User talk:JLMadrigal

Welcome, JLMadrigal!
Here are a few links you might find helpful: You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~ ; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.
 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Meet other new users
 * Policies, guidelines, and rules (have fun, but watch out for these, as well!)
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * A handy tutorial, and a picture tutorial
 * Writing well
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, &mdash; riana_dzasta • t • c • e  • ER • 13:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:Curps
According to the block log for your user name, you were never blocked. Were you logged in at the time? - CobaltBlueTony 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. - 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 [[Image:Button sig2.png]] located above the edit window.  This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Working now
I can edit now, but I WAS blocked and I WAS logged in.

tx JLMadrigal 11:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

wiktionary links?
Is it possible to link to a wiktionary definition in a wikipedia article? If not, is it in the cards? Would it be technically feasable to redirect definition type links automatically to wiktionary? JLMadrigal 13:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi JLMadrigal! You can have a look at Wiktionary. Redirection automatically out from Wikipedia is confusing though, and my understanding is that a redirect to a related encyclopedic article or a disambiguation page is preferred. --TuukkaH 13:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

copyright issue
I have given permission for the Restitution Transfer and Recoupment article to be continued both in the "Copyright Problems" section and on the original website - as requested, but it is still listed as a possible copyright violation. Should I be concerned that the article will be deleted permanantly, or will someone be providing an update about the article's status soon? JLMadrigal 11:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a large note on Copyright_problems/2006 September 18/Articles. You can restore the article if you want, but make a note at the top of the article's talk page that copyright has been released, and it shouldn't be tagged as a copyvio without discussing it with you first. Daniel.Bryant 11:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Communistic experiments and central control (i.e. Soviet Politbureau, Five year plan)
In Anarchism, I noted that "Communistic experiments are said to both require and result in greater central control (i.e. the Soviet Politbureau and the Five year plan)." If the USSR doesn't provide sufficient proof, I am willing to elaborate. JLMadrigal 12:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree less, they do require and result in greater central control. However, there were two problems with your edits: one, it's "communist experiments", not "communistic". If you are speaking a language with german roots, you may confuse it with your own - I know I did back in the days. In Swedish, the adjective "communist" would be "kommunistisk". That is however a minor problem. The reason as to why I removed it was that it doesn't belong in the article on anarchism - it belongs in the article on communism, or possibly anarcho-communism. It's kinda like going to the article on libertarianism and pointing out that nazism leads to genocide. Oh, and one more thing: bring it up on the article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Anarchism) next time. I hope we got it sorted out now! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe you meant to say, "I couldn't agree 'more'" instead of "I couldn't agree 'less'", which would have been a "major problem" - instead of a "minor problem" - had it been in the article itself. ;) I have moved the edit to the "Communism" section accordingly. Feel free to adjust the semantics to pro-Germanic rather than pro-Celtic flavor. But keep in mind that English prides itself on its linguistic flexibility. JLMadrigal 12:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

2007 Presidential Debates in NH
I am fairly certain these have been moved from April to June to accommodate the top-tier candidates' schedules. Twalls 15:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Changing a table link
How do I go about replacing an item in a table used in various articles?

I would like to replace the link to Republican Candidates' Beliefs in the "United States presidential election, 2008" table found on the bottom of each candidate's page with 2008 Republican presidential candidates, and add the one for 2008 Democratic presidential candidates. The existing link is biased. JLMadrigal 12:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, the table is transcluded to the pages from Template:United States presidential election, 2008 navigation. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Exploratory Committees"
You're invited to comment at Template talk:United States presidential election%2C 2008 navigation, on this proposal:
 * Proposed Deletion of category "Exploratory" and "Declared" for individuals filing with FEC.

And please note this argument on the same talk page. Exploratory equals Candidate.
 * Best regards, Yellowdesk 07:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Malicious edits
Two questions:


 * 1) What is the authority needed and procedure for limiting an article to registered edits?


 * 2) What is the procedure for investigating and possibly removing registered editors for vandalism and malicious edits?

