User talk:Xerographica/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Disproving vs Deleting

For some reason I was kind of surprised that Born2cycle had no problem with BigK HeX deleting my comments until I remembered that Born2cycle himself had deleted most of my arguments for excluding anarcho-capitalism from the article on libertarianism. Here's what I initially posted on the scope subpage.

  1. In the 2005 version of this article, libertarian socialism was only included in the disambiguation page while anarcho-capitalism was included in the article. Now we have both included in this article. Having one ideology that advocates abolishing the state makes it that much harder to oppose the inclusion of another ideology that advocates abolishing the state.
  2. If a broader definition is used then it wouldn't just apply to including right-wing libertarianism but it would also apply to including more moderate and even progressive versions of libertarianism. Progressive libertarianism, being closer to the center, would eclipse anarcho-capitalism in terms of proportion of prominence.
  3. There's more than enough reliable sources to justify excluding any ideologies that advocate abolishing the state.
  4. Trying to needlessly turn this article into a book on libertarianism is counter-productive.
  5. If somebody wants to learn about "anarcho-capitalism" then that's what they would search for. The article on anarcho-capitalism is the first Google result for that term. It's against the very idea of libertarianism for editors to make the decision for readers rather than to allow readers to make the decisions for themselves.

--Xerographica (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Although the Talk:Libertarianism/scope page is a subpage of the talk page, and thus technically a talk page itself, the upper portion is "article like", intended by its creator (me) to evolve in a collaborative fashion, like an article, while the lower part is a discussion section more like a typical talk page with signed commentary. I edited out content in the collaborative upper portion that I didn't think would be compelling to others because they were statements of opinion rather than references to reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
When you deleted my arguments is exactly when I lost interest in collaborating...especially since you were obviously pro-inclusion of anarcho-capitalism. If you had been neutral I certainly would not have minded as much. Same thing when BigK HeX deleted my comments.
Let's review your argument for including anarcho-capitalism..."The term minarchism is used to distinguish libertarians that believe a minimal government is required by civilized society from the anarcho-capitalists who believe civilized anarchy is possible." It's a double standard that you didn't cite any sources yet you noted that my argument should cite sources. That Rothbard had to create a new term..."anarcho-capitalism"...to differentiate his "version" of libertarianism is evidence that we're talking about two different political ideologies. Political ideologies are generally differentiated based on methods. Rothbard's method was to abolish the state. He himself drew the line with libertarians on this side and anarcho-capitalists on the other. Of course, he used the term "libertarianism" to refer to both sides just like Chomsky uses the term "libertarianism" to talk about the opposite of capitalism. That's why we need a disambiguation page...not why we need to talk about anti-capitalism and anarchism in the same article as libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not done citing my sources on the scope project. Not sure I even started. I didn't delete all your comments, just pure opinion that I didn't think could be sourced, or didn't think would be persuasive even if it could be. I left stuff in that just needed sourcing. Perhaps I was over-zealous? If so, sorry.

Just because Rothbard had to come up with a separate term for A-C does not tell us whether A-C is a separate ideology or a variant of the same ideology. Are minarchism and libertarianism and right-libertarianism all separate ideologies, variants, or synonyms? How do we find out? You guessed it. Reliable sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of writing off someone who you've largely agreed with for months, you may want to consider the strong possibility that it's not everyone else's mindset that is the problem. An ANI report that goes quite a different way from what you expected may also be a huge sign that some review and introspection could be useful. BigK HeX (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because Born2cycle and I disagree regarding whether libertarianism includes anarcho-capitalism does not mean that I've written him off. You, on the other hand, are a completely different story. I can't even remember when I wrote you off. The ANI result is nothing more than a huge sign that involved editors can easily skew the outcome. The wikipedia talk page guidelines clearly specify when it is acceptable for editors to delete comments and none of my comments matched the criteria. That was the bottom line that was completely ignored by uninvolved editors who choose instead to listen to involved editors who would clearly benefit from having my comments deleted. When uninvolved editors ignore policy and only listen to involved editors then it is a huge sign that the uninvolved editors are the ones that need to engage in some serious "review and introspection". --Xerographica (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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 must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xerographica (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

None of my recent or past behavior remotely resembles anything described on the WP:DE page... *disrupting progress toward improving an article Nope *disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia Nope *tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material Nope. Haven't added any material to an article *tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. Nope. Haven't deleted any material *have I tried to add original research to articles? Nope *have I failed to cite my sources? Nope *have I improperly tagged articles? Nope *repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests Nope *repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits Nope *Rejects community input NOPE. I was seeking community input! *Campaign to drive away productive contributors Nope

Decline reason:

You missed one: WP:POINT. In this case, your attempts to "seek discussion" amounted to spamming multiple talk pages with walls of text, which you were blocked for previously. There are less disruptive ways to discuss things. Jayron32 05:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jayron, WP:POINT is completely irrelevant because I wasn't trying to prove a point. My comment in the file deletion discussion indicated that I would seek the feedback of uninvolved editors as to whether it was against Wikipedia policy to draw diagrams for use on talk pages or personal pages. It was nothing more than an informal request for comments.

