User talk:Can I touch it?

Agorism sidebar
I invite you to share your opinion about the nomination for deletion of the Agorism and Agorism sidebar. I am doing this since there appears to lack a broad range of libertarians reaching a consensus. Thank you for your time. PublicSquare (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you're mistaken. Not in an edit war. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One practical question you need to ask (regardless of whether you view there to be an edit war) is of whether the combined effect of those who sincerely believe that it is an edit war and of opponents who would treat it as an edit war would be enough to get you blocked.
 * On the article talk page, there is significant agreement that the term “classical liberalism” needs to be handled with a disambiguation page. This would mean a central page directing readers to various articles treating different notions of what is meant by “classical liberalism”.  I presume that one of those articles should and would cover the sort of wide notion that you support.  Perhaps rather than engage in a struggle to have the present article do that until the disambiguation page is up-and-running, you should work in your user space or elsewhere on content for an article to cover the sense that you favor (aware that the name of the article itself will almost certainly not be “Classical liberalism”). — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  21:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But you're mistake on what I want. I don't favor either sense of term over the other. There are two senses of the term, and I favor the lead pointing that out. One senses is that the philosophy of people from the 17th century, like John Locke, is classical liberalism...all the way up to modern liberalism. The other sense is that classical liberalism incorporated 17th century liberalism into later economic liberalism, and this didn't occur until later, perhaps the 19th century. I favor both views being presented. And it seems like such a minor difference that there is no need for any disambiguation page, Because either sense of the term, still requires discussion of John Locke's ideas. If you made a disambiguation page, and one of the articles was about classical liberalism that includes the ideas about free markets, then you'd still have the same issues with the ideas of 17th century liberals being discussed as being part of classical liberalism. So a disambiguation isn't going to solve anything. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll accept that I misinterpretted what you want.  You may be right that a disambiguation page is not needed, but in that case you need to explicitly reply to that effect on the Talk page, in the subsection entitled “Alphabet soup”.  I agree that, either way, there will still be issues of what to cover in the article or articles.
 * In any case, I still think that you need to consider the practical question that I've raised. Even people who have been very right have been blocked for edit warring, real or alleged. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, about edit warring I thought were were all having a pleasant friendly constructive effort on the article. Didn't realize I was in a war. Hah! Can I touch it? (talk)
 * Part of the problem is that other editors are going to construct a mental model of you, and will indict you for what the model does even if it's not actually an aspect of your observable behavior, and some rival model predicts your behavior just as well. So, if they  imagine you as say “F_cker!  You're wrong!”, instead of “Hmmm.  No, that's not quite right.” as you make a change, then you're seen as belligerent, even though the change might be accompanied by an edit summary such as “fixed sentence”. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  22:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great point. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to the claim by Snowded that you are “way over” 3RR, it only applies to reversion within a 24-hour period. So you are at the WP:3RR limit. It would only be helpful to your opponents for you to make a further reversion of the same content before 03:23, 28 January 2010 UTC. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 22:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, please also understand that WP:3RR is not meant to be taken as a guaranteed allowance; if an editor is making the same reversions repeatedly across days, this could still be seen as a violation of WP:3RR, and would certainly be seen as edit-warring. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 22:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, it isn't just Snowded who's been deleting that material; it's mostly Rick Norwood. And WP:3RR doesn't prohibit reversions on one's own user pages. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T  22:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You may want to look into the Mediation Committee. I do not believe that they would presently accept the dispute at “Classical liberalism”, but the dispute seems headed to them ultimately, unless you get badgered into doing something that gets you blocked. — SlamDiego  &#8592;T 11:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Draft - 3RR is not an entitlement
This is a draft report - I have seen people blocked for a lot less than this. I have not put this into the 3RR notice board (your silliness on my talk page not withstanding). I suggest however that you review the pattern of your editing or a block will be inevitable.

Page: Classic Liberalism User being reported: User:Can I touch it?

