User talk:Rothbardanswer - Wikipedia


2 people in discussion

Article Images

Welcome

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you satisfied with the response I gave you on free market and free market anarchism? Rothbardanswer (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, no, not particularly. You've accused me of "[filling the article] with [my] own political opinions" and did not provide any evidence to back up your accusation. I have no interest in debating politics with you either, but I do still believe my edits fairly represent the subject matter and are entirely consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Personally, I would be quite satisfied if you pointed out where this is not the case on the talk page and corrected those errors if possible, as I have tried to do -- rather than just insisting that you're right and I'm wrong because you said so. Finx (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

My point was a technical issue of economic science. I think I understand what you're saying about entrepreneurs marketing things but that doesn't go into the lead of what a market is. A markets supply and demand is determined by price. A price is a psychic value ratio that coordinates exchange, wage rates, interest rates etc. Quality is subjective but it's consumed within the definition of a price. Quality of goods is SPECIFIED pricing. It itself doesn't determine economic laws or anything. If you've got questions or disagreements please message me back :) Rothbardanswer (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you made several edits where you added external links to the see also section of pages. Please only place internal links in this section per WP:See also, and please make sure any links you add to the External links section adhere to WP:EL. Thanks. --JFHutson (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button   or   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

pls read over WP:PROMO - you here to help Wikipedia or library.mises.org?

Sometimes Wikipedia sees bookspam, which is the insertion of text mentioning books to call attention to the books, publisher or book-hosting site, rather than to contribute to the article. This often takes the form of inserting book listings into reference sections although the book is not used as the source of any information in the article. Bookspam is also seen as the addition of books to "external links", "further reading" or similar sections, although the books added do not add any useful and relevant information.Moxy (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help Moxy. I just always have that source in the back of my mind because it's an easy to access online archive. But I think pretty much everything they've ever published is a reprint. I'll make sure to find different sources though :) Rothbardanswer (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please start a discussion about why you think these books should be linked from the World War II article rather than edit war. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see that you've posted a comment at the end of the unrelated 'The Soviet Union1939-1941' section. I'll move your comment to a new section and reply. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello .. just wanted to stop see if I can help with your books. We have a wikiproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies were we work together in making bibliographies on major topics to help our readers find content for research and to help expand Wiki itself (like Bibliography of Canadian military history). Come by and we can look at the books you have interest in and see what we can do at the project in proper placement of books and if there notable. Despite the fact compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wiki - you will find that many think people who add books to "articles" are spamming. Thus those of us that understand the value of readable books for our readers and the end result of expansion of Wikipedia do welcome links to books in there proper place. We also write article on major works like War and Peace. Anyways - pls stop by the project and mention the books you have accesses to.Moxy (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much Moxy. This sounds great. I think I'll have multiple sources and online libraries to contribute :) Rothbardanswer (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just some info to help you along - if you have any questions just ask as there are hundreds of policy and guideline pages. However, if you start out by following 8 simple rules, the rest should come naturally....see the essay Wikipedia:8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia...also our basic policies and guidelines at Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset. Sorry to keep buging you...see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory for all our projects.Moxy (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You're not bugging me at all. Thank you very much Moxy.
 

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Warning about POV-pushing, spamming and personal attacks

Please stop POV-pushing, spamming and making personal attacks. They are all against Wikipedia policy and may get your account blocked again.Spylab (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm the only contributor using the talk page. I'm reverting vandalism and editorialising. Each link is to a separate page and author. All are economists and political philosophers. Rothbardanswer (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Spylab (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Finx (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am wondering why you are taking such an arrogant tone on the free market page. If you think you know more than others, please identify yourself and your credentials.Sigiheri (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just can't believe I have to defend the truth against THIS. Not knowing economics is FINE. But I don't know why people would delete sources and material from a page about something they dislike and replace it with their unsourced misconception. I shouldn't be drawn into edit wars over this. I'm writing about science. Can you imagine if you took time to contribute sourced information on a physics and it was getting replaced with creationism. I'm not even going on socialist pages! I've been SO SO polite to people and I'm getting drawn into edit wars with people who just delete things they don't understand or hate without using the talk pages. That's why dude. Rothbardanswer (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You think you are polite, but you call me "dude". Do you see the irony?Sigiheri (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You had JUST opened up here by calling me arrogant. Then you made assumptions and got offended when I called you dude. (You were already being rude and condecending here and already had a couple of layers of hypocrisy. You openly insulted me then got offended by dude :/, you lectured me on manners while already being rude condescending and hypocritical, then you talked down to me about irony when you were obviously oblivious yourself. This is the first instance of that "horrible condescending hypocrite" thing I mentioned. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You also called Battlecry names (i.e., socialist) on a couple of occasions on the free market page. This is not appropriate.Sigiheri (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Now we know I wasn't calling battlecry names. I don't know if you think it MAY be relevant that a person deleting sourced material from an article on the free market has a banner calling himself a socialist and a handle "battlecry"? I never said one way or the other. I just put it out there.

