SpokAnCap

Welcome

Hello, SpokAnCap, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

October 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Murray Rothbard. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hello. Please WP:AGF. Labeling a section heading as you did is improper. We use the talk pages to discuss the articles and not the editors. Moreover, describing a contributor's edits as vandalism is most improper. Vandalism in Wikipedia has a particular meaning. Please see WP:NOTVAND and the rest of the policy. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. However I disagree with your assessment regarding specific editors. Clearly, these editors are in violation of Wikipedia's vandalism policy, especially "blanking".SpokAnCap (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Talk:Murray Rothbard, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. SpokAnCap, the more you WP:SHOUT about vandalism, the weaker your argument becomes. Referring us to the wayback version of the article is helpful. But we must work to improve the present article. Thus getting/urging editors to follow WP:NPOV and other WP policies is needed. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Murray Rothbard. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please note that "blanking" has a specific meaning in WP. It refers to removal of material for no other purpose than removal in a malicious fashion. There are bots (automatic programs) that detect blanking of material and label such edits on the article page histories. These labels enable editors who are watching pages to inspect the questionable edits. Describing the various good faith edits that you have seen, even though they remove material, as "vandalism" is not assuming good faith. If those edits had been vandalism, they would have been labeled as such, reverted, and then the editors involved would be admonished and/or blocked. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SRich, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. If blanking is the removal of content quickly without justification, what is the term for removing content slowly without sufficient justification, yielding the same end result? If a wiki is systematically trashed over the period of several months and no one notices, is it not considered trashed? These are not blind accusations of vandalism, I've provided evidence of this systematic trashing of Rothbard's wiki. I'm amazed this was not noticed before. Not only that, but in the Rothbard talk page, the editors in question have constantly shown they do not have a NPOV regarding Rothbard. Trying to circumvent detection of "blanking" by doing it slowly does not mean the page was not "blanked".SpokAnCap (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

SpokAnCap:You expressed the problem very well. I brought these editors to a number of noticeboards a number of times for their biased editing. And shared relevant quotes here Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Meta-note a number of times, not to mention brought evidence of harassment/wikihounding; but editors and admins just don't seem to care. Plus they are very good at trashing others with little or no evidence so that people believe their nonsens. I've just gotten fed up with wikipedia because of it. Better to put the energy into making the revolution... :-)

(SRich can be annoying, but his heart is in the right place 1/2 the time anyway.) User:Carolmooredc 22:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Carol, I'll check it out.SpokAnCap (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi SpokAnCap! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)