Previous position reverted to

1st revert: 20:43 18th Jan 2nd revert: 03:23 27th Jan 3rd revert: 21:11 27th Jan 4th revert 21:22 27th Jan

Diff of edit warning and also on the 18th of January in respect of a wider series of changes as follows

1st revert: 00:06 13th Jan 2nd revert: 03:59 13th Jan 3rd revert: 17:36 13th Jan

Then another sequence here 1st revert 18:02 15th Jan 2nd revert in a sequence of edits on 16th Jan 3rd revert 23:37 17th Jan

Although this editor has not technically broken 3RR they are persistently edit warring. At least four other editors have restored the prior status quo with requests to use the talk page or AfD without success. -- Snowded TALK  22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You reverted twice. What's more, you didn't even explain in your edit summary what problem you had with material that you were reverting. All you gave is a hypocritical disingenuous call to stop edit warring. But how are you not edit warring when you're doing reverts without discussion or edit summary explanation? Are you just trying to be prankster? You trying to be funny? You're being disruptive. We who have been editing the article have been engaged in lengthy discussion, and just recently came to the conclusion that information about John Locke was fine to put in the article. So that's what I did. Then you come along, having not involved in any discussion and just start reverting things with no explanation. You're being disruptive. Either leave the article alone or discuss your edits on the talk page. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read up a bit on Wikipedia rules. This is one of the pages I have on watch and I saw your edit warring against several editors with a long track record of quality work on this and other articles.  You need to learn to use the talk page, suggest changes, seek consensus.  You also need to stop throwing around words like prankster and listen.   If I posted the above report I am pretty sure you would get a block.  I am assuming that you are just ignorant of the the way to deal with disagreements as you are a comparatively new editor so I am cutting you some slack.  -- Snowded  TALK  22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You really have no clue of what you're talking about. Look at the talk page. Look at the extensive discussion I've been participating in. We who have been discussing came to what looks like a conclusion that information about Locke was fine to put in the article. Someone came along "Rick Norwood" who had been mostly not involved in the discussion came along and reverted the information, not based on the content, but just because he thought it was "bad writing." He did not explain this on the talk page. I reverted back, because there was no explanation. Who knows what kind of writing is going to appease him if he doesn't explain? Then you come along without a clue and revert back telling people not to edit war. Then do it again. YOU'RE edit warring. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see several discussions on the talk page, in which you failed to gather support for your position. Your edits have been reverted by several editors, not just Rick.  When I got involved you were in the sequence of edits I have outlined above and I reverted you as you had not, despite discussion, achieved a consensus position on the talk page to your edits. You immediately reverted (following the pattern above) and I again restored the prior consensus version.  You might want to consider drafting a revised text on the talk page and/or seeking help from other editors sympathetic to you position in drafting.  The text as it stood had no place on the page.  To be honest, even if it was worded properly I am not sure I would support it.   As I said, I have done you the favour of assuming you are not familiar with WIkipedia, so instead of putting the above report on the admin board (which would I am pretty positive got you a block or at least a warning) I placed it hear.  The fact that you have not listened and instead have made the nonsensical allegation that two reverts to restore the status quo is edit warring, does not bode well for the future.-- Snowded  TALK  04:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of the discussion on the talk page is wrong. Everything you just said is wrong. You weren't involved in the discussions and have no clue. You just came along being disruptive. Either explain your edits on the talk page or do not do reverts. Can I touch it? (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried to help, but with that response soon or later you will learn the hard way. -- Snowded  TALK  06:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you were "trying to help," I appreciate that, but you're not helping. You're simply making working on the article more difficult and chaotic. Like I said, discuss your edits. Don't just revert stuff. If you have a problem with an edit, explain exactly what problem you have with it. Can I touch it? (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

