User talk:EllenCT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2013 archive

Contents

Tech News: 2014-01[edit]

08:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Producerism[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Producerism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BLP violations, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing by Tdadamemd. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I quoted you on here. --NeilN talk to me 04:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Single-payer health care". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 January 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

January 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. In this edit: [12] it looks like you are accusing TParis of being a lurker. Whether in the Wikipedia or internet sense, WP:lurker is a derogatory term directed at the person, not content. And it certainly does not apply to TParis. I have not removed the remark. You should please go back and strike the remark yourself. Thank you. S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Per the remarks of TParis, below, the issue is resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I was quoting User:Johnuniq. EllenCT (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you were quoting anyone here. Morphh (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Which is more important? Civility or accuracy of representing personal experiences? EllenCT (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Please look at WP:5P. Civility is much more important. Also, I see Johnuniq's comment. He referred to lurkers, plural, e.g., those who may come in to make comments. Your comment was directed at TParis – as the closer. Again, please strike it. (Morphh's comment does not address the lurker comment, but does suggest another NPA message.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
@Srich32977: if TParis says that he considers being called an experienced ANI lurker a personal attack, and you answer my question about whether the actions separating the Sheep from the Goats at the Last Judgement are "feckless", then I will consider replacing the word "lurker" with "volunteer". But not until then. But by all means, if you feel the need to continue with the politics of pile-on political railroading, please do so. EllenCT (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Without getting into the merits of this ban here, I think there may be a little bit of a misunderstanding reflected here. The general rule is that a community sanctions discussion is closed by an administrator who has not expressed a view in the discussion, rather than one who has already expressed his or her opinion in the discussion. This is a sound practice for what I think are obvious reasons. Since the administrator won't have commented in the discussion, he or she may seem like a "lurker" in the sense of someone who was reading but not previously participating, but in this context I don't think that is really a criticism. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

NYB, I'm hoping that your benign description is the case. (Note, I did not strike the remark myself.) If this is the case, then I'd hope EllenCT will substitute the term herself and thereby clarify her meaning. (I'd think TParis has other things to do than follow this talk page thread.) Ellen? Will you do so please. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the question, Srich. Would you like me to make your edits for you before or after you answer my question about whether the actions separating the Sheep from the Goats at the Last Judgement are feckless? And would you like to do that before or after you explain why you think being called an experienced lurker is so offensive? EllenCT (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Call me a Newyorkbrad stalker, but I tend to get curious when he starts poking on my user talk page. In any case, I'm not sure what EllenCT meant with the "lurker" comment but the issue surrounding this is fueled with enough drama that I'd rather not contribute to it. So for the sake of the comment, I'm not offended by the remark and I hope we can all put it to rest.--v/r - TP 00:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I wish I knew. Maybe American society is so moribund with surveillance that any hint you could be reporting on congressional COI editing to the POTUSMISO command threatens to give away potential OPSEC. I wish I was joking. EllenCT (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ellen, would you be willing to email me? I don't think you're handling these disputes in the most effective way possible. I see where you're coming from but it's easy to miss the point in the midst of the passion. And by the way User:Srich32977 "lurker" is not an insult. It's basically a neutral term. Let's not go searching for imaginary insults when there are enough real ones to go around. II | (t - c) 01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I would feel more comfortable if you would explain why you called VictorD7's incessant attempts to push his political point of view into articles based on non-peer reviewed sources against abundant peer reviewed secondary sources "a valiant effort." Exactly what do you think valor is? EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I said that because he had valid arguments, and when he explained further I thought the arguments were even more valid (the ITEP's federal income tax has yet to be explained in-depth). I have yet to see a rebuttal from you which addresses the substance. Do you think you're editing in a completely nonpartisan fashion? I don't have time read the tens of thousands of bytes you and him have expended in your arguments, but I do notice that you keep saying he wants to use non-peer-reviewed publications but the peer reviewed literature you're relying on isn't immediately apparent to me, especially since you don't like the Tax Policy Center, which publishes working papers on its model, but are partial to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) model, which does not appear to publish details on its model. In any case, the debate over the substance is somewhat irrelevant to the bad faith tone and insults. II | (t - c) 03:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
[13] is the best peer-reviewed source (secondary because it's based on multiple OECD datasets) and [14] is the peer-reviewed source closest to supporting the idea of a 0% corporate tax incidence on consumers, from the same issue of the same journal, but it's a primary source, with new methods and much weaker conclusions about labor instead of consumers in general. The vast majority of other peer reviewed papers agree with the former in that about half are above and half below its concluded incidence rate of about 60%. The traditional figure on which the ITEP models was based was 45.5%, but that figure is from the 1940s and there are good reasons to believe that tax avoidance and evasion is very different today. There is no way to edit Wikipedia in a completely nonpartisan fashion. Refraining from editing reinforces the status quo which is mostly libertarian Austrian nonsense. The only way to achieve neutrality is to counter that systemic bias. It's not a case of both sides being equally valid. They are not; one side has models that can predict historical outcomes from prior empirical data, and the other does not. The same side has far more support in the peer reviewed literature. The same side is mathematically accurate. Trying to give equal weight to both sides introduces bases against valid hypotheses, biases against the peer reviewed secondary literature, and biases against mathematical accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Ellen, your so called "best" source doesn't even mention the word "consumers". This is an irrelevant tangent to begin with, but do you have a single sourced quote supporting your claims about consumers? VictorD7 (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Another personal attack, which is a false accusation as well. Morphh (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And another - now I'm pathetic. Morphh (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you believe with Srich that civility is more important than accuracy then give me a reason to think that you aren't willingly letting yourself be misled on how many inflection points [15] should have for optimal growth. Continuously using non-peer reviewed sources against peer reviewed sources, and then pulling out a list of sources that talk about the total amount of tax instead of its progressivity is just as incivil as calling someone an asshole. If VictorD7 had a leg to stand on, he would have answered my 11 questions on quality of sources at Talk:United States by now. I stand by my characterization. EllenCT (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Ellen, your question was "Which is more important? Civility or accuracy of representing personal experiences?" Setting aside the importance of Civility as one of Wikipedia's 5 Pillars, isn't it possible to represent personal experiences civilly? And in what context were you asking the question? E.g., whose personal experiences are being represented inaccurately? Would you clarify your question please? Perhaps I will have a different answer. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
My questions to you, Srich, were why you were calling the actions separating the Sheep from the Goats at the Last Judgement feckless, why you insist on the politics of political railroading instead of attempts at editor rehabilitation, how many baseless allegations against me you plan to make before you answer those two, and how it is possible to be civil when the likes of you are spreading the economic lies responsible for most of our country's hardships? EllenCT (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Please forgive me if I do not respond on this talkpage to your questions. I do not think discussion between us here will be fruitful. I am taking your talkpage off of my watchlist. Thank you and happy editing. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Ellen, I think you've been neither civil or accurate, but that seems to be the contention with political topics - both sides claim to be right. The problem is you seem to not recognize your own bias - there is only one truth and it's yours and everyone else is mislead, lying, incompetent, pathetic, inaccurate, suppressing, etc. (Perfect case in point 90mins ago) As for your new charges, most secondary sources in Wikipedia are not primary peer review research. Nevertheless, I dispute your claim of continuously using non-peer review against peer review - you continually distort this. As for the list you described, while some of those sources were specific "Howard Chernick, Tax progressivity and state economic performance, 11 Economic Development Quarterly 249-267 (1997).", I think if you read some of the other sources, you would have seen that many of the economic growth changes were due to things like harm on investment, what we would consider taxation on the high end. The point was, we had additional academic sources if need be, since it seemed you were objecting to providing the other prominent point of view. Morphh (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't want your cherries until, again, you show you aren't willingly letting yourself be misled on how many inflection points [16] should have for optimal growth. Also, your and VictorD7's unsubstantiated repetition of the campaign against Hungerford crosses from NPA to BLP violations. EllenCT (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:EllenCT_reported_by_User:mattnad_.28Result:_.29 regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Mattnad (talk)

Tech News: 2014-02[edit]

08:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgism[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Single-payer health care, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-03[edit]

09:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progressive tax[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive tax. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation: Editing opportunity at Lane Kenworthy[edit]

