User talk:IWillBuildTheRoads

Alert/notification relating top pages and edits relating to the post-1932 politics of the United States
Neutralitytalk 15:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi, IWillBuildTheRoads. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. – S. Rich (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the National Football League page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=763951707 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F763951707%7CNational Football League%5D%5D Ask for help])

Date format
ISO dates in the form yyyy-mm-dd are not a deprecated date format and seem to be increasingly preferred for parameters like access-date. Changing date formats as you did at this edit is not really an improvement (but also not worth reverting for the very same reason). Editors may choose their preferred way of entering dates and it is considered disruptive editing to change one acceptable date format for another.  jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  18:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that and thanks for letting me know. I assumed the written date was preferred because that's how it's done in the examples on Template:Cite web. But, notice that the citation I modified was actually a citation I added earlier that day. I won't do it again though. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, then you were entitled to change the date format if you had a preference. I think I was triggered by something elsewhere where seemingly needless changes were being made.  jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  09:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring warning / Libertarianism
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Libertarianism. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, 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 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 without further notice. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

IWillBuildTheRoads, I don't see any consensus for your change, either on the talk page or by looking at the edits on the article. Please stop reverting multiple editors until you can show clear consensus exists (see WP:DRR for options) or you may be blocked from editing. --Neil N  talk to me 00:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just for some background info, Finx began removing reliably sourced material from the lead with a justification I didn't believe to be accurate or sufficient for the removal of the info. We discussed it on the talk page, making little progress. Saturnalia0 fortunately came along and made the post starting with "The SEP defines..." (SEP stands for Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) In it, he or she said that until reliable sources that support Finx's view are presented (which could hopefully lead to a more permanent solution being agreed upon), his or her "suggestion is to leave the term [self-ownership] in the lead (i.e. modify the current revision) and add the SEP as a source (it is, after all, what a reliable source says)." He or she also said that "if 'rule of law' is to be kept it should be attributed to right-wing libertarians." I decided to implement this (possibly temporary) compromise between the original version and Finx's version. But, I decided to take it one step further and just remove rule of law entirely (remember, Finx wanted rule of law removed). Unfortunately, this wasn't enough. The edits were reverted by Finx without explanation (to his version with no compromise). It was discussed on the talk page more, and Saturnalia0 decided to change it back to the compromise version, but with an additional attribution that some left-libertarians deny self-ownership (I added a citation needed to the statement afterward). I thought this would be enough, because Finx's argument has been that some left-libertarians deny self-ownership (even though the SEP says otherwise). It still wasn't satisfactory for Finx. This time, however, the compromise was reverted with no explanation:  (a vague, inaccurate explanation was only given on the talk page after I reverted these edits). I asked him about it on the talk page, but he said I was simply misunderstanding the reliable sources (however, his explanation for why contradicts the actual text of the sources). Then, he flat out denied any compromise had ever been made followed by more reversions with no adequate explanation:    It seems this user has a history of disruptive editing on this page (his talk page has some warnings from a few years back about the same page). Even though it's not always a requirement for edit warring, I also want to point out that I never got close to making more than three reversions in 24 hours. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I see there's discussion here but why have you stopped replying? --Neil N  talk to me 02:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Throughout the many branches of the thread, we both have some posts from eachother that we haven't replied to. Are there particular posts of his you want me to reply to? I haven't really stopped responding, I have just been busy the past few days. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Another point I want to make is that if a compromise has been reached, it seems we should adopt the compromise I have been adding into the article. On the other hand, if a compromise hasn't been reached, it seems we should keep the article as it was before Finx began removing reliably sourced material (i.e. the long-standing version). In other words, he or she has the burden of proof to show that the four sources cited are not reliable and should therefore be removed from the article. Either way, it seems that what he or she is suggesting is not a valid solution at the moment. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want me to do here, as an admin. I handled the WP:3RRNB report about you and rejected blocking you in favor of recommending you continue to use the talk page. If that isn't working out please see WP:DRR for other options. --Neil N  talk to me 14:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Continued edit warring warning / Libertarianism
Your recent editing history at Libertarianism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.POV pushing ancap ideology into the lead, when blatantly contradicted by all the article's sources, can eventually earn you a topic ban. You've inserted your edit at least a dozen times now, without cause or consensus. Reconsider. fi (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. fi (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Libertarianism. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 04:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Political authority has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Political authority. Thanks! — Yash</b><b style="color:grey">talk</b> <b style="color:grey">stalk</b> 19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Political authority has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Political authority, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Waggie (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.