JLMadrigal 12:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) An administrator can semi-protect an article to limit it to edits by established users (those with accounts over 4 days old). Other users can request semi-protection (or other sorts of protection, like full or move protection) at WP:RFPP. Semi-protection is mostly used to stop persistent vandalism by anonymous users; see Semi-protection policy.
 * 2) User accounts can't be deleted, but an account can be blocked from making edits. In most, but not all, cases, blocks are due to vandalism. Generally speaking, the user is first warned on their user talk page (anyone, even if they don't have an account, can add a warning; see WP:UTM for information on how to do this); if vandalism continues after a 'final' warning, any admin can block the user concerned (and non-admins can request such a block at WP:AIV). Other sorts of block are often conducted via the administrator's incident noticeboard; in all cases, it takes an administrator to block an account. Hope that helps! --ais523 12:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Medicare
I restored this addition because that did appear in that newspaper, I gave the citation, and sources do not have to be online to be included in Wikipedia (although of course that's preferable). If anyone has access to a periodical database or library, they can look at the article in question. I included the information from that article because it's pretty important and I haven't seen him address it elsewhere. If he does, a better citation can be inserted.--Gloriamarie 03:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox edit
I just wanted to let you know I removed Category:United States presidential election, 2008 from your sandbox, because it appeared in the category's listing, which I'm sure was not your intention.--JayJasper 18:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. JLMadrigal 11:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

summary in intro to Ron Paul
Hi, would you mind responding to the concerns regarding that particular summary that I've posted to the talk page. Thanks. --Proper tea is theft 20:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

your edit to universal health care
I "reverted" your edit, adding free to the definition. That would be true for "Beveredgian" style systems of unconditional free provision, but would exclude a lot of European systems categorized commonly as "universal", e.g. Germany, France or the Netherlands. And those countries are listed below as "universal"..... If the free condition is added to the definition, many countries would have to be erased from the list, and I guess in fact the majority of the European countries Jonas78 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul's internet popularity
That was an excellent idea for a new section and the third paragraph of the intro. Good thinking! ←BenB4 00:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Unable to edit
Over the last couple of days, every time I try to edit the Ron Paul page, I get this message. JLMadrigal 12:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a problem either with your computer, or with your ISP I'm afraid. We are unable to help. KTC 12:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul pro-life

 * Clarification: Paul believes Constitutional amendments must be done at federal level; they cannot be done at the state level. It's amazing how the reason you give changes every time you give an explanation.--Gloriamarie 02:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul Revolution
Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thank you.--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

January 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. '' You're going around in circles with this voting record change. I haven't reverted it once, but multiple other editors have, including Paul supporters. You need to stop re-adding this text, because you're over the 24 hour limit of reverts on this article and you're not compromising or adjusting the wording on the talk page.

'' --- tqbf 14:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * An "edit war". Interesting. I thought I was just setting the record straight. If you're as concerned about putting in the proper citations, and agree that Paul's voting record is at odds with these claims of racism, as you have stated in Talk:Ron Paul presidential campaign%2C_2008, perhaps you would be so kind as to put them in for me, so I don't get booted. JLMadrigal (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a citable source that says that Paul's record doesn't betray his racism, so, even though I agree with you about his voting record, I can't edit the article to say that. This happens all the time on Wikipedia; the standard is verifiability, not "truth". Were it otherwise, I'd be writing that Paul is a neo-confederate crackpot.
 * I bet you can find a reasonable cite about Paul's voting record; I don't think you just made that sentiment up, and I feel like I've heard it too. When you find it, I'll defend its inclusion. Make sure when you write it into the article, you write "according to such-and-such, Paul's voting record contains...".
 * Note that 3RR doesn't mean you have to stop editing! It just means you should be really careful about reverting other people's edits today (just like me; I got warned yesterday). --- tqbf 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. '':

Please resolve this on Talk instead of by reverting things; you're at the 24 hour limit on reverts now. If you can explain your changes on Talk and answer questions, I won't gripe to admins when you revert things. But you don't seem to be doing that.

'' --- tqbf 01:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell that to your editor friends. if you were consistent, you would also be complaining to them for reverting my edits without comment. BTW I DID comment immediately after I made the change. Looks like you don't sleep (or work). Do you have a vested interest in this smear campaign? JLMadrigal (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can look me up; unlike you, I'm not anonymous, and my name is on my user page. Make you own determination about how much I work. Consider that insulting me is not leaving me less inclined to contest the contents of this article, and please note that I haven't accused you of "not working" or "smearing". If you think another editor is violating WP:3RR, please see WP:ANI for instructions on how to correct them. At the moment, your comments have not inspired me to help you out more than that. Please stop reverting edits. --- tqbf 01:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're telling me that the following statements by you:


 * "...Paul's record doesn't betray his racism" and "I'd be writing that Paul is a neo-confederate crackpot."