The first block I received was for offering numerous relevant sources to an article that specifically requested additional sources. The whole "disruptive editing" allegation loses any credibility when my "disruptive editing" is left on the talk page.

Look, I'm a relatively smart guy and if there's a better way to seek comments from uninvolved editors then all you have to do is tell me. If there's a limit to the number of relevant sources that a single post should contain then all you have to do is tell me. --Xerographica (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Cherry Picking

(My response to Yworo's comment)

Your allegation that my quotes were cherry picked is somewhat correct. The question is...why did I give "short-shift" to left-libertarianism? For the answer to that question we can take a look at the sources that you provided.

Libertarian theories can broadly be divided into "rights" based and consequentialist. Let's first take a look at the "rights" approach. From the The encyclopedia of libertarianism...

Economists distinguish between private and common or collective property. Budgetary operations transform private property into collective property, thereby changing the governance relationships that operate within a society. An average tax rate of 40%, for instance, means that approximately 60% of the economy is organized through private property relationships, with the remaining 40% organized through collective property.

On one hand we have capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) and on the other hand we have socialism (public ownership of the means of production). Capitalism is associated with individualism while socialism is associated with collectivism. Where does Ronald Hamowy stand?

Still, property rights - like general rights - are negative rights. In the absence of special complications, one's property rights only impose on others the duty not to trespass and to leave one free to do as one sees fit with one-self and one's own property.

The "rights" approach means it's wrong for the state, or anybody else, to take your property. However, in order to effectively protect your property, it's justifiable for the state to collect taxes solely to fund the organizations that help ensure that your property is sufficiently protected. Redistribution of wealth is only legitimate in terms of wealth protection.

The primary line of justification that has been advanced for the power to tax is the problem of free ridership. If taxes were replaced by voluntary contributions, it would be impossible for anyone to claim that the state was involved in expropriating private property. At the same time, it is argued, people would have strong incentives to take free rides on the contributions of others. As a result, services such as civil order and national security, which we all value, are likely to be underfunded.

The consequentialists also want to limit the state...but for different reasons. Their view is that the free-market is more efficient at producing goods than the state. As such, the state should only produce goods that the free-market will under-produce.

Who are the most significant proponents of each approach? In terms of the "rights" approach...Robert Nozick was, by far, the undisputed theorist. In terms of the consequentialists...your source, Liberalism: Rights, property and markets mentions Milton Friedman, Mises and Hayek. Let's note that my "cherry picked" quotes include all of their views.

Establishing the basic concept of libertarianism in terms of those two main approaches is essential to understanding why I did not include left-libertarianism. Left-libertarianism is, at its very core, a criticism of libertarianism. From Liberalism: Rights, property and markets...

For those who remain committed to the basic goals of the welfare state, it is appealing to think that one could show that libertarians, by virtue of their adherence to libertarian principles, must accept those goals as well. This would be not only a refutation of libertarianism, but a demonstration of its contradictory nature, since it consists not only of basic principles but of a fundamental rejection of the welfare state.

Left-libertarian theories, and obviously Libertarian socialism, all attempt to justify redistribution of wealth beyond what is necessary to protect wealth. Their goal is to refute libertarianism and demonstrate its "contradictory nature". To define libertarianism in terms of left and right...and/or...to say that some libertarians do not extend full self-ownership to external objects...is to define libertarianism in terms of its most popular criticisms.

Let's take a look at your sources that define libertarianism in terms of left and right...

  • Self-ownership, freedom, and equality based on the title alone is easy to quickly identify as a criticism of libertarianism. How so? The word "equality" is a dead give away. Equality...or egalitarianism...is not a goal of libertarianism. That the author, Gerald Cohen, was a Marxist is also a big hint. For additional evidence see this review and this abstract.
  • Contemporary debates in political philosophy, the section you cited was written by Peter Vallentyne who, according to his Wikipedia article, "defends a version of equal opportunity for wellbeing left-libertarianism." Again we see that word "equal".
  • Encyclopedia of ethics, Volume 3, the section you cited was also written by Peter Vallentyne and it's no surprise that Vallentyne cites Cohen's book.
  • Liberalism: old and new, Part 1, the section you cited was also written by Peter Vallentyne.
  • Encyclopedia of Political Theory, the section you cited was written by Daniel Attas who, not surprisingly, also wrote a book entitled...Liberty, property and markets: a critique of libertarianism

Without a doubt there are more academics who oppose libertarianism than support libertarianism...so it's no surprise that opponents of libertarianism are frequently allowed to define libertarianism using their terms. Therefore, with regards to cherry picking, my sources were cherry picked from proponents of libertarianism while your sources were cherry picked from opponents of libertarianism (with a couple exceptions). The introduction of a Wikipedia article is not the place to include criticisms of the topic being discussed. That being said, I highly encourage you to create a section for the Criticism of Libertarianism within the libertarianism article.