Hello, Ellen! I have noticed you are interested in topics like economic inequality and public policies to mitigate such inequality. Are you familiar with Lane Kenworthy? I started a stub on him recently and was wondering about expanding the article, maybe into a DYK article. He has recently published the book Social Democratic America, previously he has published books like Egalitarian Capitalism and Progress for the Poor. There is an interview with him about his last book in WP: This sociologist has a plan to make America more like Sweden. If you are interested you are most welcome to participate in expanding the article; there isn't any edit wars or other problems over there so there should be a great chance for peaceful and constructive editing. Kind regards, Iselilja (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Iselilja: Thanks, Iselilja! Let User:Lanekenworthy know that you are profiling him. I am sure he will be pleased. Do you know why so many Christians act as if the Sermon on the Sheep and the Goats at the Last Judgement does not direct behavior? EllenCT (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid that while I am well familiar with the Christ as the good shepherd parabel, I am not so familiar with the sheep and the goat sermon. Maybe others aren't either. I am of course familiar with the Jesus and the rich young man story: "How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." But the Bible of course can appear quite fragmentary and sometimes contraditory, so people can often find other parabels and stories that modify the message of others. The article Christian views on poverty and wealth maybe can provide some answers to your question? Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Iselilja: I'm amazed that the The Sheep and the Goats sermon doesn't appear in that article. Christ's description of the determinant of the ultimate disposition of immortal souls has been eroded by centuries of Church defense of riches for the clergy while peasants starved. Many Christians in the developing world still follow that scripture, though. I am thinking about improving Inclusive growth and related articles with the current peer reviewed thinking from e.g. [45] and [46] and wonder if you might like to collaborate on that? EllenCT (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Right. The story in the sheep and the goat article was indeed familiar to me; only that I have missed the sheep and goat parts;) The parable reminds of that Leo Tolstoi paraphrased in Where Love Is, God Is which is also known as the childen's story about Martin shoemaker. The Inclusive growth article might be interesting and well worth improvement, but unfortunately it's a bit above my paygrade (though with the lack of pay here, it might not matter?) Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a great opportunity with all the news surrounding [47] published this past Wednesday. EllenCT (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you by the way familiar with Kenworthy's take on progressive tax? His main point is that its mainly transfers (made possible by taxes) and not taxes per se that mostly reduces inequality: "The comparative experience thus suggests that for inequality reduction, it is the quantity of taxes rather than the progressivity of the tax system that matters most. Affluent countries that achieve substantial inequality reduction do so with tax systems that are large but no more progressive than ours." Ya say? Iselilja (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I haven't read that. My idea of an affluent country is one with high standards of living and high growth, which I'm not so sure exists much anymore, because of corruption and greed. A country which makes poor spending decisions (including too much debt) will do better with more progressive taxes but worse with more total taxes (i.e., austerity in countries with lots of debt.) A country which makes good spending decisions will do better with more progressive taxes, with the point of diminishing returns being a balanced budget with a very large personal exemption and a top bracket rate above 60%. The point of diminishing returns in terms of total tax depends on educational spending competitive with other countries, infrastructure spending minimizing actuarial amortization (insurance and self-insurance risk), and a social safety net with enough preventative healthcare to catch essentially all the cancer victims early, because that resists most of the other disease risks in ways only regular checkups can. EllenCT (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Government spending[edit]

Mean income of U.S. families by education of head, 1989-2010. Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue.

You made this edit and used as justification a talk page discussion which indicated the content you inserted was not supported by a reliable source and probably WP:SYN. How do you justify adding this into another article? Your source makes no mention that government investment in education has positive returns. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith on your part.Mattnad (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Mattnad: are you seriously claiming that the one non-peer reviewed source you found from a computer scientist ("with apologies to Arthur Laffer" for a downward-sloping curve) invalidates the conclusion that the thousands to tens of thousands up front for college subsidy producing roughly doubled earnings on average results in a net tax gain? Seriously? What is your back of the envelope WP:CK math on that? Have you made any effort to search the peer reviewed literature on the topic? EllenCT (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not doing any math. I'm just waiting for you to provide reliable sources for the items you keep adding to various documents. For instance:
  • you have repeatedly added this caption to a chart "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue" with no citation to support that. Please provide a source.
  • With edit, you included "Similarly, public subsidy of college tuition will increase the net present value of income tax receipts because college educated taxpayers earn much more than those without college education." I checked your source. Page 43, from the citation, is a table of figures "TABLE 10: TWO WAYS TO MEASURE REPLACEMENT RATES FOR MINT AND SSA, 1931- 1935 BIRTH COHORT (FIGURES IN PERCENT)". I also read the entire publication. It makes no mention of a positive value of public tuition subsidies. But you added it anyway. Please explain.
Please provide a reliable source for these two sentences and make a habit of it going forward. And since we've been down this path, let's avoid WP:OR. We need a source that says what you're writing. Not your interpretation of disparate sources.Mattnad (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mattnad: have you or have you not made any effort to search the peer-reviewed literature reviews on the subject? And again, are you seriously claiming that an up-front investment in college of the same order of magnitude as it's annual income increase outcome doesn't return the investment? What about the returns to aggregate demand growth from increased consumer spending? WP:COMPETENCE is required to edit, and that includes being able to do basic math per WP:CK. The amortization graphs in the source I provided clearly support the included text, and if you can't read them that is your problem, not mine. EllenCT (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure which graphs you're referring to, but if it's the one to the right I just added to your talk page, it makes no mention of public tuition subsidies having a net positive impact. If you've read peer review literature that supports your edits, please provide them.Mattnad (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mattnad: Figure 2 on PDF page 45 of the original supporting source at [48]. Again, did you make any effort whatsoever to search the peer reviewed literature before you started deleting things on the basis of the up reviewed Pope Center monograph which doesn't even quantify it's hypothetical point of diminishing returns, or even rely on actual data to support it? EllenCT (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
So your citation meant to say P. 45. Not page 43 as you wrote. Now if I look at those charts, they indicate that people with more education have more income. Now, please show me in that paper where they give credit to public subsidies, and indicate "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue" as you put it. Or how about another peer reviewed publication? All I want is a reliable source that says what you are writing. Mattnad (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mattnad: Are you saying that the fact that college subsidies pay for college education is not WP:CK? Again, did you make any effort whatsoever to search the peer-reviewed literature before you went off deleting statements it supports on the basis of your un-reviewed Pope Center monograph which doesn't even quantify its hypothetical point of diminishing returns or support its existence with empirical data? EllenCT (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Clearly subsidies pay for education. But I note you're sidestepping providing sources that say public subsidies have a positive net return in tax revenue. And how you're fixated on the Pope Center monograph, a document I haven't brought up on this talk page, is just weird. All I'm asking you for is sources to support what you write. So come on EllenCT, what's your source that says, "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue". You wrote it, so provide a reliable source.Mattnad (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mattnad: Whether you think it is weird or not, please answer my question about the amount of effort you put in to checking the peer reviewed literature before you deleted material based on an un-reviewed monograph from a right-wing think tank which you cited in opposition only days ago. EllenCT (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I spent years. Now. Your turn. Citation please.Mattnad (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Mattnad: Secondary peer reviewed source from 1973, secondary peer reviewed source from 2010, popular treatment, long read popular treatment, left-wing, centrist, right-wing, policy response. Now it's your turn. What did you come up with in years compared to what took me less than a day, and what does that say about our relative WP:COMPETENCE? EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Those citations are completely off the mark. Not a one even comes close to supporting your statement "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue". I can't be sure if you're serious. Two don't even deal with the United States. Either you cannot understand the question, or you know you don't have anything to support your POV.Mattnad (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You are mistaken. They all support the statement. Why do you think I've been adding their conclusions to both general and US-specific articles? EllenCT (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
You have been adding your conclusions to articles and pushing a POV without the benefit of reliable sources to back it up. I can't guess at your motivation.Mattnad (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mattnad: why do you say that none of the sources supports the statement? They all do, depending on whether you allow amortization as WP:CK. Which one do you think comes closest to supporting the statement, and why do you think it does not? EllenCT (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Been there, done that. Why don't you read what Morphh recently posted here and discuss.Mattnad (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
As a nonspecialist in this field, I'm wondering if anyone can explain the information presented in section starting on p.2, From The Countries Viewpoint of this source EllenCT posted.
Although the source is arguing for more funding for vocational programs as opposed to liberal arts in light of much greater overall ROI, in order to make its case it presents ROI stats for both, and to a novice like me it seems that the stats may support the statement pertaining to ROI from subsidies in terms of tax receipts.
In short, the table shows an ROI of 30%/yr ("BA in English"), and though I'm not exactly sure how that translates, given the inclusion of "incremental jobs" and "incremental income", etc., it does seem to represent some correlation between the subsidies and tax returns. It includes the statement

Because we are looking at the investment and return from the country’s viewpoint, all incomes are calculated at gross income, including the taxes, which flow to the government.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ubikwit:Just to level-set, that table is a simple illustration to show the relative returns for a BA vs. vocational degrees. The point of the paper is that vocational study can have a higher return than a general college degree. It does not do much to support EllenCTs contention that "Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue" unless we believe it represents all post-secondary student experiences.
As for how they calculate the ROI, they haven't done it the way anyone who makes an investment would. You should take the incremental income post graduation and divide it by the total investment, including opportunity costs. So for instance, the BA in English column shows a $20K increase in annual income, at a total cost of $199K for an ROI of 10% per annum (20K/$199K), which translates to a 10 year payback period.
A more sophisticated approach would also factor in after tax earnings and use a net present value calculation to incorporate inflation (ie, $199K in today's dollars vs. 20K/yr over 10 years) as well as discounting future revenue for interest on student loans. If it were being really clever, it would look at the longer term net-income of the respective educational choices. The illustration does none of that.Mattnad (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977[edit]

Keeping in mind that articles get improved by civil discussions on the article talk pages, I suggest that the citations and analysis of them be posted on that page. Remarks about good faith, competence, POV, etc., are infringing on NPA. – S. Rich (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to continue posting to my talk page after you said you would not, then please answer the questions I have asked of you, including why you called the direction of Jesus Christ concerning the ultimate disposition of immortal souls feckless. The BLP attacks against Tom L. Hungerford by those of the right-wing, authoritarian, Randroid bent have been far worse than any supposed incivility here on Wikipedia. And please stop using the outdent template with less than ten levels of indentation. It looks unprofessional and sloppy. EllenCT (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-04[edit]

10:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progressive tax[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive tax. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

More on Austrian economists/LvMI[edit]

I saw your post on Arbcom about Austrian/Misesian economics. I recommend you read today's New York Times -- the Sunday edition, no less -- for more about Austrian economics central, the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The article was about Rand Paul, but about 1/3 to 1/2 of it involved the Mises Institute (the most detailed investigation of that outfit I've seen in RS thus far).