 * doesn't betray your blatent bias? Since I began this article in March, I've been spending long hours making sure that the public learns about this great man. And I believe I've helped his cause. Along you come and do your best to smear him, as you admit. I'm working now, so I don't have the time to keep up this article. Don't worry. Thanks to people like you, the vast majority of Americans haven't even heard of him. Who knows? They may even have been duped into thinking he is a racist. BTW, you haven't been "helping" at all. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You think he's a great man. I think he's a crypto-racist crackpot. The beauty of Wikipedia is that neither of us will be happy with the final product, despite our evident biases. Remember: Wikipedia doesn't demand that we be NPOV, only that our work product end up that way. --- tqbf 03:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
A tag has been placed on Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dougie WII (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. nancy   (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record
On February 3, 2008 I bagan an article entitled Foundation for Rational Economics and Education as a stub, and began collecting links and refining the article. After a few minutes, I received a message, which I read. The message said the following:


 * "A tag has been placed on Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information."


 * "If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dougie WII (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC) "

So I proceded to place the required tag at the top of the page. However, the page was already gone. I'd say that deleting an article before it is started is a highly questionable practice. Please revise this practice and advise me once the problem is fixed. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I received the following message:


 * "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia


 * If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. nancy   (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

...and I returned to the article page which had the following message:

db-spam

But the article was gone. So I began to restore the article, by bringing it up from "history".

But it was not in history either.

Please restore this article so that I may procede with my edits, and bring it up to Wikipedia standards. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Restored. If you don't deal with it quickly, it will probably be deleted again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello JLMadrigal, sorry you have been having problems with your article. I'll try and help you out if I can. The best way to avoid the problems which you have described with Foundation for Rational Economics and Education is either to build the article as a sub-page of your userpage first and then copy it in to mainspace when it is finished, or when you create the article you can add an tag at the top which will let people know you are working on it. It looks like the article was first deleted as advertising so if you recreate it you might want to mindful of that. Hope this helps to explain things a little & do please ask if you would like any help or would like me to review any recreated article before you post it in to mainspace. Good luck with your editing. Kind regards, nancy   (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nancy. I tagged the article, and removed sections that seemed to promote the foundation. I am trying to keep the article as objective as possible without eliminating vital information about FREE. If you can think of any other modifications that may be helpful, I welcome your input. Regards, JLMadrigal (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have give the article quite a severe copy-edit and on the basis of my changes I have removed the speedy deletion notices from it. The key things I changed were: 1. Removed biographical details about Ron Paul - the place for these are in his own article. 2. Removed overt opinion - for example the phrase "that have been, until recently, absent from public debate" 3. Removed parts of the NEFL section so that it now just states the facts of its founding and to note the TV program. There are still problems with the article - most importantly it lacks reliable sources so you are not quite out of the woods yet, but it now at least safe from speedy deletion so you have a bit of breathing space to sort out some good references. Best of luck, nancy   (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
I have nominated Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Dougie WII (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again Madrigal! I have done what I could on this article. I hope you have found one or two WP:RS over the past month that you can add this weekend. Thanks for all the help! John J. Bulten (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

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) 15:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Like your take on popular election of Senators
In the United States Constitution article, your wording is more accurate. Some thinkers today see the decision to move to popular election of senators as undermining the authority of state governments, and part of a trend (some think unhealthy) of too much federal power to the detriment of states' authority to regulate their respective economies.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the fact that the amendment is arguably unconstitutional as per Article V, which concerns the only specifically unamendable element of the Constitution: "... no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." JLMadrigal (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. Didn't know that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability
I agree with you that the article on sustainability has serious problems with bias. I also think that Sunray and others are violating point 9 under OWN, in particular, by claiming that consensus is required before making edits. I have raised this concern on the talk page and hopefully we can all agree to stop such behavior and move forward. I'm eager to include you and others who disagree with me and/or with other of the main editors of that page in the dialogue to create a more balanced page.

However, I think your edit that Sunray pointed out: is unjustifiable and hurts your cause of trying to remove bias from the article by making it seem like you're trying to pick a fight. The page as it stands does not explicitly advocate collectivism, nor should it. Furthermore, I want to point out that collectivism is not the same as advocating for a centralized or planned economy, or increased regulation. I'm someone who identifies strongly as a communitarian or collectivist, and yet also believes in the free market. An example of a strongly collectivist concept which is also very strongly allied to the free market is the notion of community currency. If we are going to truly remove or reduce the bias in the article on sustainability, it's very important that we acknowledge all these nuances, instead of just fighting back and forth as if there are only two sides to things. I'd urge you to think very carefully before making edits. What exactly are you trying to achieve here? What is the true nature of the bias in the article? How can we actually remove the bias?