Regarding your search for a common thread...consequentialists and rights theorists do not have full-self ownership in common. The only thing they do have in common, as you can tell from my quotes, is advocacy of a minimal state.

Your response to my minimal state quotes was..."There is no contradiction. There are conflicting beliefs within many ideologies. These are presented in articles by stating that this subgroup believes X, and this other subgroup believes Y. X and Y need not be consistent with each other."

Whether to justify a minimal state based on rights or the free-market is an example of a conflicting belief within libertarianism. Whether a minimal state is necessary is an example of a conflicting belief between two ideologies...libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Whether equality should be an ideological goal is another example of a conflicting belief between two ideologies...libertarianism and socialism. --Xerographica (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We don't start with a predefined idea of what the topic is. We use reliable sources to determine the breadth of the topic. You can't even begin to engage in the kind of discussion needed to create a neutral Wikipedia article if you don't understand and agree with this methodology. Yworo (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
So you'd never heard of libertarianism prior to editing this article? Or you'd heard of it but had no idea what it meant? Or you knew what it meant but you're capable of ignoring your predefined idea? --Xerographica (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I am and was familiar both with the type of libertarianism espoused by the US Libertarian Party and with the fact that from a global perspective as a political ideology libertarianism is broader than that. I have no preconceived biases at to what is included in that range, which should be determined by the reliable sources on the topic. If the reliable sources disagree, then the multiple views presented by those sources should all be presented. If there are sources that give a top-down view showing what all libertarian views have in common and what the critical differences between views are, then these types of sources should be used for logically structuring the article. Yworo (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so my error wasn't starting with a predefined idea...it was allowing that predefined idea to bias my views as to what the scope of the article should be? --Xerographica (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If this is a serious rather than a rhetorical question, then the answer would be "yes". Yworo (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If my view is biased, as you allege, then it makes sense how I could have thought that Noam Chomsky, Peter Vallentyne, Gerald Cohen and Daniel Attas were critics, rather than proponents, of libertarianism. To help elucidate any bias that I might suffer from, can you please provide some examples of genuine critics of libertarianism? --Xerographica (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
There are quite a few mentioned at Criticism of Libertarianism. Yworo (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain how the major criticisms of that article...(From the left and in terms of Economics)...differ from the arguments of Noam Chomsky, Peter Vallentyne, Gerald Cohen and Daniel Attas? --Xerographica (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nah, what do yo think I am, an encyclopedia? Yworo (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Not only are you an editor of the article on libertarianism...but you also allege that my views on the subject are biased. So it's not unreasonable to expect that you should be able to easily differentiate between whether a reliable source is making an argument for or against libertarianism. That you, and other editors, cannot differentiate between the two explains how reliable sources more suitable for the Criticism of Libertarianism end up receiving equal weight in the article on libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it appears to me that Criticism of libertarianism is mis-titled, as it appears to be primarily criticisms of right-libertarianism. Please remember that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. That article could well be incomplete or biased itself. Yworo (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, interesting, the title of the article is "Criticism of Libertarianism" with a capital-L. That's quite different than libertarianism with a lowercase-L. If the title of the article is correct, then it is intended to be criticism specifically of the libertarianism espoused by Libertarian Parties, not of the broad political philosophy of libertarianism. Whether that is as it should be is open to discussion. It should perhaps be moved and expanded. It should perhaps be merged into libertarianism and/or one for more of the articles linked from Libertarian Party. Yworo (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If the article on the Criticism of Libertarianism is biased...then I'll ask again, could you please provide some some examples of criticisms of libertarianism (lowercase-L)? --Xerographica (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any such material on hand. You can do Google searches as well as I can, I'm sure. Yworo (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Quick question before I do the search. If I do not find any criticisms of libertarianism (lowercase-L)...what does that say about the noteworthiness of libertarianism (lowercase-L) as a political ideology? --Xerographica (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing. Yworo (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying it's possible for a noteworthy political ideology not to have a single criticism leveled against it? --Xerographica (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I think your hypothetical situation is unlikely in the extreme and not worth devoting much bandwidth to. Yworo (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It certainly would be a waste of bandwidth searching for reliable sources that criticize libertarianism (lowercase-L)...given that no such sources exist. --Xerographica (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That certainly is an odd statement. You really think the tenets of libertarianism are so.... perfect(??) that the philosophy has never been criticized? BigK HeX (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be an odd statement if you had carefully read the entire discussion from the beginning. --Xerographica (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your block has expired

