

I think you'll find that whether or not Ayn Rand was philosopher is a contentious issue, but I am unaware of any claim or debate concerning her being an analytic philosopher in particular. - Atfyfe (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting well documented text that cites reliable sources from in favor of "has been variously defined by sources?" Have fun cleaning up the sloppy mess that is minarchism on your own.Abel (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You revert my work on minarchism, then you use my other work on minarchism on night watchman state. What? I don't get it. Abel (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Byelf2007,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Byelf2007. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Nobody Ent 23:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to a lot of the original stuff, but included some of the recent formatting changes. So much information was deleted without cause. First of all, Voluntaryism is not just the enacting of the NAP. While most voluntaryists follow the NAP, it is not required. As the name suggests, a voluntaryist supports a society with voluntary interactions only. They can follow the NAP or some other deontological or rules based ethical framework. Thus, the argument about NAP not requiring statelessness is invalid. For a society consisting of only voluntary interaction, the state cannot exist. Additionally, the copy/paste from the NAP wiki into this one is unnecessary and misleading for reasons already described. While there were few sources listed, it described voluntaryism pretty well before all the edits. When I get some free time, i'm sure I can find some sources to make you happy. sn5151 (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsol (talk • contribs) 13:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go read wp:lede. Think about it. Then read our article. Think about it. In particular think about the strong assertions in Vallentyne that are in contradiction to our article. Then read lede again. In particular, why is the first sentence of our article in contradiction with the article? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Libertarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freedom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I think you did the right thing in removing most of the links you just removed from {{Austrian School sidebar}}, but I wonder if Grove City College and perhaps even George Mason University should be added back. These schools, especially GCC, have contributed much to the cause of Austrian economics and, in my opinion, are definitely worth mentioning in the sidebar. But with that being said, I certainly do not want to cause offense by adding them back myself, especially since you are much more involved in improving Austrian articles than I am. I wonder if you might consider adding them back? --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. If anyone has a problem with 'em, they can remove 'em. byelf2007 (talk) 22 February 2012

Thanks for restoring. Sidebars are an abstruse editing topic for me, so I didn't want to mess with the edits. But I agree with Andrew -- GMU and GCC, as institutions teaching AS, should remain. Keeping them will be helpful to readers, which is what we want. --S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your editorial efforts. I'm not sure that you've done the right thing by pulling Austrian School economists out from under the label just because they haven't "contributed to Austrian School Theory". That seems a bit subjective and unencyclopedic. An economist can fully embrace Austrian theory without adding to its core tenets. For a parallel, look at the Keynesians, for example. Not every economist has published as much as J.K. Galbraith. A lot of well-known mid-level economists that haven't attempted to modify or expand on Keynes are still clearly in the Keynes camp. Just my 10 Rappen worth... Expatter (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're not under the label (see the list page). It's just that I don't want the sidebar to have a bunch of people who haven't contributed. The sidebar is supposed to be there for "important people". Otherwise, we'd have to add EVERY Austrian economist. I haven't done anything to the list page and I'm fine with that getting longer and longer. I suppose having "public figures" like Ron Paul would be OK, but we'd have to change the heading to "Notable Austrians".Byelf2007 (talk) 5 March 2012

When do people like Milton Friedman ever argue that free markets are "moral"? Never that I'm aware of. Think about it. They argue that free markets bring prosperity, etc. Big Large Monster (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "people like Milton Friedman". As for Friedman, if he makes arguments about how 'prosperity' is good, then he's arguing that committing actions likely to lead to 'prosperity' are moral vs. those that aren't likely. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 March 2012

Friedman is a consequentialist. Consequentialist libertarians don't argue that prosperity is good, but that economic liberty leads to prosperity and hope that you like prosperity as much as they do. Big Large Monster (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Consequentialist libertarians don't argue that prosperity is good"

"hope that you like prosperity as much as they do"

I really don't understand how you don't see this as a contradiction. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 March 2012

Having mere personal taste for something and saying that something is good in itself are two different things. I like chocolate ice cream, but I don't assert that chocolate ice cream is good in itself or moral. It's just something I prefer. Find just one incidence of a consequentialist libertarian arguing that that fundamental consequences they're aiming for are good or moral. You won't able to do it. All they do is argue that liberty leads to prosperity or happiness.. Big Large Monster (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most consequentialist libertarians argue that the having good consequences is moral. Few say "I like prosperity and you should also like the way I like chocolate and you should also." You can read their work. There's really nothing else I can think of to say with respect to this issue. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 March 2012

You're not understanding what I'm saying. They don't SAY they like prosperity, period. That's just a given that they like it, otherwise they wouldn't be arguing for things that lead to that. And they certainly don't argue that prosperity is MORAL. They argue for FREE MARKETS, because that say that leads to prosperity/happiness. They don't ARGUE that the final goal is good/moral or even likeable. They argue that X works or doesn't work. See "Freedom: What's RIght vs. What works" http://www.libertyunbound.com/sites/files/printarchive/Liberty_Magazine_January_2005.pdf Big Large Monster (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get it: You're saying that someone could be neither a deontological libertarian nor a consequentialist libertarian, a deontological libertarian but not a consequentialist one, a consequentialist one but not a deontological one, or both. The deontological libertarian says "X is good regardless of whether or not it leads to Y" and the consequentialist libertarian says "X leads to Y". Correct?

This is an interesting assessment of the differences (as far as I'm aware, it's a relatively unpopular one), but I see problems with it. Granted, I agree that the basic idea of what you're saying is true, but I don't accept the terminology you're using. The term we're talking about here is "consequentialism" and that term is most commonly used as a moral position that explains how to evaluate the goodness/badness of an action. Therefore, consequentialism (as it's commonly used) IS a moral position. Someone who says "X leads to Y, but I don't necessarily want Y" wouldn't be called a "consequentialist Xer", because it implies that they want X because they want Y and they know they have to have X to get Y. Also, the term "libertarian" is used to refer to groups of political philosophies that advocate (basically) free markets. So, if you say "I'm a consequentialist libertarian" then you're also saying "I'm a libertarian" which means you're saying "I advocate libertarianism--it's good". I think what you're refering to here are "libertarianism" and "Libertarianism leads to prosperity-ism".