Some highlights: "scholars affiliated with the Mises Institute have combined dark biblical prophecy with apocalyptic warnings that the nation is plunging toward economic collapse and cultural ruin. Others have championed the Confederacy."

"[Mises Institute Senior fellow] Thomas E. Woods Jr. was a co-author of “Who Killed the Constitution?,” which denounced the Supreme Court decision desegregating schools, Brown v. Board of Education, as “a dizzying display of judicial imperialism.”

"Mr. Rothbard applauded the “right-wing populism” of David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan member who ran for governor of Louisiana, and ridiculed “multiculturalists,” lesbians and “the entire panoply of feminism, egalitarianism.”

"[Mises Institute Senior Fellow] Walter Block ... described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview. “Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did. No one is compelled to associate with people against their will.” Steeletrap (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Link on Arbcom evidence page doesn't work[edit]

This one.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-05[edit]

09:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Workshop - Evidence Notification[edit]

Hi EllenCT, you have been mentioned as part of evidence submission here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Workshop#EllenCT.27s_submission_2. This notification is part of the Arbitration process. Mattnad (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Single-payer health care[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Single-payer health care. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-06[edit]

08:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yelp, Inc.[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yelp, Inc.. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-07[edit]

09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-08[edit]

08:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethecon Foundation[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ethecon Foundation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

WT:ECON[edit]

Were you addressing me in this comment [135]? Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I will be happy to respond to your question after you have explained why you called the directive of Jesus Christ concerning the ultimate disposition of immortal souls "feckless" above. EllenCT (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I think he was saying that trying to help them on an individual basis, by providing handouts, would not help overall because we'd still end up with poor people amongst us. I do not think his comments involved their immortal souls. But I am not a bible scholar, the language has been translated and is subject to subtle interpretations which are beyond me and we do not have Jesus on UTube actually saying whatever he said.
In any event, your comment on WT:ECON did not strike me as one focused on EconWikiProject issues. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Your explanation doesn't seem to agree with either of the two groups of sources cited in The Sheep and the Goats. Why do you suggest that your reviewing WP:NOTHERE and WP:SECONDARY would not substantially improve Wikipedia's economics content? EllenCT (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not answer with Sheep & Goats in mind, and it doesn't matter. I tried, but I guess your 6 month old grudge won't be resolved. In any case, you're good at asking "why" ... in the sense that the answers to "why" questions are subject to your judgment as being adequate or not. When the answers do not satisfy, you then pass judgment on not just the answer, but the answerer. Why do I say this? You are posing another "why" question that incorrectly says I made some suggestion about reviewing these essays. Your questions are like the famous "Have you stopped beating your wife?, Answer yes or no." – S. Rich (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I would not be so upset if you would treat [136], [137] and [138] as the WP:SECONDARY reliable sources they are. You and your friends opposed to the conclusions of those sources have done so much damage to the accuracy and coverage qualities of Wikipedia with your tag-teaming, community ban railroading, POV-pushing, relentless baseless accusations, censorship of the reliable sources' positions you don't like, and battleground mentality that I personally believe if you were to measure the external effect in terms of productive days of life lost, it would amount to thousands if not tens of thousands of lifetimes. EllenCT (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-09[edit]

10:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Friendly advice[edit]

EllenCT, I know we've locked horns more than once, I'm writing you this note because you're heading down a path that won't be positive to you and I think you have, and can add, a lot of value to the encyclopedia. You are clearly well read and intelligent. However, your presumption that resistance to your editing come from extremism, and how you're going about lobbying for support, are not helping your case.

Here's my impression of your motivation. You would like to apply a more academic approach to some topics using abstract economic theories. To me, it almost seems as if you are working on an academic thesis in some articles.

The issue for me, and some other editors, is that an encyclopedia is not about abstract economic ideas (except for articles covering those ideas in particular). When it comes to more general topics, we focus on standard, directly referenced, material. So, while some concepts your introducing into the progressive tax article (as an example) might be perfectly fine for an academic exploration [154], they're out of scope or represent original research in several instances.

There's a ton of work to be done, just improving articles using standard reliable sources. Would you consider taking a break from bringing in primary research concepts, and focus more for a while on meat and potatoes material?

I recall from your User page that you were working with an academic adviser who is familiar with Wikipedia. If you trust this person, it might be helpful to get his or her POV on how you're approaching things. The way it's going, you will find yourself increasingly an outsider and potential subject to a topic ban request.Mattnad (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there is some sort of a Wikipedia policy exempting economics from the WP:SECONDARY reliable source preference in mathematical subjects where peer reviewed academic literature reviews are available? I would like you to take a break from trying to keep the conclusions of the peer reviewed academic literature reviews from being reflected as the most reliable sources. If you have support for your suggestions, you should bring it to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. I would not consider our interactions as "locking horns." From my perspective, you have actively been trying to prevent improvements to the encyclopedia. Can you understand why I see things that way? EllenCT (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with "peer reviewed academic literature reviews" as source, but the crux of the matter is how you are misusing them. Like I wrote, it might not hurt to get feedback from your adviser if he or she is still active in Wikipedia. Mattnad (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I've been in constant correspondence with him. We think part of the problem could be that peer reviewed literature reviews for applied economics topics often appear in law review journals instead of primary economics research journals, which is confusing and makes editing the topic correctly more difficult than in subjects where the reviews occur in the same journals. EllenCT (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll speak for myself, but what I've observed has less to do with whether it's a law review, and more of disparate concepts being synthesized to draw a conclusion.Mattnad (talk)
Your link is me asking a credentialed expert editor whether he's seen evidence of a certain kind of synthesis in the literature. Does that question upset you because your assumptions do not result in the benefit of a consistent body of literature? EllenCT (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chris Christie[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chris Christie. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-10[edit]

09:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Negative interest on excess reserves[edit]

This topic is independently notable? Then why has it only got one sentence? – Smyth\talk 11:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:GNG notability has more to do with the number of reliable sources than the length of the article's exposition. EllenCT (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yelp, Inc.[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yelp, Inc.. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-11[edit]

09:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox film[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-12[edit]

07:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of countries by average wage[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of countries by average wage. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-13[edit]

18:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-14[edit]

09:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Procedure for requesting an RFC review?[edit]

Hi, Ellen. I found your name from a link at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Closure_review_archive. What is the usaul procedure for requesting a review of an RFC discussion closure? I recently posted an <admin help> request tag on my talk page to ask for help, and mentioned that I had tried to request a closure review at WP:AN but there'd been no review and my post had been archived after 48 hours. An admin responded to my admin help tag, saying in essence that I should just move on. That didn't really answer my question (ie, what is the procedure to ensure that a review is done). Since you've been through the process before, can you tell me what the steps are? Dezastru (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Please review the closure of the external links RFC in the Talk:Single-payer health care archives. EllenCT (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Stoning[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stoning. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-15[edit]

08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

POV[edit]