By the way, I don't know if you've noticed, but your block has expired. Have at it... Yworo (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A Query from D34throse Darklight

I wanna know why when I added the following to Power Rangers Samurai which any observer of said program can see for themselves to be fact but Acalamari and Ryulong claim it to be a personal opinion and blocked me for a period of 24 hours and threatened to make the block permanent if I ever re-added it to Wikipedia, I suspect them to be bullying me but I am not sure. Could you please help clarify the situation, thanks: Strangely enough for a group of samurai, they are all basically gaijin even their sensei/shogun is portrayed by a New Zealander, for none of them are full blooded Japan-born Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D34throse Darklight (talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure why you're under the impression that I can help clarify the situation? I don't watch the Power Rangers Samurai program. Wikipedia has a system for trying to resolve such disputes... -Submit a request --Xerographica (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know how he found you, but D34throse Darklight needs to know that his content is not welcome on Wikipedia because it is his own conclusion rather than one based on any real fact.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Peculiar edits

You've added "See also" items to a number of articles where the item you added was totally irrelevant to the subject of the article: such as tax choice and electoral fusion, two concepts completely unrelated to each other. Please stop doing this, as it is disruptive and confusing. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Before you make such a drastic edit please first discuss your issues with the article on the talk page for tax choice. --Xerographica (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to offer any objections that you might have here...See Also - Tax Choice --Xerographica (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Actions speak louder than words, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to dispute the validity of the article's content then please use the article's talk page to do so. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not the point. You need to have sources for articles and if you continue to create articles without them, you may be blocked. Eeekster (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It is the point. My talk page is not the place to debate the validity of an article's content. --Xerographica (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Put your money where your mouth is

The article Put your money where your mouth is has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this isn't even sourced.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the notice. Please feel free to use the article's talk page to share your concerns regarding the article's content. --Xerographica (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The customer is king

The article The customer is king has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDIC

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WWGB (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You might be right...but I removed the deletion notification and created a section on the talk page in order to discuss whether it's suitable for Wikipedia. --Xerographica (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of The customer is king for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The customer is king is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The customer is king until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WWGB (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tax choice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Other people's money

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Other people's money, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2190-milton-friedman-on-the-four-ways-you-can-spend-money.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Friedman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Scope of government

The article Scope of government has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

a collection of quotations , with an essay-like introduction.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Kludgeocracy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kludgeocracy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kludgeocracy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Scope of Government Diagram.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scope of Government Diagram.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Scope of government for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scope of government is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scope of government until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent creation of government-related article

I'm writing a bitof a critique here not because I oppose what you are tryinig to do but because I support what you are trying to do. You are creating articles with titles/topics that are borderline (for survival) at best, and then the article are just a collection of thoughts, quotes and reflections, i.e. not encyclopedic articles. Personally, I'd suggest picking a more viable route so that you can really develop what you are working on rather than just have all of your work get deleted and you get frustrated. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be even more frustrating if something that I put a lot of work into was deleted. So it's less risky to create stubs and then wait and see if people who've never heard of Herbert Spencer vote to delete an entry on the scope of government. --Xerographica (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I weighed in for "keep" on one of yours, and will abstain from the rest. Wish you the best! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Word to the wise

Xerographica, it looks like you are having a frustrating time with Wikipedia. Starting off you got into some protracted debates, and now your proposed articles are facing deletion. In looking at your edit count, you are actually spending more time on talk pages than article pages.
I hope these events do not deter you from making contributions. At the same time, I hope you'll step back and consider how to be a more effective editor.
The other editors are correct when they criticize your new articles for being (mere) collections of quotes. Such efforts do not impart much useful information to the reader. Similarly, you're attempting to create articles simply based on the phraseology and idioms that we see in different sources. An example is Kludgeocracy. Teles coins the term, writes a short article on it, and immediately you are seeking to develop the term into a WP article. But you've got to consider WP:UCN. The term is not common. (Indeed, the term was created just days ago. No one else uses it (as yet), let alone commented on it.)
With this in mind, I suggest adding "kludgeocracy" into other articles as an aspect of the particular topic. You'd simply say "Blah, blah, blah, ...the term 'kludgeocracy' has been coined by economist Keles to describe blah, blah, blah.....[1] [reference]" That way you get the term and Keles' thoughts into Wikipedia without having other editors beat up on you for your efforts.
Same idea applies with Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Only 5 of the 13 quotes uses the term "concentrated benefits". Take Boaz for example -- we don't learn exactly the context in which he uses it because we don't know what "this problem" (Boaz's term) is. What follows are his examples to illustrate the phrase, but we are left hanging. It would be far better to use the Boaz material, refined into a concise paraphrase, in other articles which deal with "the problem" he referring to. (Perhaps these sources could be used in the article about special interests.) But when you take the term (or phrase) and endeavor to say that the other 8 sources were talking about concentrated benefits/diffuse costs, you are engaging in improper WP:SYN.
Don't get me wrong -- I applaud your efforts and contributions. But there are better ways to skin the cat.--S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are other editors correct when they criticize my new articles for "being (mere) collections of quotes"? Would they be correct if they criticized my new articles for merely being stubs? That wouldn't make any sense...yet somehow it makes sense for them to criticize a stub that has quotes? Creating stubs does not violate any Wikipedia policy. A concept either is...or it isn't...notable enough to warrant its own entry. And anybody who is genuinely interested in learning about a concept should want to read exactly what the notable people in the field have said about the concept.
Why would each and every quote on concentrated benefits and diffuse costs have to actually use the term? It's amazing how many editors have the impression that Wikipedia is a dictionary. The point of that entry is the concept of the many having to pay for things that only benefit the few. And that's exactly what all the quotes are about. So there's nothing even remotely WP:SYN about it. All those quotes say "A"...none of them say "B".
The problem is that editors haven't really studied or researched these areas. They hear about these concepts for the first time, have trouble understanding them and do not bother bringing up their concerns/questions on the talk page. They just nominate the articles for deletion and other equally ignorant editors concur. --Xerographica (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. It is late here at present, so I'll defer on addressing your points till sometime tomorrow (hopefully).--S. Rich (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
A new day!
Your argument about stubs does not apply. Deletions are done on the basis of WP:DEL-REASON (which gives the major reasons for deletion, not all of them). In a sense you are arguing: "Deleting an article because it is a stub is not appropriate [true]. My articles are more than just stubs [true]. Therefore my articles should not be deleted [not true]."
Next, you are incorrect about SYN. Yours is a variant of the problem. You are saying: "Professor X uses the term CB&DC [the 'A'] to describe such-and-such [the 'C'] [true]. Professor Y also talks about such-and-such [the 'C'] [true]. Therefore, Professor Y was referring to CB&DC [not true, because we only see Professor Y using the term 'B']." (I wish I had a more elegant way of stating this.) But what was the actual topic that all these people were talking about? A variant of rent-seeking, income-redistribution, lobbying, kleptocracy, or...? The editing problem is in seeking to develop the phrase into an article. And when it comes to concepts (such as CB&DC), that problem gets difficult. Our task, as editors, is not so much to understand the topic ourselves, but more of how do we help readers understand. In this regard the collection of quotes does not help. First we need a topic (and topic title) which fits common usage/WP:NAMINGCRITERIA guidelines, and then we weave the sources into the article to explain the topic. (And since your collection of quotes "about" CB&DC do not use the term as a common term, you are splashing the quotes onto the page without weaving them (or shoehorning) into an understandable and helpful article.)
Lastly, your argument about the other editors "not understanding" is especially weak. They are focusing on WP guidelines, and not the concepts. And they are doing so properly. Instead of asking "How can I make this article more useful to readers?" you are saying "I understand what this stuff is about – they do not!" Such thinking will make you a very unhappy editor.--S. Rich (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that my entries should not be deleted because they are more than stubs...I said that whether or not they should be deleted depends on the notability of the concept.
Regarding SYN. If Boaz uses example "1" for concept "A"...the concept does not become "B" just because Olson uses example "2". Don't just tell me that the entry contains concept "B"...copy and paste exactly what you believe to be concept "B". And it would be really great if you did so on the entry's talk page so that others can benefit from the discussion.
How can editors help other people understand a concept that they themselves do not understand? That's just the blind leading the blind. Research first, edit second. --Xerographica (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The notability of the concept is not what governs. How we present it is more important because we are simply editors. My point about SYN is poorly presented and weak. I was seeking to demonstrate how simply giving a listing of quotes does not advance/help the readability of the article or understanding of the subject. Lastly, you may understand the subjects/concepts, but you are not being an effective leader or editor. And you are butting heads with editors who are far more experienced than you as editors. You've got to research the editing process as well, understand it, and apply it.--S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you expect me to do. If you expect me to pop out fully formed entries then that's a bit much. If you want me to work with other editors to improve my stubs...well...then...that's a bit difficult when, rather than make helpful suggestions on the entries' talk pages, other editors prefer to just delete the stubs. --Xerographica (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I detect a certain willingness to learn. (It can be difficult for us when our brains are cluttered with great thoughts of Spencer, et al.!) Start off simple. Incorporate Keles' new word into Kludge as a variant or interesting use of the word. Use his article as the reference. Look around for other articles where the kludge concept, and Keles' term, can be expanded upon without injecting POV. For the longer (and bigger) concepts, look around for articles where the various sources you like can be used to improve the article. For example, take some of the ideas (not necessarily the quotes) from Scope of government and use them in the Justification for government article. Provide proper referencing! Be sure that you are not adding redundant material. WP:SAA has lots of good advice. Also, keep in mind that WP has 4,126,191 content articles. Those articles (and their creators) all faced the same problem and process of article development. The articles survived and were improved upon. (As a side thought, I wonder how many articles have been axed through the AFD process?) Four Million Articles! Eighteen Million registered users! Twenty-nine Million pages! Tens of Thousands of regular editors and contributors! They – and you – have made 581,588,546 edits! You get to be a part of the process (and can enjoy it) as long as you realize we are not picking on you.--S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't want to learn or contribute constructively. You continue to add "articles" that are simply listing of various long quotes. This is not the way to construct an encyclopedia. Even your quotes lack basic reference other than who said them! You are just posting these quotes here and there because you like them. You make minimal effort to actually write something that is helpful to readers. Here we are, Xerographic, with editors who have made 100,000+ edits over years and years verses your 1,107 edits over 18 months, and you think you know more about writing an encyclopedia than them. Disappointing to say the least.--S. Rich (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Legal plunder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libertarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs

The discussion about deleting "Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs" was closed. The result was to redirect to ToC. Arthur Rubin was correct WRT to the redirect and your efforts to revive the article were disruptive. Please stop.--S. Rich (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you know how I can bring this issue to the attention of any editors who might care about the fact that there are absolutely no reliable sources to support the redirect? --Xerographica (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
1. You are missing the point. The discussion about concentrated benefits was closed and a decision was made. Rubin was implementing the decision and you improperly reverted it. 2. The guidance about RS does not apply to creating redirects -- when articles, such as those you created -- lack RS, it is proper to tag them as unreferenced and/or create the re-direct to an article which will cover the topic. 3. The burden to keep the material, when clearly unreferenced or of doubtful relevance, is on you. See: WP:PROVEIT. 4. "This issue" (whatever you mean by this is a mystery to me) is out there for editors to discuss. We do so on talk pages. As these are new articles they do not have followers, so the point is not a big one -- but you can raise them as you wish on WikiProject talk pages. 5. Your articles lack RS. As has been repeatedly stated, they are little more than WP:QUOTEFARMs. The guidance says: "This means that a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere."--S. Rich (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The entry on concentrated benefits and diffuse costs had numerous reliable sources...all of which can be found on the entry on legal plunder. Yet, there are absolutely no RS to support the redirect to tragedy of the commons. They are two completely separate and distinct concepts...concept A and concept B. By redirecting A to B you are saying that A = B when there are no RS sources to support that. --Xerographica (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The proper (from the point of view of Wikipedia) way of dealing with this would be to move legal plunder to wiktionary, and soft-redirect "concentrated benefits and diffused costs" there. You have not demonstrated the potential of a Wikipedia article on the subject. We would need to have people talking about the concept, not giving examples or consequences.
By that way, a redirect from A to B means only that A should be discussed in "B", not that A is B. May I suggest that you bring up the matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics, if you want an expert opinion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
You might also bring up the redirect at WP:RfD, but, keep in mind, this would prohibit you from recreating the article in its present form anywhere in article-space, not just under the name, as the result of the AfD was "redirect". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

NPA

When you disparage the efforts of editors to improve WP with ad hominem arguments ("you don't understand" [paraphrase]) you are not adding anything that helps improve particular articles. Moreover, you weaken your own arguments. Finally, you have not looked at the prodigious contributions that AR has made over the years. Please stop such personal comments. --S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

He edits topics that he clearly has made no effort to research...as far as I'm concerned...Wikipedia would be far better off if all his edits were undone. --Xerographica (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Stalking

If you think I'm following you around, you're correct. If you want to point to any other editors who are primarily creating articles consisting of quotefarms, with "See also" sections pointing to all articles in a topic, such as public choice theory, I'll follow them around, too. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Service Award -- display here, on userpage, or delete -- as you see fit

This editor is a
Novice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Posted by: --S. Rich (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