Do you understand my confusion?

I'll also add that I don't think the way the whole 'deontological-consequentialist distinction' that usually gets presented makes any sense. Since you also seem to be taking issue with it, I think we can pick each others brains and synthesize a good critique of it.

I regard the so-called "deontological libertarians" as, in fact, "consequentialist libertarians" (which is a redundant term in my opinion, so they're just 'libertarians') and the so-called "consequentialist libertarians" as "utilitarian/nihlists who advocate free markets". There can't be any such thing as a deontological libertarian and I've never read/heard of one. Deontology basically means "Murdering an innocent person is wrong no matter what the context is, even if you have to murder a person to keep the entire world from blowing up". Obviously, this is nonsense. Since any plausible strand of libertarianism is fundamentally grounded in something to the effect of "people have inalienable rights to self-ownership and non-aggressive action", then there can't be any such thing as deontological libertarianism. By the same token the "well, it just works, man" crowd is just advocating [material] prosperity as an isolated concrete, which would mean that if fascism led to greater prosperity, then would advocate that, which would most certainly render them non-libertarians. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 March 2012

Yes consequentialism is an ethical philosophy. But arguments over the rightness or wrongness of the end-goal of the consequentialist is only discussed in meta-ethics, not in applied ethics - not in the writings of consequentialist libertarians. They just say X works to achieve Y and that's why we should do X (while in the back of their mind expecting/hoping that the readers want Y to happen too - if not, they're out of luck). But, yes, a consequentialist who thought that fascism led to the most happiness or prosperity would support fascism. What differentiates a consequentialist LIBERTARIAN from other consequentialists is that his thinking has led him to the conclusion that a very large amount of liberty in society leads to the greatest amount of happiness or prosperity. So they are indeed libertarians, because they support a very large amount of liberty which is all it takes to be defined as a libertarian. But whether something is initiation of force or not, they don't care, unlike deontologists. That's why some consequentialist libertarians will go so far as supporting things like some basic public assistance for the poor, in addition to free markets. Big Large Monster (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your edit to Cash for Gold (South Park), Stan does indeed reply "Cool, I-I won't wear it anymore." after Marvin tells him the bolo tie is "gay as fuck". I saw this repeatedly when the episode aired, and confirmed it today at South Park Studios. Just out of curiosity, do you live outside the United States? Is it possible that it was edited for time where you live? In any event, if you go to the episode's video page at South Park Studios, you can confirm this. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember this occurring when I saw the episode. I'll be sure to double check this sort of thing next time. Thank you for correcting the error. Byelf2007 (talk) 25 March 2012

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.7.141 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

You said to me this in my talk page "I'm wondering if you're interested in making (or helping me make or expanding once I make it) a "criticisms of social anarchism" article. I suppose this would mostly consist of ancap writers."

I happen to be very sympathetic with and know a lot about individualist anarchism (Renzo Novatore, Emile Armand, Max Stirner, Albert Libertad, James L. Walker, etc), the main anarchist position which is said to be "opposed" to or which is contrasted with social anarchism. From what you speak it seems to me you are not aware of the fact that individualist anarchism is also an anti-capitalist position incluiding US individualists anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker and Josiah Warren. Even if we were to accept the bizarre small recent US centered phenomenon which decided to call itself "anarcho"-capitalism as an anarchist position, you will have to take into account that the debates between self described "social anarchists" and individualist anarchists started in the late XIX century and also that some individualist anarchists such as insurrectionary anarchists are anarcho-communists and that some famous and influential anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists such as Emma Goldman and Rudolf Rocker were very sympathetic with individualist philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner and also did not care about or even rejected this word "social anarchism".

It seems you will have to call your article "criticisms of "anarcho-capitalism" of social anarchism" but I am not sure wikipedia will allow that since this could very well be accused of using wikipedia for promotion of a particular point of view. If you want to call this article "criticisms of social anarchism" you have to talk about things like the debates between Benjamin Tucker and Peter Kropotkin, the rejection of individualist anarchists of large federations such as those proposed by platformism and synthesis anarchism, the criticisms of anarcho-syndicalism and syndicalism in general (which also came from anarcho-communist sectors by the way), and other important, old and bigger debates dealt with in major anarchist works on history and essays by prominent historical anarchists. So the weight of history and complex conceptual issues stand in your way.--Eduen (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I will take this into account.

I'm thinking that I'll start the article as a very short/basic thing (because I'm not too familiar with the 'social anarchism v. non-social anarchism' debate). From there, your help would be appreciated (even if it isn't editing, but just more feedback like this). My familiarity with debates involving anarchism pre-1950s is currently pretty sketchy. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 April 2012

The first sentence of an article has to pin down the topic as much as you possibly can. It's important to consider a child who has never, ever heard of capitalism, and doesn't care so very much whether it's completely 100% agreed or not, they just want to know whether capitalism is a fish, a way of jumping or an economic system. By saying that capitalism has no agreed definition, you are giving 100% true, and 100% important information, but for that kid, at the point they read it, it's not useful.

In fact it's probably negatively useful to that hypothetical kid, because you're kind of half implying that the people that wrote the article don't even know what they're talking about, or at least that would be a semi-reasonable suspicion.

For all I know, you're a world expert on this, and that point is the most important point of all. But that doesn't matter because the first sentence has to be completely understandable by anyone, and if that is the most important point, the naive reader will never be able to understand it straightaway, taken out of context. You need the context first.

Anyway, that's why I reverted your edit. Sorry!Teapeat (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I'm not sure if I agree with you or not. Either way, I think you should put your comments (or similar) on the talk page for future reference. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 April 2012

Hi. You were editing out a number of red links recently on more than a few pages. This was just in the past day and week or so. I'm asking you to revert them, but only if you decide to. Please refer to either WP:Link#Red_links or WP:REDLINK before making your decision. You're on your own on this one. Thank you so very much, for all your meticulous work on those multiple pages.