Hi, you really need to stop this sort of thing. As far as I can recall, you and I have had no interaction other than my objection to a topic ban proposal made by you at ANI a couple of days ago in an unrelated thread. However, I've been watching from afar and there is no doubt in my mind that you are not here for any purpose other than to right what you perceive to be Great Wrongs. Please can you review WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS, as others have asked you to do in the past. If you cannot handle the issues as outlined in those pages then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. That you have a clear political position seems not to be in doubt and you are entitled to hold it; what you are not entitled to do here is tendentiously promote it, so please go do that somewhere else. - Sitush (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So do you agree with [228] and [229]? EllenCT (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not have to agree or disagree, nor is the conduct of other people relevant to that of yourself. Contributing here is a personal act and while some kicking against obvious incitements etc is to be expected, your attitude goes way beyond that.
You are tendentiously pushing a political opinion, your user page strongly hints at a conflict of interest in doing so, and numerous contributors of good standing have repeatedly tried to explain the problems to you. I've got virtually no interest in the politics of the US etc but I know a disruptive editor when I see one. As used to be said when I was at school many years ago, "You're it". There may be others who are "it", sure, but you are responsible for your own actions here. I'm very tempted to seek a very broad topic ban that would prevent you from commenting anywhere on Wikipedia about anything connected to politics, economics and so on. You hold your destiny in your own hands; let others worry about theirs. - Sitush (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I edit articles on economics, which very frequently overlap with political topics. I can not avoid those topics in my area of professional expertise and personal interest. On many topics where there is political disagreement, Wikipedia's reliable source criteria unambiguously prefer sources with which one or both of the popular political parties' positions disagree. What do you propose I do when the peer reviewed secondary sources say 1+1=2, one political party says 1+1=3, and the other major political party says 1+1=4? Compromise or follow the policy? Do you have any evidence that I have ever supported a point of view which is not the one found in the most reliable sources? If so, I want to see it. If not, I want to know why you consider my editing tendentious but not the editors who support politically popular positions opposed to the reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be reiterating arguments that you recently used in the ANI thread. There is no need to do that because I've quite clearly read that thread. Nor is there any need for me to explain the issues relating to them, since others have addressed them on multiple occasions. That is almost a de facto example of tendentious behaviour: "losing" the same arguments against numerous people at numerous venues but nonetheless persisting in repeating them. And, as I've already told you, this concerns your behaviour, not that of others. You are responsible for your own actions and school playground "s/he started it" type of arguments in mitigation generally will not wash. If others are doing wrong then they'll be found out.
I realise that it may seem bizarre but it seems to be your "professional expertise" that is getting in the way here and it is one reason why I don't usually contribute to articles where I have a conflict. Wikipedia is not a perfect environment but by contributing to it you are agreeing to the established policies. Those include abiding by consensus and avoidance of original research, which are what you have been accused of failing to do on multiple occasions. It is not uncommon for reliable sources to disagree and when they do so then we have to show all sides, not just the one that you prefer - hence the stupidity inherent in comments such as this.
There is an argument that it is better to be inside the tent pissing out than outside it pissing in. That said, if you don't like the policies then your options are limited to seeking change in such policies as those I've already mentioned or just walking away from the topic area. Happen I think that the latter will be forced upon you anyway unless you can get a grip pretty quickly: you've been given a lot of leeway but are still basically trying to subvert some of our most basic policies and you are doing so in a manner that looks very much like someone who is on a "mission". Zealots and experts often tend to find Wikipedia to be a frustrating place but, in my experience, and despite often demonstrating phenomenal levels of arrogance, they never win. You certainly won't, so why waste your time? - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I ask again, do you have any evidence that I have ever supported a point of view which is not the one found in the most reliable sources? If so, I want to see it. If not, I want to know why you consider my editing tendentious but not the editors who support politically popular positions opposed to the reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
QED: repeatedly asking when people have already explained & given examples is the tendentiousness. Some examples are in the very threads that you've linked to this week. Now, read WP:NOTTHEM and if you still think that you have a case then report me to ANI for harassment or whatever and watch out for the boomerang. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I know of accusations that I have not been supporting the peer reviewed secondary literature directly, but none that are substantiated by evidence. I am not interested in reporting anyone for anything. I am here because I want to build an encyclopedia that says 1+1=2 no matter how much people try to make it say 1+1=3. EllenCT (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You are still misunderstanding. At the project we don't say 1+1=2, and by that I mean we don't take two ref'd statements and use them to make a third. In other words we don't reach conclusions. We attempt to put in what reliable sources say and don't add our own conclusions. You have been seen to take RS and try to use them to reach conclusions that the refs don't bear. That's what the multiple editors have been trying to make clear to you about wp:synthesis.
Furthermore: If, instead of saying "I have these great refs, don't you agree we must use them?", you instead said "Green gnaprhism produces 20% more widgets. This reliable source says it on page 30 and here is the ref, lets add it." You would find much greater editing success and enjoyment. Don't start with the ref, start with the material or formulation you want to add and then show the refs or quote that supports the proposed edit. You will find immediately improved responses from all editors, you may not always find agreement but you will find much more. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
By all means, please specify the "conclusions that the refs don't bear" to which you refer. Just because you personally disagree with the positions of the peer reviewed literature reviews does not give you the right to falsely insinuate that I have not been upholding those positions without evidence. Put up or shut up. EllenCT (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't insinuate, I merely restated what many editors have tried to explain to you. If you really can't recall, I would start by directing your attention to the Progressive tax article. I would suggest that editors have pointed out consistently that your refs did not support your proposals. Specifically look in the two closed RfCs. This is similar to other pages, but seems to me to be indicative. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The important part is not to defend or re-fight past battles where others have seen problems but to improve your process so that even if people disagree with you they appreciate your editing and support your edits. So again; start with the proposed language, indicate the ref, show the specific quote and you can't go wrong. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I do not accept your premise that anything at Talk:Progressive tax suggests that my position has diverged from the peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources. I will not play your WP:TAGTEAM games or accept your advice until you have shown that you understand the rules of improving the encyclopedia and the words that you choose. EllenCT (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh? Are you accusing me of tag-teaming here? As for the comment regarding secondary sources/understanding the rules, well, I think you should change your username to Kettle or Pot. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any reason to doubt that I have been editing in accordance with the most reliable sources, other than the opinions of those who are offended by the political perspectives expressed in the peer reviewed literature reviews? If not, then please stop trying to imply that I have not been. Why do you ask when my reply was to Capitalismojo? EllenCT (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Ha! Why should I not just say "piss off"? You're incapable of understanding what other people advise you, incapable of responding without twisting words, and you are a serial POV pusher. You cannot keep trotting out the same formulaic response - it is boring, silly and obviously not succeeding. When you have to turn every messageboard into a soapbox for your opinion, you should know that you're in the wrong. You're obviously an intelligent person but you really need to get a grip of consensus, NPOV, verifiability, original research etc and you're showing no inclination to do so. - Sitush (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
If you were able to substantiate any of these accusations with actual evidence, you have had ample opportunity to do so. I am not interested in name-calling. EllenCT (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-16[edit]

07:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Narendra Modi[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Narendra Modi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

You may be interested in the discussion at Talk:United States#Scientific Study that has determined the US is an oligarchy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Thank you. Why did you say my assertion of no confidence in VictorD7 was a personal attack? If someone insists that 1+1=5, is it a personal attack to say they are incapable of correct arithmetic? EllenCT (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Just because it may be so, in some respect, you should not make the personal observation, just stick to the substance of the misunderstanding. Notice the editor rising to VictorD7's defense was purely personal on his attack on you, without any reference to the Talk page article topic whatsoever. Your personal observation in context -- which is logically arguable -- triggered a personal-only attack. Besides, I agree with VictorD7 with about half of what he says almost half of the time he says it, so that's better than my percentage with a few others on the page.
Maybe its like southerners calling one another, "Sir" and "Ma'am" ubiquitously, without meaning anything personal, just as a common courtesy, whereas northerners take the terms as some sort of groveling self-dimunition. He is someone to work with, and that is not helped with personal characterization other than phrases which are "Out-gentleman-ing the gentleman", as the Latin Americans say to be simpatico.
For example, TFD says I argue eloquently, he leaves out "unpersuasively", then over the course of over a year now, crafts another non sequitur to exclude islander citizens from the U.S. republic. It's like the old-time Senators saying "my friend" or "my colleague" instead of "the guy I am going to argue down again today". Maybe it would help to think of yourself as a John Quincy Adams in the House of Representatives, well, maybe better a Daniel Webster in the Senate, since "Old Man Eloquent" wasn't so much on legislative compromise. Okay, so I got wrapped around the axel a bit, but you may still see my point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I do not see your point. You turned a legitimate complaint about inaccuracy into a purported personal attack, and then you try to insinuate that it's okay if you just cover it up with florid prose? How do you think history will see such rhetoric? EllenCT (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Globalization grphics[edit]

See the Globalization talk page. I do not have time to deal with your bias over USEIA and do not appreciate your attitude toward other editors. Meclee (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Meclee: my bias? The EIA admits they are forced to work within the confines of unreasonable assumptions from Congress, which makes them come up with absurd nonsense like this. Also, have you read WP:NOTCRYSTAL? And why did you use an edit summary saying "move graphic" when you actually deleted it? EllenCT (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You've been reported on the admin incident notice board.[edit]

Section: [252]

I gave you two fair warnings. VictorD7 (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are upset at being called out for inserting paid advocacy contrary to the reliable sources, there is a great way to prevent that: Don't insert paid advocacy from groups trying to argue against the findings of the peer reviewed secondary literature. EllenCT (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You said: "VictorD7 isn't it true that you've repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation claiming that US taxes are progressive..?"

1. List these alleged "statements"; quote them.

2. Define "paid for". VictorD7 (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You know the graph which purports to show US taxes as progressive, because it assumes that corporations don't pass their taxes on to their customers, which you have described as having been produced by the Peterson Foundation. If you must put it here, please also include the more accurate alternative graph which assumes, in accordance with the peer reviewed literature reviews, that corporations pass about half their taxes on to consumers, and therefore agrees with the reliable sources that US taxes are not progressive for the top 1%. EllenCT (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
You didn't list any "statements". To clarify, are you just talking about that one graph? VictorD7 (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you really need my help to list all the times you inserted statements implying that US taxes are (among) the most progressive in the world in United States? EllenCT (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking specifically which "statements" you're claiming are "paid advocacy". It's important enough for you to have made the accusation against me multiple times now, so surely you can cite at least a few quotes. One we establish which "statements" you're talking about, we can proceed to defining "paid advocacy". Or, if the graph is the only example you had in mind, then say so and we'll move on from there. VictorD7 (talk) 06:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Please say what you want to say about the graph first. Then please address this addition where you cite the Peterson Foundation directly, along with zero peer reviewed or WP:SECONDARY sources. EllenCT (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
That reference was one of a diverse group of four sources (later increased to six, then trimmed to five) supporting a text sentence in Wikipedia's voice that would exist regardless (though the sentence was later expanded). The sources include the CBO, the Tax Policy Center, an article in The Atlantic, and the PGPF (which is a perfectly legitimate source containing publicly verifiable data). Later, as the sentence's scope expanded, I added a peer reviewed journal article and Washington Post piece. I'll note that the segment's sourcing is superior to that for the off point clause you tacked onto the end back when you were operating under the misapprehension that corporate incidence was relevant to that sentence (a clause that should have been deleted a long time ago; people have been distracted). So far (apart from that) the graph is the only example of alleged "paid advocacy" you've cited. I'll address it later, but to do so we first we need to move on to my second request, which deserves a fresh start below so we can keep this discussion clear. VictorD7 (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Explain precisely what you mean by "paid for". VictorD7 (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