Finally, you sound like a know it all by declaring that we can only reference economics texts and no politics. Who are you to determine what is appropriate? Economics and politics have always been intertwined, which is why economics has historically been called, "political economy."Sigiheri (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is everything you've posted here the image of humility? I was arguing a technical aspect of economic science. I was trying to be hard about things on the talk page to deter people from making a political non-neutral thing out of what should be a neutral article. (you obviously didn't pick up on that given what you said on here later) I shouldn't of had to do it in the first place because I gave SO many citations and really took care in phrasing it correctly. You seem to have a bee in your bonet about truth so I'll emphasise I'm only adding info about established economic theory from pre-eminent sources. I used the talk page and it just became a political circus whn people could even be bothered to respond. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Everything you've ever said to me I find horrible and condescending. I didn't call Battlecry names. Look on his page. He has a banner calling himself socialist. Stop insulting me, you hypocrite. I suggested that the best sources are economics textbooks for edits on the page free market (as opposed to dictionary.com). The reason for that is that a free market is a technical issue of economic science and reverts keep being made by people openly politically bias FOR openly political reasons. The term political economy was rejected by writers as early as Richard Cantillon because it implies the confusion. Knowing politics isn't knowing economy. AT ALL. I don't get why you're giving me a hard time. I may just ditch wikipedia. I shouldn't have to go through all this to write the truth. Rothbardanswer (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Really, name one thing I've said that is "horrible and condescending".Sigiheri (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
OMG! Read this comment and imagine you're me. You're making me lose my mind. I think you're spreading this out on purpose so I'm off.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just because Battlecry identifies himself as a socialist does not diminish your calling him a socialist as an ad hominem attack. Whether he is a socialist is irrelevant to whether he makes good edits. Don't call people names, period. I know it's difficult for you as you just called me a "hypocrite", but it will get you banned.Sigiheri (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I still think you're pushing trying to develop a weak case. I didn't use an ad hominem argument. I asked for reasons in the talk section. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The fact that you believe you "write the truth" is what is the problem, imo. Are you God? You will never get along with people if you think you know the truth. Wikipedia will always be a frustration for you.Sigiheri (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Do you think you sound less arrogant adding "imo". I already knew it was your opinion. But thanks for the condescending remark again. Would you say this if I was trying to get relativaty past the talk page on a physics article? It isn't MY truth. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You're just trying to get under my skin. Look at the edit history and talk page.
I am saying this to you for your benefit and for the benefit of other Wikipedia users.Sigiheri (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank's for the lesson in manners. I love to get it in insult form. (We haven't even got to the bit where I call you a hypocrite!)

Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, look at it. I was on that page well before you.Sigiheri (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Awesome. Yes LOOK AT IT. Is your problem that I suggest economic sources for an economic article rather than politics? Did you just not understand what I meant by truth?Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm done (you're not getting a fight out of me and I'm not going to stop using the talk pages, adding the best information and the best sources and improving Wikipedia). I'm done listening to this passive aggressive condescending rubbish. You've come into the middle of something and you've no clue why I'm agitated or you're deliberately trying to start a fight and develop a case.
Again with the inappropriate remarks.Sigiheri (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

BTW I suggested that the guy called battlecry with the socialist banner who keeps reverting sourced material on a free market page without using the talk section may be politically point pushing. And I asked you to stop being condescending and hypocritical.

Here is what you said: "His name is BATTLECRY, and he has a banner saying he's a socialist, and he's editing on the free market page! haha."Sigiheri (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Here is what was said in context:

1). Unexplained deletion of "Free market anarchism" and sources by User: Battlecry. I looked on his user page and he's openly socialist so this may be political POV pushing. 2). Ad hominem attacks are NOT appropriate. Who are you to call others names?Sigiheri (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC) 3). His name is BATTLECRY, and he has a banner saying he's a socialist, and he's editing on the free market page! haha. All his edits are simply deletions of sources and properly structured sentences. I haven't even accused him of anything other than deleting my contributions in what seems a malicious way. 4.Calling Battlecry names is an ad hominem attack and inappropriate for Wikipedia I laughed because it's funny when you think about it. He's a socialist on a page under the scope of capitalism reverting without reason given and I suggested in may be poV pushing rather. He's called Battlecry! haha. and I wasn't yet engaged in this pedantic mess with you so I was in lighter spirits about all this wasted time. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply


For instance I didn't "declare" that every editor needs to use economic textbooks as sources any more than your suggestions about dictionary.com and Manchesterism. I suggested it's a good idea on a page about economics to use those sources.