On a side note, please note that using the WP:SANDBOX or the page at WP:TEST can help to avoid a series of multiple edits to the actual page you're working on. That way you can do a series of edits to your actual page, all in one round. You can paste your work from the sandbox into your actual page to be edited! Thank you for your ardent editing, it is so very astute. 72.129.81.5 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed the red link you removed here which referred to View Application was without a stub. I have submitted a stub for review here. If you please, feel free to revert your deletion of the link pending approval of the Wikipedia topic. If you feel the compunction, you may revert in accordance with WP: RED LINK. A study in 2008 shows that red links help Wikipedia to grow. Thanks! 72.129.81.5 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

I reverted your last edit to Libertarianism because I feel that we should call anarchistic schools, well, anarchistic schools, rather than anarchist schools. Also, you made libertarian socialists change to libertarians socialist later on in the article. If you like, we can talk about it on the Libertarianism talk page. KLP (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Outline of libertarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for putting the information in the correct place. Appreciate the help. Enjoy the day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liza Freeman (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We agree there 100% but I think there was a mixup. We both said the same thing and I think we both intended to make the same revert and that you accidentally reverted my revert. North8000 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. My bad. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 May 2012

My recent edit to postmodernism wasn't vandalism. I added a link to Family Guy to the "see also" section, as it is a very good example of postmodernism in popular culture. The Wookieepedian (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One-you'll need a reliable source. Two--Even if you get it, I'm not sure why we oughtta single out Family Guy (as I surmise that there are quite a few postmodern shows). I think it'd be better to link to a 'postmodernism in art' or 'list of postmodernist TV shows' article. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 May 2012

Mutualism is both an economic theory and an anarchist school of thought. The writings of mutualists such as Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker and the contemporary Kevin Carson tend to emphasize economic issues even though they might deal at times with state politics and political philosophy.--Eduen (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on dramatically improving so many controversial pages. Austrian School and Libertarianism in particular have been subject to vicious sectarian fights. You seem to have ridden over the top of the infighting and with serene control ripped out the rubbish and replaced it with genuinely neutral content. No mean feat. Respect. - Mommy2012 (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I already thanked you for this, but either way, thanks! Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

Check out Amanski's edits. His first ever edit is to successfully change a template. His other edits have been about AS, and pushing a particular POV. Looks like a duck to me. LK (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm confused (I'm still don't know much about Wikipedia rules/lingo, which I really need to work on). What exactly is the problem here? To which edits of yours is this relevant? What is a "duck"? Why is being a duck bad? Byelf2007 (talk) 29 May 2012

I guess you don't know the history. We have a long-time disruptive editor Karmaisking who was banned years ago but persists in creating socks to edit AS and libertarian articles. His socks usually start off as reasonable but, unless nipped in the bud, soon degenerate to disruptive edit warring, naming calling and insults. You can read about him on his long term abuse page. LK (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Byelf2007 (talk) 31 May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Will to power, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what particular part of the tagged paragraph you would like a citation on? The information is not controversial & is well established. Thanks. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want citations for the last two sentences--well established or no, we need citations. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 June 2012

It's not policy to cite well established facts. If it were the encyclopedia would become cluttered with distracting digressive footnotes. Are you doubting the existence of The Student's Hume? You can find it online here. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the neoliberalism article. That was a daunting cleanup job. Groupuscule (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I like the amount and quality of work that you do, and that you do it for quality (not POV) and note that sometimes you do a lot really fast without getting/ accepting much input. Just explaining on the one item where I reverted and you half reverted me. The article includes a lot of trivia and selected primary source data. At an impasse in trying to fix it. The USA today analysis is nothing to write home about but was OK with both "sides", and the start of trying to get some more neutral analysis type material in there. I plan to put more of it back in, although deprecated from being a section to a paragraph like you did is cool with me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback/explanation. For what it's worth, I've seen that when people take stuff to talk first, they're often ignored and maybe just get a "OK cool" (unless it's for a page like "libertarianism"), and I rarely get a "whoa, that was a lot of changes" reaction, so that's why I tend to edit the way I do (and I'm also very much an "immediatist"), but I've gotten this reaction enough times that I should use talk first more often.

I also appreciate your edits as well. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 June 2012

Cool. BTW, silence or "OK cool" when you suggest a change is a compliment or a thumbs-up. IMHO your way works well 95% of the time, because you do good, neutral work. North8000 (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing my recent update. I'm still new when it comes to editing in here and the prose read much more fluent after your alterations. I'm still trying to clean up some bias I'm finding in the New Deal and Great Depression articles so you're welcome to correct me over there too. Thanks, buddy! Leobons (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

Hi. When you recently edited Monopoly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enterprise (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) 13:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Causes of the Great Depression, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about me not being a newbie. You're also correct that some of my recent editing was disruptive. I apologize. What I should have done is eliminated the content I was most adamant about eliminating (like the suggestion that ABCT existed in the 1920s), and taken my case about the rest to talk. I will do this in the future. Thank you for expressing your concern and your contributions to the site. Byelf2007 (talk) July 15 2012

Two weeks later... after you said "I will [learn to] take my case to the talk page in the future" assuring Pass3456's concern of an editing pattern that: "continue[s] to blank out or remove portions of page content" you still seem less than wisely tolerant about the creations here. — CpiralCpiral 21:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Byelf, I reverted your change for now, because it was a major change, and history usually comes first on WP. On the other hand, your version does look better, and is probably more readable. On the third hand, it would need a fair bit of rewriting to preserve the flow if we were to swap the sections. So I'm unsure. I've started a discussion here on the talk page if you'd like to chime in. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already have. :) Byelf2007 (talk) July 16 2012