First you explain why you never add any of the peer reviewed literature reviews' findings on the topic. EllenCT (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I do. I added this peer reviewed article from Socio-Economic Review, published by Oxford University Press. Of course sources like CBO publications are subjected to review too. Explain precisely what you mean by "paid for". VictorD7 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
We've already discussed how that one is an outlier, and let's see the diff of where you actually added any statement supported by it. What did you mean when you said the Peterson Foundation produced the graph which purports that taxes are progressive for the top 1% in the US? EllenCT (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It's no outlier, and the source both supports the pre-existing sentence elements and the international comparison I added. Ellen, I've politely answered your questions, but you haven't answered mine. Before we get sucked down further tangents, please explain what you mean by "paid for", as that's the charge you keep making against me and the crux of this discussion. Then I'll happily answer further questions. VictorD7 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
All of the several other peer reviewed secondary sources disagree with it. Link to the discussion we had about it and then I will consider whether it will do anyone any good to distinguish what I mean by "paid for" from what you mean by "produced". EllenCT (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
You're pushing a thin line Ellen. These actions show a continued WP:TE, WP:NOTHERE attitude and you trump it with a WP:REHASH WP:IDHT argument along with a personal attack. You know this is a perceived personal attack and your failure to clarify the remark is inflammatory and aggravating the dispute, which may be considered WP:HA and WP:AOBF. Morphh (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
So, you think VictorD7 is justified in trying to purport taxes as having become more progressive because of capital gains tax cuts? EllenCT (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The content dispute is irrelevant to the perceived personal attack and you clarifying what you meant by it. It is not acceptable to hold the personal attack open until they agree with your viewpoint. Morphh (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Ellen, I'm making a good faith effort here to resolve this and give you a chance to clarify what you mean by accusing me of inserting statements "paid for" by PGPF. Are you going to explain it or not? VictorD7 (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── These loaded questions are not helpful. A wise man once said "Can't we all just get along?"S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "loaded question" to ask her to clarify what her own words mean. Also, she's the one attacking me. You're giving "advice" to the wrong person, and your poorly timed interjection isn't helpful. VictorD7 (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Without waiting for Ellen's comment, I'll say that both of you should WP:LETGO. Ellen, consider what BHG did on her talk page – she closed the discussion. I advise you to do the same and hat this thread. Victor, once (or if) she does, you are left with no alternative. The ANI is closed, BHG will not reopen it, and you are beating your head against a wall here. If Ellen repeats what you feel are PA insinuations, you can open a new ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Or we can avoid all that by settling things here, and you can give Ellen a chance to speak for herself. I'm sure you're needed elsewhere on Wikipedia, S. Rich. Your suggestion has been noted. Here's mine. Since you aren't familiar with the various long running disputes and your unhelpful commentary here has been so off the mark, I think it would be best if you disengaged and turned to other matters. VictorD7 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If you really want to settle it, Victor, then link to our discussion of your Oxford source so people can see what the secondary peer reviewed literature really says, and promise to edit in accordance with that consensus. EllenCT (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm here to give you an opportunity to clarify your "paid for" accusations, not get sucked down tangential content disputes or rehash old debates that didn't go your way, though I'd be happy to do that too later. I'm certainly not going to keep jumping through irrational off point hoops like linking to a particular discussion (I'm not even sure which one you're referring to) that you haven't linked to for some reason. Are you going to explain your "paid for" comments or not? VictorD7 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think there might be a dsistinction between what I mean by "paid for" and what you mean by "produced"? What do you think such a distinction might involve? EllenCT (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you have in mind, which is why I'm asking you to tell me. I assume you aren't saying "produced" is synonymous with "paid for" in this context, since by that definition everything would be "paid for". Apart from rendering that usage awkward, it wouldn't dovetail with your use of "paid advocacy" in the other accusatory posts. VictorD7 (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Air and sunlight are not produced or paid for, by people at least. Misleading astroturfed propaganda on economic topics is, by people. Do you think those people pay Wikipedia editors? EllenCT (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know. Is that what you're saying? And by "everything" I was referring to all sources used here. See how easy it is to clarify one's own comments? Your turn. VictorD7 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Take a guess. EllenCT (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ellen, people have been accused of paid editing here, so instead of me hazarding a guess, just tell me what you mean. VictorD7 (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

People have been more than just accused of it. Do you think I owe you anything? EllenCT (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
FWIW: We all owe each other civility on the project. It is a pillar of Wikipedia. "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project." Capitalismojo (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
How many times do people have to demonstrate that they willingly disregard the reliable source criteria in favor of their personal fringe political positions before they lose the privilege of an assumption of good faith? If I am at fault here, it is because I have given far too many such chances than is reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. EllenCT (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-17[edit]

08:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Unhatting of the Talk:United States thread[edit]

Please note that the proper procedure for challenging the closure of a discussion is laid out Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. You should revert the edit. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is closing, and there is attempting to hide from other readers. Please do not attempt to hide my comments from other readers. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You will note per WP:TPO "If a discussion goes off-topic... the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates." The commentary was off-topic because it dealt with the interaction between you and other editors. Your first 10 words "I object to this deletion because the facts are corroborated...." were fine. But adding commentary about the motivations and editing patterns of someone else violates WP:NPA. With this in mind, you might go back and strike portions of your comment. Note you are infringing on proper practice in 3 regards: 1. The initial PA remarks about Victor; 2. Unclosing the discussion without discussing it with me. 3. Ignoring the fact that guidelines call for hiding improper commentary. – S. Rich (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bacula[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bacula. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Plutocracy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • html Transcript. Bill Moyers Interviews Kevin Phillips]. [[NOW with Bill Moyers]] 4.09.04 | PBS]</ref> A similar position was taken by the [[Fourth International]] in January 1941, which stated "
  • and interests distort policy in ways that don’t necessarily benefit the majority.<ref>Cassidy, J. (April 18, 2014 [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/04/is-america-an-oligarchy.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Oligarchy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and interests distort policy in ways that don’t necessarily benefit the majority.<ref>Cassidy, J. (April 18, 2014 [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/04/is-america-an-oligarchy.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Politics of the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and interests distort policy in ways that don’t necessarily benefit the majority.<ref>Cassidy, J. (April 18, 2014 [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2014/04/is-america-an-oligarchy.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence[edit]

I'd like to speak to you about the evidence you have presented. You have supplied only a single diff, and placed it under a section title that is rather inflammatory. I wonder if you would consider both changing the section title to something less insulting and perhaps compiling a bit more evidence to support your position. I can't see anyone accepting your premise that the single edit you provided convincingly proves incompetence to the point where the user is unsuited for editing Wikipedia, and it is important to maintain decorum and civility when trying to resolve contentious issues like these. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

While I am not an arbitrator (and consequently my views carry less weight than those of Beeblebrox), I too think that your header in the evidence page is far beyond the level that the single diff you have provided can reasonably justify. I don't intend to get involved in this case, but if headers (and "evidence" sections like what you have contributed) are added without challenge, I will have to become more active. When coupled with the nasty and off-topic sniping you added at the Austrian Economics case (and the substantial pushback those comments engendered), I'm actually rather surprised that you raised the issue of competence, with so little underpinning a bold assertion. You really ought to reconsider your statement. Horologium (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I will be happy to provide additional evidence if any evidence contrary to that which I have presented is submitted. Can either of you suggest a less inflammatory way to word the same sentiments? I am deeply offended that this guidance is in such stark contrast to that given on the talk page of the evidence page. I admit that I care far more about aligning high-readership articles with reliable sources than whatever "decorum" is supposed to mean. Have you seen the way that objectivist libertarian Austrian school adherents bully me daily on this site? And the administrators who do nothing about any of it? Shame! EllenCT (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Diff. How do you recommend enforcement of the reliable source criteria? I would like to compile evidence with that goal in mind. Also, do you have any recommendations for solutions to bullying in general? EllenCT (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-18[edit]

07:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ronn Torossian[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronn Torossian. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

Plutocracy RfC[edit]

Did you edit the talk page with an IP address? Please see User talk:2605:A000:F2C0:A400:2CA3:F78C:FC4E:DE13. The WP policy link I posted to the IP says that editing while logged out is permitted. But if that was your edit then !voting twice in the discussion is improper. Also, if you made talk page comments with the IP address, you can always go back and post your user name and signature as the actual poster. Thanks. (If the different IP addresses are not you, then please disregard this message let us know.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) 07:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not me. EllenCT (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I will assume the other IP edits are not yours too. (The edits were not of concern. It was the possible duplicate survey response that really got my attention.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-19[edit]

07:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Information revolution[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Information revolution. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

Income inequity in the US[edit]

Regarding my promise to respond in [309], I've been working on other gnomish activities. So I shall try to address the issue tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-20[edit]

06:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Your user page[edit]

You may want to correct the spelling ("yeild") in the quotation at the beginning of your user page. Grammatical corrections on the page are needed as well.

