User talk:Fsol

King Michael's abdication

Hi, Fsol. Again, I thank you for pointing out that January 2007 article from the NYT. As I said I would, I did add some of that material in the article on Michael, which I think is the logical place to treat that issue in detail. As a matter of fact, I found a corroboration for the blackmail story -- a 2005 article from the Daily Telegraph. There is though a dispute there, on how to interpret some other sources, maybe you know more about these events and would like to weigh in. Turgidson (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing -- here is the link you asked for. Turgidson (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Fsol, for your recent work on Michael I of Romania! It made the article (with a couple of exceptions - see my edits) much better. Lil' mouse (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Your additions to the lede of Libertarianism are a copyright violation by close paraphrase of Peter Vallentyne's work, specifically:

Vallentyne, "is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things"
Your addition, "is the political philosophy that holds individuals initially own themselves and have property rights in external things"
In particular, "own themselves and have ... property rights in external things"

Do not do this, it is a copyright violation. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are common terms "own themseleves", "property right", "external thing". It is ridiculous to reformulate just in order to get different terms.Fsol (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at WP:AN/I. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I meant to post it at AN/I but I must have slipped up and posted it at AN. yours with apologies, Fifelfoo (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worry, it's the thought that matters. -- Fsol (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP:ROMANIA!

Thanks for joining and looking forward to collaborate on great articles! Best regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

von Mises Inst.

I've set up a section to discuss the IP editor's proposed anarchism additions. The difficulty I've seen is the edits have [[[WP:RS]] behind them -- but I haven't read the material, much less determined if the proposed stuff is supported by the material. Fsol, I invite you to put in the first word to explain why the proposed material is not appropriate. Thanks, and happy editing!--S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more appropriate way to handle it. But, from what I've seen until now, someone is just trying to push through a violation of WP:NPOV, that is only supported by a blog entry in blatent violation of WP:V.

As you have said the burden of proof lies elseware.

Also, good faith editing can hardly be assumed: [1] -- Fsol (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Victor Ponta

Your recent editing history 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. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought I'd let you know that Biruitorul implied that you have a low IQ. Have a nice day! --Madmans stone (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

When adding links to material on external sites, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Victor Ponta ‎. 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.

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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

In this edit war, the user who took remained civil (unless Biruitorul claims I have offended him in any way) and took the time to discuss the issue, is the one who was banned. First, I explained how my edits were in accordance with wikipedia guidelines on the article's talk page([2]) with no answer from the other two users involved. Second, Biruitorul (one of the other two edit warriors) claimed to be willing to discuss the matter ([3]) if the references would be in proper format. I thought he was right, so as requested I put the references in proper format, however a discussion failed to appear, instead he just continued removing the references. Third, during the course of this edit war, I have always remained civil with Biruitorul, which cannot be said about him, as attested by his allusions about my IQ ([4]) and his only input on the article's talk page ([5]). For these reasons, I appeal this ban. Fsol (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even a very polite edit war is an edit war, and we don't tolerate edit warring of any sort. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Your edit warring on Rothbard

Your recent editing history 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.

Please review WP:BRD. The philosopher, journalist statement was not cited to a WP:RS and was reverted. The next step is to discuss this on talk, not to continue to undo the reversion in the absence of consensus. There has been no consensus nor reliable source cited on this issue. Please step back and follow WP guidance on this. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fsol. You have new messages at [[User talk: SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)|User talk: SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)]].[reply]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Fsol. You have new messages at SPECIFICO's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Austrian School

Hello Fsol. I reverted Mises and Rothbard because they came later, not in the first years of AS described in that sentence. Mises and Rothbard are discussed later in the article, but the sentence in question is about a specific period of the early days of the AS, and both M and R came in later generations. Please undo and restore the former text, and perhaps you could expand the content on M and R in the body of the article below? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am sorry (again) I was under the impression Mises was missing. Why do we not mention Rothbard, if Hayek is mentioned. They both seem to be different strands of "intelectual" offsprings of Mises? -- Fsol (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. I believe Rothbard is mentioned in the discussion of the Business Cycle Theory and the effects of government intervention/monetary regulation. If there are other economic (rather than the more philosophical or political) contributions you'd like to add that would be great. I think Murray turned his attention mainly to larger issues as his career progressed. SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be amply sufficient. I apologise for the misunderstanding. -- Fsol (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I feel so rich today I'm giving out kittens left and right! Enjoyed your clear eyed comments in recent postings.

User:Carolmooredc 20:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard on children

Please undo your latest content deletion from this page (1). The interpretation of Rothbard is not OR; it is documented by a reliable secondary source published in the highly prestigious Politics, Philosophy and Economics journal (not to mention the fact that it directly follows from the passage). Steeletrap (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fsol. I reversed your deletion of the primary source text on Rothbard because it is supported by and helps clarify the secondary RS discussion which follows. Let's discuss on the article talk page if you feel strongly about this. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fsol, I have posted to RSN regarding your (and other users') deletion or distortion of the RS content on Rothbard's view of children's rights. See: here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

FYI, there are Austrian economics/General sanctions including Rothbard article so you might watch your # of reverts. Also an Arbitration that should be over in about a week. Check it out here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fsol. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]