Thanks for the explanation on the change; I wasn't aware of the specific convention on articles about philosophers, and was thinking more of articles about authors more generally. No objections from me now! Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were correct there, extrapolating from punctuation and numbers, but it turns out that WP:Alphabetical order follows Unicode numerical order in which Greek symbols come at the very end. Jojalozzo 22:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 August 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Austrian School. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Byelf2007. I am only expressing concern, as I do regarding a number of editors' edits, so try not to take the following too personally: I've noticed that you sometimes remove sourced material because you consider it "poorly written and not consistent with [W]ikipedia style, quotes are made without an explanation of where they're from, etc.," as you did here. Part of why I'm addressing you is to state that I don't believe that we should remove things for those reasons, unless we have the intention to restore them once the issues concerning them are taken care of (such as taking the text to the talk page and asking others to see if they can fix up the information before restoration is implemented). Not to mention, a lot of good, even excellent, Wikipedia articles include quotes that are not attributed to a person in the Wikipedia article text. Sometimes, such attribution is not needed in the text. As long as the quotes are correctly supported by a (reliable) source or sources, the attribution is there. In cases where something is poorly written, instead of removing sourced material, if it's reliably sourced that is, you should address the poorly written material by either tagging it with the appropriate "Wiki standards" tag and/or by correcting the wording and formatting yourself. Deletion is not a solution, except for in cases where things are unsourced, poorly sourced, irrelevant or too non-neutral to be fixed by changing the wording. Yes, the WP:BURDEN lies with the editor who added or restored the material, but that mostly has to do with sourcing. Even in cases where things are unsourced, it is preferable that you search for a source instead of tagging it as unsourced or deleting it. I know that you do tag things instead of deleting sometimes, but I noticed an edit of yours where you tagged something in a lead as needing a citation...even though the matter is pretty WP:Common sense. And don't forget that, per WP:LEAD, things that are not sourced in the lead may be sourced lower in the article or are such common sense matters that a source in the lead for it/them isn't required. And here, I fail to see how this is "opinion written as fact."

Another criticism I have of yours is your tendency to change the outline of article content just because you feel that it is a "more logical order/consistent with other articles," like you did here, here, here and elsewhere. You often state "we need to know what it is before we go into etymology/history." I can understand the History section sometimes coming later on, such as in the case of HIV/AIDS, but I don't see how it makes more sense to have an etymology/definitions section come second, smack-dab in the middle or at the end of an article. Etymology often is "telling us what it is first." A lot of Wikipedia articles have such sections come first. And it's generally better that you discuss such changes before making them. Articles don't have to follow the format you favor. The Big Bang article, for example, is a WP:FA article, which means that it was fine before you moved the History section and its subsections. Articles don't have to be designed exactly the way other articles are. Some articles have their own guidelines to follow, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles, or whatever else. But also notice for "Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles" where it says, "Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors." So, basically, the formats listed there are not the best for every type of article they apply to. Sometimes, deviations from those guidelines are the best. In general, there is no standard formatting other than WP:Manual of Style. So I'm not sure why you are changing all these articles to a format you clearly prefer...other than that personal preference. Some people are likely to revert you. Hopefully, you will take what I've stated into consideration and don't immediately revert back...if revert at all. 109.123.100.150 (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me/explaining to me your concern. Any point I don't address here is something I wholly agree with, and I'm glad you brought them to my attention.

With respect to removing content that's poorly written--when I come across material that is poorly written, I basically have 3 options. (1) I make no/small changes. This is unacceptable to me for obvious reasons. (2) I fix it. I generally don't like to do that because it's a lot of work and I prefer having no poor content on this site, even if the topic of the poor content is important to the article. (3) I delete it, and if someone cares enough about the relevant content to monitor/watchlist the page and make a respectable version of the content, then there's nothing stopping them from doing that.

"unless we have the intention to restore them once the issues concerning them are taken care of" But I don't necessarily care about having the content in. If an article needs to have content on X topic, I'd much rather there be nothing there than what I believe to be a total mess. If someone were to defend the content, then I would explain in detail my issues with it. Again, if someone wants to defend the content, they can. If they don't, then they don't, and all we've lost is content that apparently no one really cares all that much about to begin with anyway.

"a lot of good, even excellent... --> ...the attribution is there." I'm not sure if this applies to the content in question, but I appreciate the info.

With respect to the issue of me deleting stuff being bad, again, if someone wants the content back in, they can revert/discuss. They could just say "Your objections are vague" (which would be true) and I'd be forced to explain myself in better detail. Otherwise, yes, I understand that it would be better that I re-write the topic as long as it's relevant, but in the case of 2 block paragraphs with out-of-context quotes and poor prose, the material would not be worthy of wikipedia. Just because content is correctly sourced and relevant doesn't mean it automatically merits inclusion. I'm not aware of any "Even if the prose is terrible, don't delete it" rule (although I know this may be the case, and, if so, I will not do this sort of thing again).

"Etymology often is 'telling us what it is first.' " No, it's etymology. That's not *what* it is, it's the *how it got it's name".

"A lot of Wikipedia articles have such sections come first." I mention that whenever I'm making a change that conforms to a general pattern I've seen on the site, but I don't try to use it as a justification for the edit. In other words, I'll put it in an edit summary in case someone is incredulous about the edit, but when someone objects, I don't try to use "It's common" as an argument for it, and I'm pretty sure there's an official rule somewhere about how it's not a valid argument. I know there's probably no rule about how etymology should go before an explanation of the article subject, but if this makes sense to me, then I'll do it and justify it, which is fine--the site has always had a "we have few firm rules and we're kinda making this up as we go along".

" 'opinion written as fact.' " Because it said 'B is true' instead of 'according to A, B is true'.

"I don't see how it makes more sense to have an etymology/definitions section come second, smack-dab in the middle or at the end of an article." It depends on the article. My basic thinking is the order of an article should be as follows:

1- lede/overview/definitional issues 2- explanation of what it is 3- etymology/history 4- everything else

Some articles have a lot of "explanation" sections where it would be weird to try to combine them all into one thing, so sometimes etmology/history comes right after the lede, and other times it's towards the end.

"Some people are likely to revert you." Sure. You're definitely not the first person to raise these types of concerns with me.