Here is what you said: "It should be remembered that a free market is a technical issue of economic science NOT a political point. Any edits should ideally make reference to economic text books or treatises." Sigiheri (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I understand now that what really offended you is how hard and dry I am about economic science. That's because it's a science. You're wrong when you said "This is plain wrong to separate economics from politics" the greatest economists beginning with Richard Cantillon did it. That's also another hypocrisy. You shouldn't lecture me on sticking fast to the truth of economic science when the first thing you say is "your wrong" and being wrong to say that! Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply


Here are your words: Once again with the inappropriate remark that my post is "silly". But you are always "polite" aren't you?. Isn't that condescending? Isn't being condescending rude? Isn't it hypocritical to attack me for calling your suggestion silly when you JUST called mine preposterous? Isn't it also hypocritical to call me rude while you're doing all this? Can you just STOP? Rothbardanswer (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I said that "The suggestion that we should use economics textbooks only is preposterous, imo." It is preposterous. Do you actually stand behind this suggestion? I mention the "you are always polite" because that's what you said and it's not true. But I'll agree that in both cases I could have been nicer. And I agree they are hypocritical as well. My apologies!Sigiheri (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You've taken every quote out of context there^. Even when you apologise you're condescending. I'd just prefer you stopped talking to me. This is all such useless aggressive nonsense. Rothbardanswer (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
A real POLITE apology doesn't have an exclamation point at the end and it isn't written in a superior controlling tone. After looking over all this I really didn't need a lecture in arrogance or manners from you. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I took the quotes "out of context"? That's easy to say, but harder to prove.Sigiheri (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you're ACTUALLY sorry (therefore not a liar) about being a condescending, rude, arrogant, misinformed, aggressive, pedantic, hypocrite then you can do me a favour and remove some of the things you said to me on the free market talk page that you now know to be baloney. That way it will be legible (unlike this^) and I'll be able to go for concensus and validity AND ECONOMIC TRUTH. (also, I shouldn't of had to illustrate the difference between economy and bureaucracy to you)Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You believe you are the purveyor of truth and you are in for a rough ride. I will continue to try to help make the articles better.Sigiheri (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well I'm going to make sure free market is acurate with all the multiple sources that those socialists deleted in the "edit war". If you want to promote your political philosophy of historicism I'll expect citation. Even then I think free market should remain a technical aspect of economic science because it is a technical aspect of economic science.
I agree that a free market is an assumption of neo-classical economics. But I think that we a all supposed to cite our sources on Wikipedia, aren't we?Sigiheri (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
That isn't what I said. Economists aren't designing "what should be". They aren't assuming anything. They're studying human action. Do you understand when now what was meant when I said a free market in the absence of the state is just existence? I am the ONLY contributor to add citations to the free market page. Every other editor has deleted citation. If you want to promote a historicist or quasi-nihilistic approach to economic science you should start a section about positivism and historicism in the talk section of free market. I'm positive I shouldn't have to defend contributions by explaining the whole methodology of economic science. If something strikes you as odd read the pre-eminent texts I've used as sources and cited. You saw my hard defence of economics on the free market page and then took umbrage with the fact I was trying to make sure what was on the article was "true" (as if that's even a bad thing?). We now know of course that all the aggressive personal insults calling me arrogant were basically down to your misconception of economic science. From the first comment of course you were being hypocritical. I'm arrogant for suggesting we primarily use economic textbooks as sources on an article about economics or to even suggest that we should value truth but it's plain wrong to separate economics from politics. Well the hypocrisy is right on the face of it there. The only difference is I was defending a sound point and you were making an error. So we already know you were being a hypocrite, but who’s arrogant really? All your comments from the personal insults to the assertions about politics and historicism basically reflect the fact that you haven't read econ. I think you should read up if you want to edit. 1). free market is not a political issue it's an issue of economic science. 2). the lead should describe what economists have found a free market to be not a history on its political implications. And 3). It wasn't my job to tell you all this. Rothbardanswer (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think your going to get blocked again - when your back come talk to me - i will help you orient yourself with this place. PS pls read over WP:PRIVACY as the post above seem to imply they want you to identify yourself.Moxy (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Template:Z10 Kuru (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply