Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write ((helpme)) below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I agree with your edit here please note that it is wrongly marked as minor. Such an edit might be disputed, so it is not minor. Only mark trivial edits as minor, such as typos, ext. All the best and Gmar Hatima Tuva, if you happen to be Jewish, as Rothbard was. --MeUser42 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take a look at the edit & my reason for reversion. The sentence deals with Rothbard's influence on American style liberalism, not from where he was influenced. Moreover, what does the supporting reference say? That is the critical editing question. --S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to reformulate to make the intention clearer. --MeUser42 (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not make edits based on unsupported claims, on issues already discussed and settled on the talk page in Market Anarchism. If you believe that the conclusions are wrong, some evidence to the contrary and discussion would be much appreciated. This is, once again, resembling vandalism and I have reverted your changes. For the third time now, please see the talk page instead starting an edit war. Finx (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you satisfied with the response I gave you on free market and free market anarchism? Rothbardanswer (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest, no, not particularly. You've accused me of "[filling the article] with [my] own political opinions" and did not provide any evidence to back up your accusation. I have no interest in debating politics with you either, but I do still believe my edits fairly represent the subject matter and are entirely consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Personally, I would be quite satisfied if you pointed out where this is not the case on the talk page and corrected those errors if possible, as I have tried to do -- rather than just insisting that you're right and I'm wrong because you said so. Finx (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The QUALITY of a good or service being predicted by supply and demand means that if someone is selling a product (Such as chicken sandwiches or a toy) it is pivotal that the product should meet the consumer's demand of exceptional quality to establish an appropriate rapport between the seller and buyer. If there is a failure in establishing excellent quality for a product, then according to Adam Smith's concept of the invisible hand, nobody will want to buy the product, therefore the self regulating features of the free market will either compel the seller to adjust the quality of a good in the context of excellent value to increase consumption and profit, or consequently, he will lose his business. If you still aren't convinced of my explanation, maybe we can add our notions to the talk page. Thanks for your time. Signing off. Nashhinton (talk) 07:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My point was a technical issue of economic science. I think I understand what you're saying about entrepreneurs marketing things but that doesn't go into the lead of what a market is. A markets supply and demand is determined by price. A price is a psychic value ratio that coordinates exchange, wage rates, interest rates etc. Quality is subjective but it's consumed within the definition of a price. Quality of goods is SPECIFIED pricing. It itself doesn't determine economic laws or anything. If you've got questions or disagreements please message me back :) Rothbardanswer (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you made several edits where you added external links to the see also section of pages. Please only place internal links in this section per WP:See also, and please make sure any links you add to the External links section adhere to WP:EL. Thanks. --JFHutson (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pls read over WP:PROMO - you here to help Wikipedia or library.mises.org?

Sometimes Wikipedia sees bookspam, which is the insertion of text mentioning books to call attention to the books, publisher or book-hosting site, rather than to contribute to the article. This often takes the form of inserting book listings into reference sections although the book is not used as the source of any information in the article. Bookspam is also seen as the addition of books to "external links", "further reading" or similar sections, although the books added do not add any useful and relevant information.Moxy (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the help Moxy. I just always have that source in the back of my mind because it's an easy to access online archive. But I think pretty much everything they've ever published is a reprint. I'll make sure to find different sources though :) Rothbardanswer (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please start a discussion about why you think these books should be linked from the World War II article rather than edit war. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I see that you've posted a comment at the end of the unrelated 'The Soviet Union1939-1941' section. I'll move your comment to a new section and reply. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello .. just wanted to stop see if I can help with your books. We have a wikiproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies were we work together in making bibliographies on major topics to help our readers find content for research and to help expand Wiki itself (like Bibliography of Canadian military history). Come by and we can look at the books you have interest in and see what we can do at the project in proper placement of books and if there notable. Despite the fact compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wiki - you will find that many think people who add books to "articles" are spamming. Thus those of us that understand the value of readable books for our readers and the end result of expansion of Wikipedia do welcome links to books in there proper place. We also write article on major works like War and Peace. Anyways - pls stop by the project and mention the books you have accesses to.Moxy (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much Moxy. This sounds great. I think I'll have multiple sources and online libraries to contribute :) Rothbardanswer (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just some info to help you along - if you have any questions just ask as there are hundreds of policy and guideline pages. However, if you start out by following 8 simple rules, the rest should come naturally....see the essay Wikipedia:8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia...also our basic policies and guidelines at Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset. Sorry to keep buging you...see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory for all our projects.Moxy (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're not bugging me at all. Thank you very much Moxy.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anarchism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 controversial 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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning about POV-pushing, spamming and personal attacks

Please stop POV-pushing, spamming and making personal attacks. They are all against Wikipedia policy and may get your account blocked again.Spylab (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm the only contributor using the talk page. I'm reverting vandalism and editorialising. Each link is to a separate page and author. All are economists and political philosophers. Rothbardanswer (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Spylab (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]