But here's the thing--the *vast* majority of the time when I do this sort of stuff (semi important to very important edits), no one reverts/questions/objects, and, considering the level of contribution I make to this site (which is pretty significant), if I were to maintain this level of contribution, it would therefore take quite a bit of time for me to go to the talk page every time I wanted a semi big edit and ask what people thought about my idea (and then I'd have to deal with keeping track of these proposed edits, which could add up quickly, because I make semi big edits often). And if someone reverts, then, no big deal, it's just a click of a button and then I go and discuss it. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 August 2012

Byelf2007, I agree with the IP above. These things are only "more consistent with other articles" because you are changing a lot of these articles to fit your point of view regarding layout. I agree with the IP that etymology "often is telling us what it is first." In addition to telling us how it got its name, it tells what it meant or still means under one or more names. See the Etymology article. Not to mention, it's often combined with definitions as "Etymology and definitions." The Etymology section is placed first in the majority of Wikipedia articles, and you are the only one going around changing this standard practice, from what I have seen. I see no reason that it should come in the middle of an article, disrupting the article flow, or last, except for in the cases of medical articles, for example (and there are other examples, but most cases are not topics where Etymology should not come first). 134.255.247.88 (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding deleting stuff that "apparently no one really cares all that much about to begin with anyway," you have to remember that a lot of people don't know how Wikipedia generally works when they add content; I'm willing to bet that most long-term editors here added unsourced content the first time that they edited Wikipedia. And some topics are things people care a lot about, but no one has gotten around to fixing the article about that particular topic up. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your changes to New Atheism, while reasonable, are incorrectly marked as WP:MINOR. Please be more careful about this in the future. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Thank you. Byelf2007 (talk) 20 August 2012

No problem. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know that an article we recently worked on is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivism's rejection of the primitive.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for all the hard an tedious work! MeUser42 (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

[Here] you have reverted as "vandalism" one edit that seems to be perfectly legitimate. If you think I am wrong, can you please explain that in the article's Talk Page, please? Regards, Ninguém (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what I was thinking. I don't remember making the edit either. :| Byelf2007 (talk) 1 September 2012

Thank you! Ninguém (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the heading sentence of the Libertarianism article, I wanted you to know that the matter has already been raised on the talk page. And technically, we were not changing it, we were changing it back. Its current, overly vague incarnation is new. I've already made my case on Talk:Libertarianism. So far, I've been met with agreement. If you think the current initial sentences of the article are better, by all means tell us why. --Adam9389 (talk) 20:53, 04 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Byelf2007! Just wanted to say that I reverted a few – although not all – of your recent edits to the Michel Foucault. It's great that you've taken an interest on that page, and made some improvements, but your alterations to the "private life" section, bu cutting it up and pasting it elsewhere, led to sections duplicating information and other issues. As you can see, it's a page that I've been very active in improving lately, and have developed a structure to the page that I'd really rather like to maintain, for now at least. Just wanted to let you know why I reverted these edits; hope there's no hard feelings. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's fine. I'll look over the page again. Maybe we can cobble together a synthesis/compromise, but I'm not particularly attached to the relevant edits. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 September 2012

You reverted my edits as vandalism concerning the federal reserve. It has been proven and admitted that the federal reserve is not a government agency or any other government office. Why is this information considered vandalism in this article and why is it removed and censored from the readers of wikipedia? The federal reserve is an independent privately run (non-government) banking organization. Are you saying that it is a government department, organization, agency, etc?

The line between "government-run" and "privately-run" is often ambiguous. The Fed is such a case. I'd say the best description of it is that it's government-run and benefits a very select group of people, and operates likes a corporation in many respects.

For what it's worth, I'm sympathetic to the "it's a business!" argument. I suggest you add content to the article along the lines of "Some critics argue that the Fed is not a government organization because..." Byelf2007 (talk) 12 September 2012

[[5]]

Hello, Libertarianism is usually mistaken with liberalism, so that above edit point, was to sort items in the way that makes it more easy for readers to understand the Libertarianism, Open Market is more popular AND more people (those have no information) can understand it faster. Anyway that was the point . KhabarNegar (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's cool, and I might support it, but I'm not sure if it's kosher w/ wikipedia policy, or, at least, if there's an precedent for this sort of thing. If you change it back, I probably won't object, but I recommend you justify the idea on talk first! :) Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2012

Responding to your edit comment, this revision adding marginalism is very much correct. Good thing you found that it was missing. --MeUser42 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thank you for being so familiar with Austrian theory. I rely on your expertise. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 September 2012

Are "Applied Ethics" and "Practical Ethics" the same? If they are, Practical Ethics should be a redirect to Applied Ethics and also we should have Practical Ethics (book)? am I right? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the "Practical ethics" page, it's a term some guy randomly made up which is supposed to be a subject that is "applied ethics" or is 'within it'. I'm not sure what else to say about this. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2012

I've reverted your edits to Sui generus. The edit summary was unhelpful to my understanding of your assertion. The sections you blanked Political science and Sociology can assumed to be notable, even if the content needed verification. Subtleties may come to light on the article discussion page. How about a warning template instead? — CpiralCpiral 21:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't see more citations soon, they're going--that's how the site works (regardless of their being obviously notable; there's no citations!). Byelf2007 (talk) 22 September 2012

Be bold, but use Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates (plus parent categories) and article talk page guidelines. Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 05:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Content regarding Israel was added, then deleted (by you), and now added again by another editor. Please join us on Talk:Murray Bookchin to figure out the right approach without edit warring. --Lquilter (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this revert here: [6]
I had a bunch of tabs open, and was trying to revert the most recent edits of FRB123 (confirmed sock of Karmaisking), and got the tabs mixed up, and so accidentally reverted you instead. Apologies. LK (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Byelf2007 (talk) 26 October 2012

Hello. I don't see that Hulsmann's article says that Caplan is inconsistent. Can you point out where he argues that? Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember writing that. The word 'inconsistent' didn't appear in that context in the article (that I can remember). However, that is, basically, his response, so I wrote the 'inconsistent thing'.

