User talk:IWillBuildTheRoads

Alert/notification relating top pages and edits relating to the post-1932 politics of the United States

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Neutrality^talk 15:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

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

Take the survey now!

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

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

References

Welcome!

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

Reference errors on 6 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the National Football League page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Date format

ISO dates in the form yyyy-mm-dd are not a deprecated date format and seem to be increasingly preferred for parameters like access-date. Changing date formats as you did at this edit is not really an improvement (but also not worth reverting for the very same reason). Editors may choose their preferred way of entering dates and it is considered disruptive editing to change one acceptable date format for another. jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that and thanks for letting me know. I assumed the written date was preferred because that's how it's done in the examples on Template:Cite web. But, notice that the citation I modified was actually a citation I added earlier that day. I won't do it again though. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

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

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

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

Edit warring warning / Libertarianism

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Libertarianism. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

IWillBuildTheRoads, I don't see any consensus for your change, either on the talk page or by looking at the edits on the article. Please stop reverting multiple editors until you can show clear consensus exists (see WP:DRR for options) or you may be blocked from editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Sure. Just for some background info, Finx began removing reliably sourced material from the lead with a justification I didn't believe to be accurate or sufficient for the removal of the info. We discussed it on the talk page, making little progress. Saturnalia0 fortunately came along and made the post starting with "The SEP defines..." (SEP stands for Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.) In it, he or she said that until reliable sources that support Finx's view are presented (which could hopefully lead to a more permanent solution being agreed upon), his or her "suggestion is to leave the term [self-ownership] in the lead (i.e. modify the current revision) and add the SEP as a source (it is, after all, what a reliable source says)." He or she also said that "if 'rule of law' is to be kept it should be attributed to right-wing libertarians." I decided to implement this (possibly temporary) compromise between the original version and Finx's version. But, I decided to take it one step further and just remove rule of law entirely (remember, Finx wanted rule of law removed). Unfortunately, this wasn't enough. The edits were reverted by Finx without explanation (to his version with no compromise). It was discussed on the talk page more, and Saturnalia0 decided to change it back to the compromise version, but with an additional attribution that some left-libertarians deny self-ownership (I added a citation needed to the statement afterward). I thought this would be enough, because Finx's argument has been that some left-libertarians deny self-ownership (even though the SEP says otherwise). It still wasn't satisfactory for Finx. This time, however, the compromise was reverted with no explanation: [1] [2] (a vague, inaccurate explanation was only given on the talk page after I reverted these edits). I asked him about it on the talk page, but he said I was simply misunderstanding the reliable sources (however, his explanation for why contradicts the actual text of the sources). Then, he flat out denied any compromise had ever been made followed by more reversions with no adequate explanation: [3] [4] [5] It seems this user has a history of disruptive editing on this page (his talk page has some warnings from a few years back about the same page). Even though it's not always a requirement for edit warring, I also want to point out that I never got close to making more than three reversions in 24 hours. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping @NeilN: IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I see there's discussion here but why have you stopped replying? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Throughout the many branches of the thread, we both have some posts from eachother that we haven't replied to. Are there particular posts of his you want me to reply to? I haven't really stopped responding, I have just been busy the past few days. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Another point I want to make is that if a compromise has been reached, it seems we should adopt the compromise I have been adding into the article. On the other hand, if a compromise hasn't been reached, it seems we should keep the article as it was before Finx began removing reliably sourced material (i.e. the long-standing version). In other words, he or she has the burden of proof to show that the four sources cited are not reliable and should therefore be removed from the article. Either way, it seems that what he or she is suggesting is not a valid solution at the moment. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to do here, as an admin. I handled the WP:3RRNB report about you and rejected blocking you in favor of recommending you continue to use the talk page. If that isn't working out please see WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Continued edit warring warning / Libertarianism

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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.
POV pushing ancap ideology into the lead, when blatantly contradicted by all the article's sources, can eventually earn you a topic ban. You've inserted your edit at least a dozen times now, without cause or consensus. Reconsider. fi (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

March 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Libertarianism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Political authority has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Political authority. Thanks! — Yash ^talk stalk 19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Political authority has been accepted

Political authority, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Waggie (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, IWillBuildTheRoads. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, IWillBuildTheRoads. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)