You might also be well-served by moderating your approach to editing. Not everything someone writes which is contrary to your POV is "fringe" material. Likewise, some of the edits you make are clearly deserving of being considered "fringe" material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.87.166 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the proofreading. What is and is not fringe is defined here by the WP:RS reliable source criteria and associated material in WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, which hold supreme the WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed academic journal sources in the fields I usually edit. Do you have a suggestion for improving those criteria? EllenCT (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi EllenCT. I made an edit today and that (long story short) led me back here. I just wanted to follow up and clarify my post as it appears by your response that I may not have clearly communicated what I was trying to convey.

When I spoke about "fringe" material, I was referring to material from peer-reviewed secondary sources which are far from the mainstream school of thought. Presenting either extreme POV on a topic, backing it up with secondary sources and characterizing it as representing the consensus of thinking on a topic is not NPOV.

For example, with respect to climate change, there are peer-reviewed secondary sources which maintain that anthropogenic climate change is minimal or non-existent. Likewise there are peer-reviewed secondary sources which support a view that the consequences of anthropogenic climate change are likely to be much worse than the scientific consensus on same. I (personally) consider both of these to be "fringe" views. While anyone is free to agree with either of these extremes, IMO Wikipedia is best served by first presenting research supporting consensus in the field and then (if desired) adding discussion and citations to research which represent and explain views on either extreme of the mainstream school of thought.

I think that your zeal in supporting your valid POV on certain topics leads you to overlook the fact that there are competing albeit equally valid schools of thought at the other extreme. This appears to be behind some disagreements between editors in which the disagreement over content degenerates into ongoing edits by both parties; the issue of behavior then becomes more prominent than the equal presentation of opposing POVs. It's a not uncommon occurrence.

It's not a matter of who may or may not be following the rules. It's a matter of editors of varying POVs recognizing the partiality of their respective viewpoints, respecting the right of other editors to hold opposing POVs and allowing both POVs to be presented as alternatives to each other or even to mainstream schools of thought.

This is just my personal take on what is behind some of the controversy which arises with your edits and the edits of those who disagree with your POV. You're free to take it to heart or not. Again, it's not about the rules of editing, it's about introspection and MUTUAL respect. Happy editing! (And clean up those grammatical errors on your user page! ;} )

Thanks for allowing link to "domain troll" in rent-seeking, and note that the domain trolls have removed that article[edit]

Help! I'm a Wikipedia newbie and am having trouble with the article I wrote being removed and the term (domain troll) being inappropriately redirected to "cybersquatter", which is wrong (they're quite distinct concepts). The conversations on the talk page lead me to believe that that whole area of wikipedia is under the control of the trolls themselves and they do not want to address the issue that domain squatting is an example of rent-seeking. If there is a Wikipedia red flag to indicate that the hen house is being guarded by the foxes, I believe that now is the time to raise it.67.176.60.220 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried the WP:TEAHOUSE? EllenCT (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

US Politics[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is currently hearing a case relating to US Politics. The case information page is here. This message is to inform you that evidence has been submitted about your conduct. As a result, the committee is now scrutinising your conduct in this topic area. If you wish to give one, your reply to this evidence must be received within the next week if it is to be fully considered by the committee. The evidence is in one or more submissions on this page. You may reply to evidence by posting in your section. I must also make you aware that the evidence that has been submitted about your conduct may, in the course of these proceedings, lead to an arbitrator proposing you be sanctioned as part of the committee's final decision for this case. Please contact a committee clerk if you are not sure what this means. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Television series by Sony Pictures Television[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Television series by Sony Pictures Television. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom Workshop commentary re VictorD7's evidence - observation[edit]

My two bits: if VictorD7 is wrong about the evidence provided, because of whatever reason, then point out how the evidence is wrong. But seeking to argue content on the Arbitration page is not helpful to the community or to you. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk)

I firmly disagree. Study of the history of ArbCom has convinced me that there is no way they can effectively fulfill their remit without enforcing the reliable source criteria as an editorial conduct norm. EllenCT (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I see the Arbcom differently. Perhaps you are right about how they could or should carry out their function, but will they do so is a different question. (Note at several points they say they do not handle content disputes.) From the Workshop postings it looks to me that some editors want the Arbcom to rule: "Editor X is correct about what should be in article Y. And here are the reasons: 1. source Z was published by ... 2. and says ... 3. and is relevant because...." Such a result might be satisfying about the desired revisions to the article, but the Arbcom does not make such rulings. In other words, Editor X is going to be disappointed. – S. Rich (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I would not be participating in arbitration if I had not been repeatedly so disappointed over the course of editing articles. EllenCT (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom workshop[edit]

I see a heated discussion here which is largely about content. While discussions about content are welcome on article talk pages, this is an ArbCom case, which specifically excludes pronouncements on content. Please limit your comments to discussions of conduct, which is in the remit of the Committee. ArbCom clerk --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I asked for clarification here and am not opposed to any reasonable portion of the discussion to which you refer being moved to the Workshop talk page. There are many arbitration cases dealing with national, religious, and scientific disputes where the arbitrators have enforced content policies involving the weight due to mainstream and fringe sources. EllenCT (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

Evidence phase now closed[edit]

Arbitrator AGK closed the evidence phase on 15 May.

Subsequent to that:

  • VictorD7 modified a link, pursuant to a request by me
  • EllenCT responded to some late evidence, pursuant to a post on her talk page
  • VictorD7 responded to some of EllenCT's allegations

Each of the these edtt is acceptable, however, subsequent edits (other than a trivial correction to a spelling or fixing a mistaken diff) will be automatically reverted, unless prior permission is obtained. Arbitration Clerk --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Cut & paste comment from an article talk page[edit]

Here is the response I posted in response to the statement you made here. Rather than disrupt the article talk page any further, I have cut it from the article talk page an am posting it here, striking a portion of my comment, and correcting another portion:

This is absurd. 1. You are asking a question about a statement in a talk page thread for another article, not this article. 2. I am not using the word "join". The word is part of the policy I quoted. You might read the policy and note that it also uses the word "combine". 3. If you have some gripe or concern about the usage of the word in the policy, then bring it up WT:NOR. (Be sure to scan the 59 pages of archives.) But asking for clarification here is disruptive. 4. If you really need assistance in understanding what the SYNTH policy is, try posting a {{Help}} template on your talk page. Someone will come along and do their best to assist you.

S. Rich (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

ADDED comment. If you want to remove a comment from your talk page, please feel free to do so. (And you should feel free to remove this added comment.) But taking another editor's comment from one page and posting in on an article talk page, where it is NOT related to the article and not intended to be on the article talk page is an impermissible refactoring. Please review WP:TPNO and WP:TPO. The only reason I did not remove my comment from the article talk page is that you had "responded" in some fashion. By hatting it, readers can look at your remark and have some context for the remark. – S. Rich (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Why can't you abide by WP:TALK like most editors? Why do you always feel a compulsion to delete or obscure what I write? The question is a very legitimate inquiry as to how you have chosen to interpret policy, and it should not be hidden. EllenCT (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I detect more than a whiff of misogyny and undue bluster here ("impermissible" and the two overt attacks I've redacted above.) Srich, your responses to EllenCT seem to show a recurring undercurrent of anger and controlling pronouncements. I suggest you consider the tone and posture of your interactions. SPECIFICO talk 13:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Specifico, you are not involved in the article discussions, but you do have a history of involvement with me. There is no misogyny at all behind my comments or motives. Recall that I've had interactions with other editors which were less than present and they were not female. (One or two of these other editors are now indeff'd, but not because I was unpleasant.) I am not controlling anyone, but I do consistently and correctly point out policy and guidelines. But with your good faith suggestions in mind, I have restored the words I used above (because they were not overt personal attacks) and stricken them. – S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Srich's pattern of behavior toward female editors is troubling. We're a small minority on WP; and yet, we tend to be the targets of Srich's condescension and heavy-handed admonitions. Steeletrap (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-21[edit]

07:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7[edit]

Do you have specific evidence that VictorD7 is engaged in paid editing, in particular with respect to economic inequality in the United States? If so, please submit it to the ArbCom or to the WMF. If not, making that claim on article talk pages is inflammatory. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a lot of circumstantial. Why does he keep trying to show that taxes are progressive for the top 1%? If you tell me where you think I have made accusations on article talk pages, I will try to address them. I am not adverse to striking anything which you think might have risen to the level of a personal attack. EllenCT (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

POV Editing, Probably Not Paid Editing[edit]