Here's an excerpt: "In this article, we will show that Caplan fails to identify the important differences between Austrian and neoclassical economics. Caplan’s errors seem all to be rooted in his failure to grasp that Austrian economics is a theory of action (praxeology) rather than some kind of applied psychology".

In other words, he's saying Caplan is inconsistent because he's attacking neoclassical instead of Austrian and applied phychology instead of praxeology.

Saying 'inconsistent' for the article is, in retrospect, a bit vague. Perhaps we should change it to include more detail? Byelf2007 (talk) 29 October 2012

Hulsmann is not a notable or expert figure to cite on this subject. There are so many better sources, and I think it really debases the article to dredge up a fringe character like Hulsmann to respond to Caplan, who is a recognized economist at a prestigious university. Rather than continuing to reinsert Hulsmann, please reconsider and if you are not convinced of his insignificance please seek consensus on talk. I will copy this thread onto the Austrian School talk page in case others are interested. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bylef2007, please see my comment on the article talk page. Thanks'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your cooperation noted and appreciated! Thank you'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message for you on talk there. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Consequentialist libertarianism, 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) 11:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder because it seems to be all three with you. I don't mean any offense, I really don't. I'm just trying to understand. As seen in the #Section blanking without discussion section above on your talk page, you blank out large portions of information because it is unsourced. But you also add unsourced material because you feel that an article is too bare without it, add back material with poor or rather medicore sources (depending on whether or not SparkNotes is considered poor or medicore sourcing for this material) while stating that the burden for finding better sources is on anyone wanting the material removed, and you also remove sourced material because you feel that it's "so obvious" (which I reverted because of what I relayed in this edit summary).

And regarding your layout, discussed in the #Your editing section above, a layout that some people find odd, you do indeed need to stop imposing that layout on articles. If it was as "consistent with other articles" as you claim, then you would not have been reverted on it at the Homosexuality article...with an editor wondering how it at all makes any sense. I'm in agreement with those who feel that it doesn't make much sense to have the etymology and history sections, but especially the etymology section, come so later on in an article. It's been mentioned to you that the main exception is medical articles. And that's because it seems far more important to start with "Signs and symptoms" as a section than to explain how the term for the topic came about. But in general, I know that I don't want to be reading an article and then it suddenly goes into a section that seemingly says, "Oh, and by the way, the word is derived from [fill in blank here]." Such a section seems completely out of place when formatted in articles the way that you've been formatting them. And it's not like people don't have the option of skipping these sections, so I seriously don't understand your mission to make all articles, with some exceptions, conform to this style. An IP above mentioned that he (or she) can be fine with the history section coming later on. I can as well, if such a placement is not too bad. But I agree that it almost always makes much more sense to have the etymology section come first. I additionally agree that etymology sections are telling us what the subject is in most cases, not just how it got its name and what it used to mean. And it especially makes sense to have the etymology and history sections come first in articles about a term.

The IP who first addressed you about such things relayed that he or she hopes that you will take such concerns into consideration. It doesn't seem that you've given them much consideration. So all I can do is also hope that you start being more careful with your editing and stop imposing your formatting preference on just about any article you come in contact with. A lot of these articles are indeed better off without these formatting changes, and some have WP:CONSENSUS to be that way, or achieved WP:GA or WP:FA status in those ways...which tells me and many others that such formatting is A-okay. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it and am not offended by it (I know I often screw up edits and I doubt it will be the last time).

I was aware of the format of medical articles and assumed this was how articles worked in general. Thank you for the clarification. This is (I think) the first time it's been explained to me, other than 'there are different formats which get used for different types of articles'). I am not indifferent to feedback; I just don't always agree with it.

I only place this burden on people if I think my sources are good enough--in other words, if they are good enough for this site, then 'it's not as good as other sources' doesn't cut it (I mention this to people because they'll often remove sources saying 'they aren't good enough because there are better ones out there' as opposed to arguing that the sources are unfit). And, yes, sparknotes isn't great, but I believe it meets the requirements of this site.

There are plenty of reasons why sourced material ought to be removed, so there isn't necessarily inconsistency in my edits because I put in content without sources and also remove sourced content, though there might be in various cases.

I only put in info that is unsourced if (a) we don't need one (like if it's a very very well known and very very uncontroversial thing and/or it's in the lede, particularly the first paragraph, where sourcing is de-emphasized) and/or (b) if I expert someone will come up with a source soon. I often will do that if someone on talk, while discussing a related/the same issue I address with my edit, says "I'll find a source" or "I know of a good source". I don't mind having good content in without a citation as long as I expect we'll get one soon, but sourced content might be inappropriate in an article for a variety of reasons.

I don't think 'inconsistency' is a big deal because the editors are changing their minds about how to do things as they progress as editors--it's more important to address which edits are bad and which are good. All the same, I have think about these issues you've indicated, and am doing my best to improve content and stay consistent, but I do that within the context of being a very active editor and an 'immediatist'--I care more about improving content than all my edits being consistent (over X period of time).

I definitely need to go over all the rules on this site so these issues don't crop up as often. The burden is certainly on me there. However, I like editing a lot, and I find learning the rules of this site to be tedious and difficult because (a) there are so many of them and (b) none of them are 'firm', and there are various tendencies whose popularity ebbs and flows over time. I will, however, work on doing better with conforming to site rules and being consistent in the future; I think I'm just about at the point where I understand the most important rules regarding editing, albeit mostly through these types of interactions. Byelf2007 (talk) 3 December 2012

Thanks for the detailed and considerate reply. Yeah, I certainly was not trying to offend you and rather wanted to know more about your editing rationale and, like you, am interested in helping Wikipedia articles.

For the type of formatting you've been implementing on articles, yeah, I've mostly seen that on medical articles. It works well for medical articles. It sometimes works for non-medical articles, but it hasn't often appeared that way for the articles that I've come across (whether formatted that way by you or someone else).