3RR warning

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you violate this rule before I did?
1. I added the material
2. You reverted (1 strike)
3. I reverted (1 strike)
4. You reverted (2 strikes)
5. I reverted (2 strikes)
6. You reverted (3 strikes)
So shouldn't you have placed the notice on your page? --Xerographica (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, your addition may qualify as a revert, as you reverted the previous deletion of the opportunity cost sentence, even though you added references. But, yes, I'm subject to WP:3RR, as well. If you read it carefully, you'll see that the "automatic" block is only if you go over 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. I'm just pointing it out, and you haven't yet provided justification of the quotefarm. Also note that consecutive edits count as at most one revert, and reverting one's own edit does not generally count as a revert. I've attempted to get clarification on some edge cases, but with no success. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Additional comment: When you label other editors as "VDE"s, or say "you don't understand" or say "discussion with these editors has been unfruitful would be an understatement", or say "Oh wait, I remember why...it's because you're a VDE." etc., you indicate you are not assuming good faith. Moreover, the snide remarks are uncivil. Remember, please, that unless there is "strong evidence to the contrary" you must AFG and make your comments with this guiding principle in mind. Please focus your comments on the editing process, and not the editors. S. Rich (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I could care less whether you're acting in good faith or not...the fact of the matter is that both you and Rubin are incompetent. --Xerographica (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
You have demonstrated a failure of WP:COMPETENCE in regard editing Wikipedia. As you know, I may not block you (except for obvious vandalism), per WP:INVOLVED, but I can certainly suggest that you be blocked until you learn basic Wikipedia norms. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:Competence, "Clearly, every editor is incompetent for some subjects, so it is important to know or discover your limitations." Neither you, nor Rich are competent in economics...yet you edit economic material. So please suggest that I be blocked...put your money where your mouth is. Let's see if your actions speak louder than your words. --Xerographica (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You repeatedly use the "VDE" acronym as a personal attack -- [1]. This is wrong, so please stop. (Repeating the "slur" does not verify your opinion. It only weakens your argument and standing as an editor.) It is not an issue of what RS you supply in the raw form; editing and contributing means incorporating the source in helpful prose. Please consider WP:RF. S. Rich (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I do wish you'd drop this VDE tagging. It does not contribute to article improvement. This edit: [2] is only the latest in your persistent series of personal attacks. S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You redirect concentrated benefits and diffuse costs to tragedy of the commons despite the fact that there is absolutely no reliable sources to support the redirect. You're incompetent. Incompetence has consequences. The consequences are the destruction of value. Therefore, you are a Value Destroying Editor (VDE). Please feel free to report me for being concerned with the consequences of your incompetence. --Xerographica (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Again you persist with these needless and feckless attacks. [3]. Would you look at WP:TE and ask yourself which of the characteristics you display? Alas, you are about to get your wish that you be reported. This is sad because you do have potential worthwhile contributions to offer. But this will not happen until and unless you look at WP guidance and how your comments fail to comport with that guidance. S. Rich (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as you continue to be a Value Destroying Editor...then I will continue to refer to you as such. Obviously I feel that there is sufficient evidence to support my concern...so why should I be worried if you reported me? All my edits have been supported by RS...I have nothing to hide. I would have reported you already but I was really curious to see how many warnings you gave me before you actually followed through with your threat. --Xerographica (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Put your money where your mouth is

The article Put your money where your mouth is has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Duplicate of wiktionary:put_your_money_where_your_mouth_is

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice -- as you wish

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks against another editor, even after multiple requests to stop. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if you are correct in your content edits, you cannot go around attacking other editors. Your VDE acronym is an attack. Referring to others as incompetent is an attack. You may (or may not) be correct in your content edits, but if you attack other editors, you are going to end up blocked. Such as has just happened. Please use this as a learning experience about how to get along with other editors around here. There are correct ways to interact. Using disparaging acronyms and labels is not one of them. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

From WP:COMPETENCE...
Where we very often see big controversies, though, is with editors who are disruptive while trying to help. This is where we sometimes see a harmful side effect of our (generally quite useful) notion of assuming good faith. Many editors have focused so much on this that they have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well.
Competence is required. Yet, what can we do when we suspect that competence is lacking? That entry does not provide any step by step process for allowing us to express our concerns regarding editors who are editing outside their areas of expertise. So Wikipedia policy clearly states that competence is required...but it doesn't give us anything to do about it.
When we suspect that an entry has a problem...what do we do about it? Well...either we fix it or we tag the page so that other people can hopefully fix the problem. Clearly I believe these two editors have a problem...but what could I do to fix it? Obviously I spent a lot of time trying to encourage them to look at the reliable sources. That didn't work...so all I could think to do was "tag" them with an accurate label so that other editors might be alerted to the problem.
Are there better ways of dealing with problems of incompetence? There are always better ways to deal with problems. But so far no other editors have brought any other ways to my attention. Just because I've "tagged" these two editors as having a problem...in no way, shape or form means that any other editors will do anything about it. But that's on them. --Xerographica (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xerographica (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why am I blocked? Let's review the circumstances that resulted in my block.

Having read numerous reliable sources in the field of public choice theory...I created an entry for concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Why? Because clearly I believed that there were sufficient reliable sources to support its notability and that creating the entry would add value for Wikipedia. Was it a perfect entry? Of course not, it was nothing more than a stub with a few relevant passages, some relevant "see also" items and several relevant references. So obviously there was room for improvement.