That is biased editing (in my opinion). It is not, on its face, paid editing. We are required to assume good faith. VictorD7 has provided many diffs where you claimed that he was doing paid editing. Karl Marx, who was a lousy economist but a good theorist of history, offered a concept of false consciousness, where a class misunderstands their own class interests. A horrible example in the United States was the Ku Klux Klan, in which rich white Southerners persuaded poor white Southerners that the cause of their poverty was black Southerners. Tens of thousands were lynched, and millions were kept at the bottom by Jim Crow conditions. The actual cause of the poverty of poor white Southerners was excessive economic inequality, with the wealth concentrated in the rich white Southerners who founded the Klan. The comparable phenomenon in Russia at the same time was official anti-Semitism, sponsored by the tsar's secret police, which blamed the poverty of poor Russians on the Jews, rather than on the semi-feudal economy. I think that the Tea Party movement is a twenty-first-century example. The Koch brothers and other wealthy sponsors of the movement have persuaded a significant minority of Americans that all wealthy people are "job creators" and that all taxes are inherently "job-destroying". Those who support the Tea Party movement, or who argue that taxes are progressive for the top 1%, are more likely to have been misled (honestly) than to be guilty of paid editing. The allegation of paid editing is a very strong personal attack. I happen to mostly agree with you on inequality, but we have to assume good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A false accusation of a personal attack is also a personal attack. I'm sure I'm not as familiar as you with the history of this matter, but the only accusations I've seen state that a user is citing "research" written or published by an advocacy group funded by partisan sponsors. If you have a link which shows EllenCT accusing another editor of taking compensation in exchange for POV edits to Wikipedia, please post that link here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, you must not have noticed EllenCT admit that her original comments were an accusation of paid editing on the ongoing ArbCom or frankly even above in this section in reply to RM. ([347], [348], [349], [350] scroll down, [351]). e.g. - "You took two weeks to deny that you were a paid editor after I asked you directly with a {{Ping}} on WP:ANI, which you cited in your evidence, and you made many intervening edits in the middle of April. Why did you wait so long to deny the accusation?"
Clearly you and BrownHairedGirl were quick to come to an incorrect, dismissive conclusion on the ANI thread that she had only been describing a source. To RM, I'll note that my editing hasn't been "biased" either. VictorD7 (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Victor, you've admitted you share a bias with an organization which wants to lower taxes on the rich. I deleted the question when I realized I needed to check the dates. The two weeks I was referring to in my deleted question was not the first time we discussed paid advovacy by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. If you really want to convince people that you are not biased, then please consider not making such a big deal out of it when other editors don't want you to push the graphs they pay for that try to make it seem like taxes were progressive for the rich by ignoring regressive taxes. EllenCT (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It's telling that you're still fixated on merely getting the "dates" wrong. Of course I denied your accusation immediately, not "two weeks" later, but that you deleted your admission of precisely what you were accusing me of doesn't diminish the elucidation it provides. You confirmed your deleted post in subsequent ones, one of which I also linked above. I have no idea what alleged admission by me you're referring to, but this has nothing to do with my personal views. The chart data is from the Tax Policy Center, not the PGPF (which is more of a bipartisan deficit hawk outfit than tax cutting advocate anyway), so you're still persisting in a red herring on that score too. Far more of our content disagreement has stemmed from my and others' opposition to the Citizens for Tax Justice chart you've repeatedly tried to insert into numerous articles. CTJ is a lobbying outfit and its numbers are an uncorroborated outlier, the internal federal component dramatically contradicted by the other sources including the CBO, Treasury Department, and the aforementioned TPC (which all closely agree with each other; "astroturf"?). Every editor, regardless of political bias, who's looked at the evidence I've laid out has either eventually agreed with me or at least backed away from supporting you, which is why the CTJ graph keeps getting removed. Your attempt to divert this discussion away from the substance by pretending it's somehow about PGPF, ignoring the fact that all the other sources disagree with you too, grew tedious a long time ago. Your doubling down on this strategy by falsely accusing me of being paid to edit by PGPF, even following me to an unrelated article talk page discussion to drop another ad hominem "paid advocacy" bomb, was an unacceptable policy violation and is hopefully in the process of boomeranging on you. Of course our disputes have gone way beyond this tax incidence chart debate, and your pattern of habitual misconduct has far transcended the way you deal with me. I'm only one of many editors you've had serious problems with. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that your time would be better spent reflecting on just who has "debunked" whom at arbitration. EllenCT (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I already replied ([352], [353]) and refuted (once again) your tiresome, diversionary content claims. I suggested long ago that you focus instead on addressing the substance of the misconduct charges against you, but you refused.VictorD7 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

About progressive taxes[edit]

Ellen, I wonder if you'ld be willing to enter into a conversation with me concerning progressive taxes? There are some issues that need clarification. If you're up for it, I'ld appreciate it if you could send me a message. Much thanks, LK (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I would be glad to, but can we please wait until after arbitration so people don't make accusations of behind-the-scenes collusion? EllenCT (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
OK sure, I'm not involved in the arbitration case, and I assure you I only wanted to discuss economics - but let's leave it for later. BTW, IMO, the CTJ graph that you inserted here, no longer reflects the situation in the US. Apparently, the tax rates on the top 1% went up drastically under the terms of the agreement that Obama hammered out in late 2012 during the 'fiscal cliff' negotiations. See here for a write up: [354]. I suggest not using stuff from before 2013, except as a reference to historical tax rates. Best, LK (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Lawrencekhoo: Thank you. How many years of the past three decades have taxes been progressive for the top 1%? EllenCT (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide context? If we look at the way the CBO calculates federal taxes, it's been decades in that people with more money pay higher overall tax rates. If you want to look at it from the ITEP method including their approach to state and local, then we see a flatter tax curve (although even ITEP says taxes are progressive, albeit barely) for a single point in time. The Tax Foundation on the other hand has a compromise state plus federal view that doesn't include the employer portion of FICA in an individuals tax rate, and allows for income exclusion via federal deductions (which ITEP does not) and the point in time calculation shows a more progressive view. In the end, all sources agree more or less that the tax system is progressive, but they disagree on how to measure it, and how relatively progressive it is between income ranges.Mattnad (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
By "a flatter curve" you mean an inflection point indicating that the top 1% pay a smaller proportion of their income in taxes than lower income earners. I am trying to ask User:Lawrencekhoo how many years out of the past three decades has total tax incidence been progressive for the top 1%. EllenCT (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I have no idea how many years taxes were regressive for the top 1% (Perhaps, early 2000s, after bush tax cuts, until 2013 post fiscal cliff?). But I'm pretty sure they are progressive now. LK (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Even if you combine vastly more reliable CBO, TPC, or Treasury Department federal figures with CTJ's (also uncorroborated) state/local figures, they were always progressive for the top 1%. Even CTJ's skewed overall numbers only show the top 1% paying slightly less than the rest of the top quintile (more than everyone else), and there's overwhelming evidence that the group seriously understates the top 1%'s tax rates. VictorD7 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Untrue. Show me one source with local sales taxes and a reasonable incidence of corporate tax which suggests that they were progressive in 2011. EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Everything I said is true, and I just cited three federal tax incidence sources and pointed out that if you combine any of them with ITEP's state/local (including sales) taxes (as the Tax Foundation did), replacing ITEP's federal numbers with one of the reliable sources, then the top 1%'s tax rate shoots up at least to the high 30s% (more like the mid 40s% now based on recent TPC figures), much higher than the rest of the population. The reliable sources attribute as high or higher a federal only tax rate for the top 1% than ITEP does an overall rate. Should have been a red flag to you when I first informed you of this months ago. VictorD7 (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
So you are saying that the Tax Foundation considers the ITEP a reliable source on incidence? Well noted. That is because they, like you, believe corporations pass some of their taxes on to their customers. EllenCT (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope (see my "also uncorroborated" parenthetical insertion a couple of posts above). I'm just showing how the discrepancy between ITEP and the other sources from a standpoint of progressivity for the top 1% (the way you've chosen to frame this issue) lies in the federal component, not (necessarily) the state/local one. In other words, it has nothing to do with sales tax.VictorD7 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
EllenCT, why do you prefer ITEP to other sources on when their calculation of the Federal Component is so different from the CBO? Do you believe the CBO misstates the actual tax rates charged to the 1%? If so, how?Mattnad (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Why do you and Victor prefer to ignore the sales tax and state and local payroll taxes? Why do you focus on the "federal component"? EllenCT (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Because, while ITEP's state/local numbers are also uncorroborated, we know the federal component is dramatically disputed by the reliable sources. Why don't you answer Mattnad's reasonable, highly pertinent question? VictorD7 (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Your suggestion that the sources that do not attribute any corporate tax incidence to customers, be they called labor or consumers, is contrary to your own stated opinion on whether corporations pass taxes on to their customers. This would be laughable if it were not so sad. EllenCT (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
So your answer to his question is that you do think the CBO misstates the federal tax rate charged to the top 1%? VictorD7 (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Victor, please refrain from cluttering the internet with the pathological walls of text resulting from your choice to harbor a contradiction. If you want to talk to me about this further, please ping me on your talk page instead of writing on mine. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Reinserting already discussed content[edit]