 * I suggest you read them. Read about how to do collaborative editing. Can I touch it? (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Classical Liberalism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Snowded TALK  20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Posting this on someone's user page doesn't make it true. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A formal warning has to be in place before a report can be made. It means that everything is in place if you start to reinsert text without gaining agreement on the talk page first. -- Snowded TALK  08:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The original reason the statement was deleted was because someone said the writing was bad. That person who deleted it acknowledged that the typo had been corrected since then. Then you come a long edit warring, reverting without explaining why. Then I finally got you to speak on the Talk page and you give strange reasons for not putting the text back in. Now you seem to be the only person that's opposed to the statement. I've asked you a question on the Talk page. Are you going to answer it? If you want the liberty to revert stuff, then you should be explaining yourself on the Talk page. It appears you have ceased discussion. Now you come along and make a threat to me, that if I put the statement back in your will report me. You're edit warring. Can I touch it? (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:3rr and learn what is or is not edit waring. -- Snowded  TALK  19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Making threats to a person in order to keep something out of an article they want in, while not engaging in discussion, is edit warring. Answer the question I posed to you on the Talk page. Can I touch it? (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All valid questions answered on the talk page or in edit summaries by myself or others. You haven't been threatened, yo have been warned about edit warring.  Its your call if you take that well or badly.  Its your call if you read the talk page, but don't expect other editors to constantly repeat themselves, much as you seem to like that practice.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I asked you why you prefer the unsourced statement in the History section to my sourced statement being there which says approximately the same thing. Are you going to answer it? Can I touch it? (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've advised you before to DRAFT a change to the history session and propose it on the talk page rather than edit warring, or making a series of accusations against other editors. You will need to improve the conformance of the text to the citation and also make sure that you don't imply Locke is a classical liberal for it to get my acceptance. -- Snowded  TALK  20:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement didn't say that Locke was a classical liberal. Read. It said his ideas were incorporated into classical liberalism. However, now that you brought it up, there are many sources that say Locke is a classical liberal. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Locke being important to classical liberalism
"Perhaps the most central thinker in classical liberal thought, John Locke, appropriated key premises of Hobbesian individualism..." 

Your recent edits
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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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. --SineBot (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, now I have a bot harassing me. Can I touch it? (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (joke) Can I touch it? (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Classical liberalism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jarkeld (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pay attention. I put a source there with his name. That's not original research. The source said Hobbes had a "major impact" on classical liberalism. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: "'by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did'" Jarkeld (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me how simply putting someone NAME in there is my personal analysis or synthesis? The source I put there along with his name lists him as one of the major "Architects of Classical Liberalism" and says he had a "major impact" on classical liberalism. So how is inserting his name in the sentence that was there: "Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo, and Montesquieu" is a personal analysis or synthesis? Can I touch it? (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously it's not original research. If you can't justify your revert, then you should revert back. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) I have filed a report for edit warring at the ANI noticeboard. You may reply to it here:   The Four Deuces (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? I honestly just laughed out loud. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked: Edit warring on Classical liberalism
You have been blocked from editing for for your disruption caused by edit warring and 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * Can you please cite a policy for me that says you have to make sure there's a consensus before you make an edit? Can I touch it? (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. The relevant policies are WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS. It looks like other users have already cited those policies for you earlier on the talk page, where they are warning you that you are likely to be blocked if you don't stop trying to force your desired changes into the article against consensus.  When your block expires, you could try some of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE, as well. I'm afraid I am not familiar enough with the subject to know who is right in this dispute, but I can see that there's no consensus for your edits right now.  If you're right, WP:DISPUTE is the right way to go.  If you're wrong, then those edits probably won't go into the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And when you do come back, please learn not to leave abusive comments on other editors talk page just because you are unhappy that you are not getting your way. -- Snowded TALK  23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When I come back, learn to explain your edits. You've been nothing but extremely disruptive. Can I touch it? (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:EW says "repeated reverts made without the support of prior consensus or without sufficient discussion are likely to be considered edit warring..." That's not what this was. This was ONE revert ("Adam Smith"), AND that there was no indication on the talk page that there was no consensus for that edit. The other edits were new information, not information being repetitively put back in. And there was no indication that they were going against any consensus, as a discussion of the content had not taken place on the talk page. I was definitely not edit warring. Can I touch it? (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/RJII for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.-- Snowded TALK  06:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh geez. Hah! Can I touch it? (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Who is that Immoral moralist guy??? LOL! :D Can I touch it? (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)