Talk:Libertarian capitalism

message: == disambig ==
I don't think a disambig page does this term proper justice, this term is created by people that are anti-libertarians using libertarian. It only has 600 hits on google about a third of which seem to be wikipedia-releated and another third seem to be people putting Libertarian/capatalist or libertarian,capatalist in list type forms. Therefore a proper description would only be the fact that the term was created and why, not setting up disambig and giving validty to the term Chuck F 16:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: Hey Chuck F, What problem do you see with my rewrite on the topic? --Improv 09:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And your proof for that proposition is what exactly? Libertarian capitalism is a frequently used expression at cafes in Amsterdam. VegasDiaz 12:27, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  wtf? they are speaking English in cafes in amsterdam, using that phrase? what cafes excatly? Chuck F 12:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Europe is not monolingual -- in various parts, it is used as a convenient language for people of different nationalities to communicate, as many people learn English as a second language. Of course, it is also still a valid point when they use the translated term in their native language. How many times have you been to Europe, Chuck F? You seem rather surprised. --Improv 17:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My rewrite

message: *I feel the current rewrite, by me, is the best one we have (yet) because:
*#It notes the history of the term
*#It notes common and philosophical usage
*#It is not rude, accusatory, nor does it claim ownership by any group
*All the other versions I've seen, especially those by Chuck F, appear to have serious faults. If you disagree, why don't we go over the exact text of the various versions, discussing why each part is there, and perhaps we'll come to a better understanding of where our differences lie. --Improv 13:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version has my complete approval. If someone feels an extreme urge to revert it, could you please explain on this talk page first? Rhobite 14:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
It claims that this has moderate usage... that's not true less then 700 hits goggle(less then 550 before this got listed on wikipedia), half of which are not the actual term(rather people listing I'm a beliver in libertarian,capitalism,free-will). Means the term has next to no usage... plus the predate thing is compleatly not true. And mainstream is not pov that's compleatly valid 203.169.250.28 14:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My rewrite

message: Libertarian capitalism is an expression that some people (not very many, as far as I can tell) use to refer to the same thing as what the  article on libertarianism is about.  We only need one article on the subject.  Therefore, one of them should be a redirect to the other.  Since this page has little or no useful text, I am making it the redirect.  Of course, we can discuss on libertarianism the option of moving that page elsewhere. - Nat Krause 03:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: You all are invited to visit and comment on a draft for a RfC on this and related articles that will eventually likely become a poll. Please remember we are not discussing the topic itself, just the suitable neutral number of issues we want to cover. --Improv 17:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft for a RfC on the issue 

message: In the fall of 2004, this article was nominated for deletion.  No concensus was ever reached and the discussion was never properly closed.  I am now archiving that old discussion.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Libertarian capitalism for a record of the debate.  Rossami (talk) 20:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: from VfD

message: Since Right Libertarianism is a pejorative term used mainly by opponents, this is a better title for the article. The following link shows how Rothbard thought the term right libertarianism was "bewildering", and shows that he put it in scare quotes.
https://mises.org/library/left-and-right-within-libertarianism
:Some asshole just reverted it, without giving any reason why. Write your reasons here. Or is he just some lefty who wants to use that pejorative term? Who knows? I guess I have to wait a few hours before reverting, due to the 3RR rule. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the 3RR page again, intent trumps technicality. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 17:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Right Libertarianism is generally a non-neutral pejorative, double so for the lead sentence which say the "right wing libertarianism" is a synonym.  I'd favor reducing the article to a few paragraphs which cover the usage of the term.  But re-direct is also fine. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Just for one second, did it occur to you that when multiple editors are all reverting your changes, you might just possibly be doing something wrong?  Stop now, before you dig yourself any further into the 3RR hole and learn something.  Since you obviously never read edit summaries and just plough ahead, barely taking a breath to abuse other editors left right and centre, I'll spell it out here.  Do not cut and paste the contents of one article into another.  This loses the attribution history and is unnecessary.  When the title of an article needs to be changed (I take no position on this, but it does seem to be disputed, or at least under discussion), the article can be renamed.  This keeps the history of edits on the article all in together.  After an article has been renamed, it should usually be edited for consistency with the new title.  In some cases, you will not have sufficient permissions to rename an article, especially if there is non-trivial history at the new title.  In that case, go to WP:RM and follow the instructions.  In this case, I would suggest that this is a controversial move, so a discussion will be help.  After about a week, assuming the discussion was broadly in favour of the new name, someone with suitable editing rights will then rename the page.  Please, don't step further over the 3RR line, it will only get you blocked, and please stop using abusive language towards other editors.  Lithopsian (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you are mostly right.  Except for possibly not noticing that PhilLiberty has not had anywhere near the wiki experience to learn our unusual alternate universe. PhilLiberty, we need to slow down and sort this out.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry , but PhilLiberty has had it explained to them numerous times, and continues to ignore WP policies and procedures. In addition, they are incredibly uncivil, and if they keep it up, they are most likely looking at being banned, or at least topic banned. WP:CUTANDPASTE moves are not allowed, and yet they persist in doing them. Onel5969 TT me 02:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

text: North8000, was that sarcasm regarding PhilLiberty not having wiki experience? Your comment prompted me to look at their user talk page history and I see there numerous discussions there about 3RR violations and cut-and-paste moves, exactly the issues at hand here, going back almost eight years. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just a glance at number of edits (1k and change) . IMO starting to figure out the giant alternate universe of Wikipedia happens at about 10,000 edits.  For me I learned about avoiding copying large blocks of text somewhere around my 30,000th edit. Once you read the policies and guidelines (About 1.4 million words of crowd-sourced rules in 350 documents with a large amount of overlap and conflict.) you are just getting started.  :-)   North8000 (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

text: There's also this. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 07:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And again an editor has done a cut and paste move. At this point, when it's been explained numerous times, disruptive edits like that can and should be treated as vandalism.  Particularly, when they accuse other editors who are fixing the mistake of vandalism. Personally, I don't care what the page is named, but if the decision, by consensus, is that the main title should be Libertarian capitalism, then a page move must be made, and probably a history merge would be appropriate as well. Onel5969 TT me 00:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection from POV Right Libertarianism article 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Right-libertarianism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Since editors at Right libertarism oppose a move of that article, we can now do a separate article here that is more objective. Hopefully, vandals will not follow us to this page and try to destroy this article. Oh! Some are already doing just that. Some asshole (Lithopsian) is repeatedly trying to redirect this article over to the biased POV Right-libertarian article. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I predict that you'll be blocked within the week, and not because you repeatedly abuse other editors although that would be reason enough.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fuck you for destroying this article again. Oh well, I'll have to wait until tomorrow, since I've already reverted your vandalism twice today. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:POVFORK for why this is not okay. Also, from WP:3RR, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". Waiting a day doesn't make it not edit warring. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work on '''Libertarian capitalism''' is in progress