Arthur Rubin nominated the entry for deletion...Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs Why? Because he is incompetent. More specifically, he was editing outside his area of expertise and he never bothered to read the RS sources that I provided. Even if he did read them...it's doubtful that he would understand them anymore than I would understand RS that had to do with physics.

The result of the vote was 2 keep, 2 delete and 1 redirect. So what did BWilkins do? He redirects to tragedy of commons. Why? Maybe he made a mistake. Maybe he knew of some RS that I had missed.

So I posted on his talk page and asked him to shed some light on the reasoning behind his decision. Did he do so? No. Why? Because he's not competent enough to admit that he had made a mistake. If he had simply looked over the reliable sources and based his decision on the reliable sources then perhaps he would have given Rubin and Rich a clear message that RS are important. But perhaps he did look over the RS and he couldn't make heads or tails of them. Even if that is the case...it's still evidence of incompetence to edit outside your area of expertise. Plus, the fact that he's the one who blocked me...despite being clearly involved in the dispute...is additional evidence of his incompetence.

I posted on the talk page of tragedy of the commons and asked Rubin to provide reliable sources to support the redirect. He offered one source...which had nothing to do with concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Therefore, he simply provided more evidence of his incompetence.

Where does Rich fit in with all of this? He's just as incompetent as Arthur Rubin. Neither have any interest in any RS that are relevant to the pages that they edit. So who ends up being blocked? The editor who makes edits based on reliable sources...or the editors who ignore reliable sources and/or make extensive edits well outside their areas of expertise? Obviously I'm the one that ends up being blocked...yet it's their edits which destroy value and harm Wikipedia by destroying its credibility and trustworthiness.

Do Rubin and Rich destroy value? Yes. Why? Because they are incompetent. Therefore, they are Value Destroying Editors (VDEs). Can there be any greater threat to Wikipedia? No. Yet, here I am the one who is blocked simply because I have done the most to try and protect Wikipedia from its greatest threat.

Also, just to be clear...the behavior of these two VDEs is not isolated to just this one entry. The damage that they have done is very extensive...and there's absolutely no reason to believe that their behavior doesn't extend far beyond the entries on my watch list.

Decline reason:

By repeating the same insults you've been blocked for in this unblock request, you've just earned an extension of your block to one week. Another insult, and you might also lose the ability to edit this page. Max Semenik (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Max Semenik, oh man, I really don't want to lose the ability to edit this page. So could you please clarify exactly what you mean by insults? For example...I don't think that your response to my concern was reasonable...so would it be an insult if I said that your response was unreasonable? What if you burned a book...would it be an insult if I referred to you as a book burner?

When I looked over the Wikipedia entry on personal attacks...it states that comments "should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Referring to somebody as a book burner clearly is directed at content (books) and actions (burning) rather than the person. It's not a matter of who they are...it's a matter of what they are doing.

In my situation...I've simply described the actions of these two editors in terms of how it relates to the content. It's one thing if you were to argue that my description of their behavior was inaccurate...but that's not what you did....you simply said that I had insulted them.

What would I have to gain from insulting them? I'm a really reasonable guy. I absolutely love reason...I respond really well to it. Are you a reasonable person? If so, then please share the precise reasoning behind your decision to deny my request to be unblocked. What would really help is if you could copy and paste exactly which rules/regulations that I've violated. I've looked over both the entry on personal attacks and the entry on harassment and can find nothing that specifically matches my own actions. --Xerographica (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)#Graham.27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement--S. Rich (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Saying that other editors are incompetent. Calling them by your chosen abbreviation. Those are the insults/attacks. Multiple people, including several admins, have told you now that you need to stop it. If you keep doing this, you are on a path towards escalating blocks. You were warned, you repeated exactly the same behavior. You were blocked, and you did it again in the block request. Unless you can figure out another way to interact with other editors that does not include putting insulting labels on them, you are headed down a path that I don't think you want to head down. Whether you think the labels are correct or not, you need to stop using them. Just stop. - TexasAndroid (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
You're correct, multiple editors have told me to stop...but not a single editor has copied and pasted the exact rule/policy/regulation that they perceive that I have violated. I've read the entry on personal attacks and the entry on harassment and did not find anything that was even remotely relevant to my behavior. That's because my behavior has focused ENTIRELY on what the editors have been doing...and NOT on who the editors are as people. So if you're concerned with my behavior...if you don't like the path that I'm going down...then it would be extremely helpful if you could copy and paste the specific policy that you feel matches my behavior. Because as it stands, you've been entirely unhelpful. And by that I mean that I have NO idea whether you believe that there is a specific rule that states that I'm not allowed to refer to your actions as unhelpful. --Xerographica (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
WP:APR and the various essays listed in the template at bottom of page may be helpful.--S. Rich (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_2&oldid=1142681421"