None of us has a monpoly on the truth...and no one editor has the ability, knowledge, or experience to remove the bias in the sustainability article. In order to reach the truth, we need to work together, because each of us necessarily has an incomplete, and flawed perspective. This includes you, me, Sunray, and any number of other editors who may be interested in participating in the article. The more we start listening to each other, the better that article will become. Hopefully I'll be able to prod the others into listening to you, but it would help a lot if you'd make more of an effort to listen to them too. Cazort (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

One more comment
I do agree with the other part of that edit cited above--the text "There is abundant scientific evidence" reads like WP:Weasel Words. I do think that the statement as given is true, but I think the sourcing is inadequate and you were right to have pointed out that the sources given all originate from a single source and that this is problematic. Hopefully we can work this out on the talk page soon too. Cazort (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anarcho-capitalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital (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) 09:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This, apart from continuing an edit war, is not a minor edit. &mdash; goethean 15:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Your recent editing history at Anarcho-capitalism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. 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. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Verifying neutrality of anarcho-capitalism article
The featured article, anarcho-capitalism has recently fallen victim to an edit war disputing its neutrality. Unfortunately, I believe that, like the ideological battles between political groups and religious sects, I am of the opinion that consensus between opposing groups will never be reached. As a result, various tags will forever be placed at the top of the article. Currently the page is copy protected while at the same time a neutrality tag is present - expanding the problem. While I believe that the page should be protected from malicious edits, I would obviously like to see the neutrality tag removed. What is the best way to assure that the article in its current state is indeed officially neutral? JLMadrigal (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Talk:Anarcho-capitalism is probably the best venue for this - it appears to be stalling somewhat at present. Probably the easiest way to get a well-represented and if not binding, at least fairly clear consensus would be to start a request for comment, to get univolved editors to express their opinions. Once an RFC regarding the contested text is closed, there is a serious onus on anyone changing the text to provide a cast-iron defence of their edits - most changes would probably require a new RFC. Be advised, though, that the RFC may not necessarily close in favour of your preferred version. Yunshui 雲 水 09:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a request for review for neutrality tag that can be placed on the article page? The RFC has already been tried. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am marking your request for admin help as answered. The place to go for help with neutrality of an article is Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While the request was unanswered at the time, I have taken your advice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Featured_Anarcho-capitalism_article_is_being_held_captive_to_left-anarchist_editors. JLMadrigal (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the neutrality of the Anarcho-capitalism page, the RfC was closed with a weak consensus to include early mention regarding the distinction between traditional anarchists and anCaps. As a result, a new paragraph was included in the lede which clarified the distinction. Furthermore, the new compromise paragraph is neutral on the question of which version of anarchism is "correct" or "valid".
 * Further discussion occurs in the body of the article, regarding the differences of opinion among self-identifying anarchists (which does not need to be expanded further according to the results of the RfC). My question, then, is "Who has a right to remove the NPOV tag from the article - which is now neutral?" JLMadrigal (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is currently fully locked against editing. While an admin can remove the tag, I think that it would be quite incorrect for an admin to remove the tag.  Has there been discussion on the talk page that agrees that the article is now neutral?  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there has been discussion regarding whether the compromise paragraph is neutral and sets the context. Unfortunately, some editors will not be satisfied until the lede states the left-anarchist POV regarding anCap - which is redundant since the difference of opinion is already stated. Their objective seems to be to establish that anarcho-capitalism is not a valid position. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am reopening the request to remove npov tag from neutral article. JLMadrigal (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't need an administrator for that; we don't make content decisions. Please get consensus for its removal on the article talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism
I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — MisterDub (talk &#124; contribs) 14:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anarcho-capitalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immunity. 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) 11:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libertarian Party (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Nolan. 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) 11:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
- MrX 15:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC) - MrX 15:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring
If you have made this or two similar edits in a short of time, despite the prominent edit notice warning that the article is under discretionary sanctions. You ignored this:
 * You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.

This is edit warring and a clear, sanctionable violation. If you continue, you will be reported.- MrX 16:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

æternity article
!helper !helper There is an existing article entitled "AEternity", which is spelled incorrectly. The correct spelling is "æternity" (beginning with a small diphthong grapheme). How can I fix this? JLMadrigal  @  15:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism - failed verification
Hi JLMadrigal, I've noticed you removed the "failed verification" tag, however I still cannot find anything in the source material that corresponds to the statement "(...) political monopolies, which they believe tend to become corrupt in proportion to their monopolization" - in fact, the phrase "political monopoly" doesn't even appear there. Moreover the source doesn't seem to be mentioning anything about the justice system. Could you show me where the source states that? Otherwise I'll have to revert the tag. Thank you! BeŻet (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed the quotation marks, since "political monopoly" was not a specific term used in the paper. The topic, however, is implicit in regard to its mention of the symbiotic relationship between the state and monopolists in general. (see Chapter 2) JLMadrigal   @  22:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But that says nothing about what is stated, about political monopolies, and how these political monopolies "become more corrupt in proportion to their monopolization". Moreover, like I said above, it mentions nothing about the justice system. Please address this or I will have to return the tag. BeŻet (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