I understand what you mean about placing the burden on others. Point well-taken. If an editor wants to remove sourced material because of the sourcing, it should be up to him or her to replace the sources with better sources unless the sources don't pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. I've seen editors remove material simply because its based on WP:PRIMARY SOURCES and I don't think that's right, except for some cases. Medical articles are an example of where primary sources should hardly ever be tolerated. But primary sources are allowed if used appropriately. And rather than removing the text completely, the primary source(s) should be replaced by secondary sources if secondary sources for the information exists.

I agree that there are plenty of reasons why sourced (including reliably sourced) material ought to be removed, but I just didn't agree with that removal in the case I noted above. I don't fully understand you adding unsourced material. And this is because you are such a big proponent of removing unsourced material. Your letter a explanation makes a lot of sense, and the lead material is sourced in those cases because it's sourced lower in the article (WP:LEAD). But regarding your letter b explanation, I feel that, unless someone on the talk page has expressed that he or she will be adding the source(s), you should at least add a citation tag when you add that type of unsourced material (that's what some editors do).

I agree that inconsistency in editing is not a big deal and that it's more about the content being added, removed and/or edited. Likewise, I was pointing out to you that inconsistency in article formatting is not a big deal, unless it's violating some style guideline. But even some parts of style guidelines aren't deferred to because of consensus formed at an article. Although a good deal of what is in the WP:Manual of Style guideline is always deferred to, except for articles formatted by less experienced editors.

Thanks for being willing to discuss this and see that you may have been at fault in some cases, such as seemingly reconsidering continuing to change so many articles to the aforementioned style, and for considering to read up on more Wikipedia rules. Such reflection is how we learn. Some of the rules are firm, especially our policies. I need to read up on a lot more of the guidelines ane even essays too, so it's not like I see myself as above you. I am editing as an IP, after all, LOL. Not to take anything away from IP-editing, but registered accounts are given more editing tools/respect. Despite that, I'm not interested in registering with this site at this time. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the supplemental thoughts.

I think you should get registered! Byelf2007 (talk) 4 December 2012

Please stop edit warring at Austrian school. You have repeatedly violated WP:3RR, I suggest that you self-revert your last edits.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that you may be soliciting opinions from editors you might expect to agree with your views. If you were to do that, such behaviour would violate Wikipedia norms.

[7]

Thank you. '''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your removal of properly sourced Milton Friedman content. The Roger Garrison statement you reinserted does not conform to what he stated in the source. Also be warned that other editors may seek sanctions against you if you do not stop this and other edit warring on that article. Kindly revert your changes. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Roger Garrison argued that Friedman misinterpreted economic aggregates and how they related to the business cycles he reviewed." How does that 'not conform'? It's just Garrison's opinion of Friedman's analysis. Byelf2007 (talk) 18 December 2012

That is not Garrison's statement concerning Friedman's criticism. Please revert. I will not repeat my warning.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you referring to the "Friedman's empirical findings are broadly consistent with both Monetarist and Austrian views" ? Because, I want that out, also (I was gonna go to talk about it)--it's just that someone keeps insisting it gets kept, so I figured I'd keep it in for a little while.

If you're referring to "Roger Garrison argued that Friedman misinterpreted...", that is, in fact, what he says in source (unless the source got changed; I put the correct one in a long time ago). Byelf2007 (talk) 18 December 2012

I've just left a note on improving the business cycle exposition over at the talk page at Austrian School. It would be great if you have time and would care to do the honors of drafting a working version for the group to review and discuss there.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. You are quite correct about the issue. I will begin thinking about how to address it in the next couple of days. Byelf2007 (talk) 22 December 2012

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zero Dark Thirty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kill (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) 11:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings B. I see that you're back in the saddle now after holidays. Maybe for the New Year you would consider reviewing the Krugman matter on AS talk and see whether you would consider adding the disputed language at this time? Thanks. SPECIFICO 23:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Austrian school shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Among your policy violations on Austrian School are multiple violations of 3RR. Please take a breather. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Byeself, please don't make any more disputed changes to the page without gaining a solid consensus on talk. If you do so, you run the risk of being blocked (as does everyone in revert wars). Consider taking this to WP:DRN instead. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Austrian school shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I strongly suggest you undo the last three of your four reverts today on Austrian School. I took care of the first one for you. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello By. User Goethean has undone the remainder of the changes you did yesterday. Please do not continue to re-do them unless you are able to get a clearly stated new consensus for them on talk. May I suggest you work on the ABCT section or article. I did some work on it but it's still very muddy, incomplete and in some parts simply wrong. It's a real challenge but I know you are interested in this topic. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you've seen this article in Salon.com. [8] Now we have a new additional Krugman quote, given in the final paragraph. It would be great if you could state that you will no longer contest the inflation criticisms by Krugman, Bartlett and Timberlake so that we can unlock the article and get back to work on it. Please consider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out.

Please note that you still haven't attempted to justify inclusion of Bartlett content/respond to my objections to it. byelf2007 (talk) 21 February 2013

Now your crusade is known around the planet [9].

With respect to your other concerns, I will repeat: Until you state your willingness accept WP policy and the talk consensus concerning the Krugman text, there is no point in trying to discuss your other concerns. If you wish to participate in the improvement of this article, I suggest you renounce your staement that the "burden of proof is on those wanting conclusion" and other rejections of WP policy, and state your acceptance WP policy concerning the Krugman text. Incidentally, take a look at the NYT piece I linked above. It has some additional criticism that we might use in the article, either in this section or another. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Byelf. The end of the article protection is approaching. Please state whether you are now going to accept the Krugman text at the expiration. As a reminder, I suggested a small edit that you may wish to propose to address your concern that the chart is not referenced in the current text. Instead of saying Krugman "points out" that inflation etc., you might propose we change the text to say Krugman "presents a chart showing." At any rate, with the protection due to expire, it is time for you to state whether you will accept the consensus text or continue to undo it. I hope that you will state your acceptance of the Krugman text so that we can move on to improving the rest of the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For defending the truth, no matter the opposition. VMav92 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted sock of banned user SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

I've just blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring at Austrian School. Please do not engage in edit warring in the future. It is very possible to edit war without breaking 3RR--routinely reverting without discussion is not allowed. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits are you referring to? If I recall correctly, my recent edits of the page were days apart. Byelf2007 (talk) 17 March 2013

Yes, even though they were a few days apart, you were repeatedly reverting rather than discussing in what I perceived to be edit warring. It's a somewhat common misconception, edit warring can be spaced out over several days. Please try to gain consensus for disputed changes and consider adhering to WP:BRD. Reverting due to "no consensus" is also seen as a bad idea by much of the community (WP:DRNC). Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I'm reverting because of "no consensus". First, and I'm not sure if this is relevant, but "no consensus" wouldn't be my only objection to inclusion at this point if it were any objection of mine. At any rate, second, I mentioned the "no consensus" thing not because I believe something can't be included without consensus carte blanche, it's actually because the person who keeps putting this thing in keeps SAYING their reason for inclusion (often their only reason) is that there is consensus when there ISN'T, and I'm not the only editor who's participated in this debate who has pointed that out, so I believe that's certainly relevant.

It may also be worth noting that I've been very active throughout this process, responding to objections and articulating my case, and, also, I'm quite fine with inclusion of this material, IF it's in a form I don't have an objection to (it's not like I'm completely opposed to inclusion of this material altogether), and if anyone else with objections (like the criticisms section is too long or the 'combatant' issue) gets their objections addressed, assuming they are being reasonable. Byelf2007 (talk) 18 March 2013

Byelf, I see that you have not responded to the text I wrote to take account of your stated concerns. If you wish to propose that suggestion or any other alternative to the RfC consensus text, I advise you to do so without further delay. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a consensus text. I'm not the only one saying this. Why don't you demonstrate that there ever was with arguments? You think this is actually going to work? Or are you just wasting our time? Byelf2007 (talk) 27 March 2013

It's commonly accepted that holding an RfC, and having an independent person write an RfC close establishes consensus on an issue. It's tendentious to claim that no consensus exists when a RfC has been held on the issue, especially since you participated in the process and are well aware of the close. If you believe the RfC close is wrong you should hold another RfC to try to overturn it, but until then consensus does exist -- and you should understand that and stop trying to revert it. LK (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have repeatedly pointed out, this 'RfC' thing wasn't legitimate--it included, I'm not making this up, "blah blah blah" in it. Furthermore, SPECIFICO has repeatedly implied that something that gets consensus is invulnerable to further criticism. Multiple users oppose inclusion of this material, and new arguments are being used against it (example: North8000 recently). Byelf2007 (talk) 29 March 2013

Please confine your remarks to relevant content and policy. Do not characterize another editor's comments without evidence, i.e. a quote, that would support your statement if challenged. Kindly revert your misstatement of my view. It is not correct, it is without basis, and it is irrelevant to the LK statement to which I presume you are responding. I have repeatedly invited you to propose alternative text that could be weighed in a new RfC, but you have declined to do so. I even wrote one example of alternate text here [10] that I thought might address your current objections. You declined to propose it. Please strike through your personal attack on me above. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just review what's on talk. I and multiple other editors have repeatedly pointed out how you ignore our points.

"I have repeatedly invited you to propose alternative text that could be weighed in a new RfC, but you have declined to do so." How am I obligated to do so? I don't particularly care if a version of Krugman content goes in or not. If you want a version in, you should follow site policy, and respond to objections prior to the establishment of consensus (which hasn't occurred, unless I and multiple other editors just understand why we already have, reasonable since you've repeatedly ignored our objections), and stop merely asserting consensus was established, you're not going to get anywhere.

"I even wrote one example of alternate text here". No, you made suggestions for revisions. I approved them (on talk). I have only one outstanding problem--the implication that Krugman criticized Austrian theory (outside of any controversy/consistent with a definition based on reliable sources) as opposed to merely his interpretation of it. Byelf2007 (talk) 29 March 2013

I'm just going to reiterate my comment of one week ago: I urge you to propose your alternative Krugman text without delay. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of Banned User WP:BANBLOCKDIFF SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have undone my removal of redundant SYNTH content on Austrian School opportunity cost. Please observe WP:BRD after my reversion the next step would be for you to make your case on talk if you disagree with me on this. Please undo your re-insertion of this material. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 04:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it redundant? How is it synth? Byelf2007 (talk) 29 March 2013

You have failed to follow WP:BRD by undoing my reversion of the Rothbard text at Liquidity Trap. The cited source does not mention Rothbard and the quote does not reference liquidity trap. If you feel that this content should be in the article, you must seek policy-based consensus. Please undo your re-insertion and state your views on talk. SPECIFICO talk 12:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Just click on the link, in 'references' (#5). http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=3f01a478-6773-41a6-8f32-feab9b46999f Byelf2007 (talk) 1 April 2013

There is no citation to Rothbard for that quote on that page, in fact I don't see any authorship given for the page itself. If you could furnish a secondary RS that discusses Murray's view specifically with respect to "Liquidity Trap" that would be the best source. To my knowledge Murray did not use that term, "Liquidity Trap." I have never read or heard him do so. The content you restored to the WP article just gives the opinion of an unnamed author on a non-RS Mises Institute web page. Meanwhile, unless you can address these issues please undo your re-insertion while the issue is resolved on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for repeating the same edit that triggered your last block, as you did at Austrian School. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion and consensus at this noticeboard thread, you are indefinitely banned from contributing to pages related to economics, broadly construed, as a result of sustained tendentious editing and edit-warring. The topic ban includes talk pages, requests for comment, etc. If you violate the topic ban, you may be warned or blocked without further warning by any administrator. You are free to comment at will on your own talk page, and to appeal this topic ban at the administrators' noticeboard.

If you'd like to have the topic-ban lifted, I would recommend that you demonstrate a track record of productive editing on other (non-economic) topics before appealing, as such a track record would weigh heavily in your favor. But that's just a recommendation; you are free to appeal the topic ban or ask that it be lifted at any point by posting to the admins' noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]