How about, "which they believe tend to generate corruption through the collectivization of property and distortion of market signals". Does that work for you? JLMadrigal  @  01:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Right-libertarianism
Would you say this version is better than the current ones? I have removed the History, People, etc. sections and moved them to Libertarianism in the United States; let's just have Philosophy, Schools of thought and Criticism like Left-liebrtarianism (perhaps we need to add a Definition section as it's in Left-libertarianism). I hope this can at least reduce some of the issues you had with it such as people describing themselves as libertarians being labelled as right-libertarians.--Davide King (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not noticeably. The disambiguation about the term must come very early if the title is to be kept, and the article under that title will need to be limited to disambiguation regardless. As we discussed at length, the ambiguous term "right libertarianism" is mostly used by opponents of so-called "capitalism", and doesn't necessarily even refer to its position on a political scale. Capitalism - as defined by self-described left-libertarians - involves a differentiation from free markets (a distinction that the individuals described in the article do not make).
 * But most importantly, the view described in the article is that of the vast majority of self-described "libertarians" - not just in the United States. You have asserted that they are a minority internationally, but still haven't offered any evidence to back up your claim. While this may have been the case in the past, it is no longer so. Today capitalism is the norm. The term "libertarian" as a typology describes this group. Polls abound. Find some good numbers for "left-libertarians" and you will begin to sway me. JLMadrigal   @  00:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "The disambiguation about the term must come very early", what do you mean by this? The lead soon states that "This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, with which it is often compared to, hence the name". I also thought there was some consensus that right-libertarianism isn't used just by opponents (as supported by more than one user in this requested move); both left-libertarians and right-libertarians indentify just as libertarian, that's why we have articles that describe this difference between libertarians; left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are just the most used and common terms to differentiate between the two.
 * Left-libertarians are the majority outside of the United States because they literally coined the term libertarian and it's not just a mere quesion of numbers but that it has more than hundred years of history; all anarchists and libertarian communists and socialists fall within left-libertarianism, which also include, especially in the United States, the free-market anti-capitalism of left-wing market anarchism, geolibertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school. Only in the United States is right-libertarianism the majority and left-libertarianism the minority. You need to show me reliable sources that support what you're saying, not "some good numbers". I showed you some in my talk page.
 * From all the polls you're talking about, it's impossible to know what each responder understood libertarian to mean, or whether the responder was left-libertarian, right-libertarian, or any other type of libertarian. Indeed, there's literally a phrase in Libertarianism#American libertarianism stating: "However, a 2014 Pew Poll found that 23% of Americans who identify as libertarians have no idea what the word means". Anyway, what do you think of these definitions?
 * Right-libertarianism as the form that supports the perpetual private ownership of both capital and natural resources unless exchanged by trade or gift (geoism is opposed to private ownership of natural resources and left-libertarians either support the abolition of private property or support sufruct, i.e. property norms based on use and possession) and also right-libertarianism defined as culturally conservative libertarians such as with Libertarian conservatism and Paleoconservatism, which aren't synonym of right-libertarianism but are rather a subset of it.
 * What could be termed centrist or mainstream libertarianism, i.e. fiscal conservatives and cultural liberals who identify as libertarian; these are indeed the majority of libertarians in the United States, I don't dispute this. I'm just saying there's already Libertarianism in the United States for that; however, not all libertarianism is right-libertarianism, that's why they're two separate articles.
 * Left-libertarianism as defined in the form of the anarchist and libertarian communist and socialist movements as well as, especially in the United States, left-wing market anarchism and other pro-market but anti-capitalist and left-wing positions; and I would also include in the American left-libertarianism the anarchist and libertarian communist and socialist movements.--Davide King (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Ryk72 talk 04:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING at Talk:2020 United States presidential election
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:2020 United States presidential election. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.  Impru 20 talk 21:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Jo Jorgensen 2020 presidential campaign, you may be blocked from editing. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 01:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:2020 United States presidential election, you may be blocked from editing. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 01:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice about Environmental effects of bitcoin
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)