I'm seeing that in many places you're reinserting material that was discussed a while ago and consensus at that time was not to include. You've done this on images and text. This is not appropriate. If you have new sources, then please discuss them showing the specifics that address the issues from prior discussion (e.g. if the dispute was over SYN, then show the text in the new source that directly supports the statement so we can in-text attribute it to the source). Otherwise, it just looks like WP:IDHT and waiting months for people to leave and trying to sneak it back in when no one is looking. You need to move on if you don't get your way, not rehash the same debates and disrupt the articles by reinserting contested material. Morphh (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT is a guideline, but WP:CCC is a policy. If you think the disputed material is inappropriate in the different contexts, then you should raise that issue on the specific talk pages. EllenCT (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
You're not changing consensus, you're ignoring it, and you don't change consensus by rehashing the same argument, but new evidence or arguments. And you're not changing the context, just moving to a different article. We shouldn't have the exact same debate on each article you try to stick the same content into unless the dispute was specific to the scope of the article. If it's an objection to SYN for example, then it's not appropriate for any article and you know that. The solution is to address the issue on the talk, not wait six months and reinsert it or jump to another article. If you don't get your way, then WP:GOI - otherwise, you're just WP:DE. Morphh (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The IMF is changing consensus on the topic with their secondary "Inclusive Growth" series. Economists in the popular press are changing consensus with their constant stream of support for greater economic equality in turn supporting growth and lower unemployment. Constant and willful ignorance of those reliable sources by those of you holding a grudge that your libertarian preferences chosen before you bothered to do any more research than reading some Ayn Rand novels have been slighted is far more disruptive to the quality of the encyclopedia than my attempts to get more than an echo chamber tag team weighing in on the value of facts consistent with the peer reviewed academic literature reviews. Do you think anyone at all is persuaded by your arguments to the contrary in the least? EllenCT (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I hold no grudge and could care less about your ad hominem attack. The consensus being discussed is not the current position of economic thought, but that of specific material being added to Wikipedia with sources that can verify the material without specialized knowledge. Failure to gain Wikipedia consensus on the disputed content and continuing to add the rejected material is considered disruptive editing and can lead to sanctions. Morphh (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
So you depend on me to tell you what the consensus of the peer reviewed sources is, but if you don't like it then it's subject to editorial consensus? Do you think an encyclopedia built with more deference to editorial consensus than the consensus of the peer reviewed literature reviews is an encyclopedia that you would want to read or be associated with writing? EllenCT (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This is an off topic red herring as "consensus of the peer reviewed sources" is not a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, nor any basis for which your content is rejected. I don't depend on your opinion, nor do I trust it accurately reflects sources. And no, I would not want to be associated with an encyclopedia that gave more deference to any imaginative editor that claimed their point of view was industry consensus over other editors reviewing the same content and a consensus determining otherwise. Morphh (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead redux[edit]

Your understanding of the MOS guidance at WP:LEAD is not correct. We are not to duplicate entire paragraphs or broad swatches of the body in the lead section. It is to be a summary. Your linking to an essay does not change that.

From WP:LEAD : "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

The quote removed was a cut and paste duplication of a paragraph from the main body. That never is allowed. It is also why Ubikwit shortened the deleted paragraph and put in one sentence in its place. Sorry that you misunderstood. Capitalismojo (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply that an article's introduction should be independent of the text in its body? EllenCT (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No. My words seemed clear and unambiguous. We don't cut and paste large sections into the lead. Leads should be concise and summarize key elements of the body. Ubikwit's edit is a good example. He boiled down the large section to one line. While I may not be entirely convinced that this is one of the "most important points" in the body that needs to be included in the lead, his summary is solid and inline with WP:LEAD. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Capitalismojo) EllenCT (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

<Copied from Capitalismojo's page> If verbatim duplication of the body in the intro is not allowed, there are a very large number of featured articles which aren't allowed. Where are you getting that from? EllenCT (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
<Copied from Capitalismojo's page> I have posted both the wiki link and the actual language. I can't imagine that you don't understand the word "summary" in the MOS, so it seems you have come to this page to be disruptive. Please stop. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@Capitalismojo: when questions are so uncomfortable that you don't want to see them or let others see that you have seen them, then please reflect on the reasons why. Would you please answer with the specific passage you think says that verbatim duplication between the intro and body of an article is forbidden, let alone discouraged? Also, I want to ask you what I asked Morpff above: Do you think an encyclopedia built with more deference to editorial consensus than the consensus of the peer reviewed literature reviews is an encyclopedia that you would want to read or be associated with writing? EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by uncomfortable questions. Your statements show little understanding of the policies and practices of wikipedia. Every time an editor tries to give you guidance you throw out non-sequiturs. I posted the specific language already. We don't take large sections of the body and duplicate them in the lead, we summarize if it is important enough to be in the lead. In answer to your other question; Yes I like and want to read Wikipedia and usually enjoy writing it. You may be surprised at this, but consensus largely works here. I note that you have never presented evidence of a "consensus of the peer-reviewed literature" exists and if it did that it supports your edits. If you had presented such evidence you'd probably have achieved the consensus here already. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you or do you not have any policy, guideline, or even essay guidance recommending that introductions not include verbatim excerpts from an article's body, or are you just making that up based on personal preferences? Are you aware of how many featured articles include verbatim duplication between their intros and bodies? I have repeatedly presented sources citing the peer reviewed literature reviews and other sources secondary to peer reviewed academic journal papers in economics. When was the last time you did? And back to the question I asked: Which is more important to the quality of the encyclopedia, editorial consensus or the consensus of the peer reviewed literature reviews? EllenCT (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have answered your questions directly and fully. Having done so I believe this conversation is complete. If you have further questions about how to summarize material from the body of the article for placement in the lead, please ask other editors or admins. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Ellen, CM is correct in this issue. I hope that in the future, you will be more restrained in your editing, and pay better heed to the 'old hands' who would advise you on WP practice. It will help you improve the pages in a way that will 'stick'. Edits that 'shoot from the hip' will sooner or later get reverted. LK (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to the content attributing most inequality to the capital gains taxes including the carried interest exemption, or the behavior of satisfying WP:LEAD by using verbatim excerpts of the article body when appropriate? EllenCT (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about context, I'm talking about conduct. Even on a purely self-interested basis, you are better off adhering strictly to Wikipedia policy and practice. Your edits will be far more likely to stay in the article, and everyone will have more time to improve articles. When other editors who are not obviously self-interested give you advice about editing (such as the bit about not taking a paragraph from the body and sticking it into the lead), your best bet is to follow their advice even if you think you are in the 'right'. Wikipedia articles build up by collaboration, and you will get far more done working collaboratively. LK (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Plutocracy[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Plutocracy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that about sums up this place, bot. :D EllenCT (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-22[edit]

08:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom is for conduct[edit]

@EllenCT & @VictorD7 I note edits such as this and this are more about content than conduct. While we normally prefer content discussions to conduct in most places, an Arbcom case is one of the few places where conduct, rather than content, should be discussed. Please stop the content dispute on the workshop page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Georgism[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-23[edit]

08:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-24[edit]

07:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Progressive tax[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive tax. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces[edit]

I'm copying a note I just left for you at User talk:Kingofaces43 in the "Questions about deletions" section, to make sure you see it. I was surprised to find out that you are the subject of ArbCom proceedings, and your interactions with Kingofaces were recently cited there by a third party as part of the evidence of a pattern of disruptive editing. Coming to the Talk page of an editor whom you have directly queried about COI, as you did here and whom you seem to have directly accused of COI and paid advocacy in this edit note, and then asking about their personal view on discussions of astroturfing, looks somewhat like harassment and will not help you at Arbcom. For what it is worth, you should take the discussion at Arbcom as a wake-up call to change, and to work very carefully to focus on content, not contributors. Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion at User talk:Kingofaces43 in the "Questions about deletions" section, here, instead of there. I am not attempting a personal attack I am describing your behavior. You are making mistakes in discussing the science and characterizing the source. I make mistakes all the time, and when I learn about them because other people point them out, or if I catch them myself, I acknowledge the mistake and if it means my argument changes or falls apart, and I acknowledge that too, and proceed accordingly. Pretending it didn't happen, "standing by" your edits, and just shifting your ground like you are doing here, frustrates other editors and costs you credibility. It is not strength, it is weakness. You will do as you like. People will treat your edits accordingly. Again, being brought up at Arbcom is a huge deal - you are in serious danger of facing editing restrictions based on your behavior. You seem oblivious to that although you have been told several times that the behavior of you and other editors is under scrutiny, not the content you have been arguing about. I again advise you to take it as a wakeup call and to change your behavior. Changing topic to discuss how you are characterizing the reference.... You persist in mischaracterizing the reference. It it characterized by both medline and pubmed (click on publication types) as a "review", and the quote you offered from the abstract just provides just part of what the review accomplishes. It is a review - a secondary source. The journal in which it is published is plenty respectable and does peer review. I am copying the discussion of the source, to the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC) (copyedit (shown in underline) to clarify that discussion of the reference is separate topic from kind of behavior that were being discussed. Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC))

I would prefer to keep the discussion from being fragmented. I maintain that the "review" clearly specifies a review methodology for the testing guidance and not the title of the article. I have no regrets at all regarding my behavior in this matter. EllenCT (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As I said, you will do as you like. I posted my thoughts on the source Talk:Neonicotinoid#discussion_of_Bayer-funded_source Jytdog (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As did I, and as did another editor who thinks the source has substantial problems. What are you saying I could have done differently? Do you think I should have kept my COI suspicions to myself, or reported them directly on the COIN or ANI without discussing them on the user's talk page first? EllenCT (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The jumble in what you write is somewhat mind-boggling. The discussion of the source is about the source. Your sloppiness is another matter. Your behavior - not acknowledging mistakes and just shifting ground to keep pushing your argument about a given topic (here, that you don't like the source and want it not to be used), general WP:IDHT, and yes, repeating accusations of COI is another matter. To answer your question about what to do when you have concerns about another editor's possible COI .... As per WP:COI, if you have a question about that, ask the editor directly (which you did, and were directly answered). If you have actual reason - real evidence of a COI - then the next step is to bring that to a board -- the place to bring that is WP:COIN. You have zero evidence and if you bring a case there, it will likely boomerang back on you. If your concern is WP:ADVOCACY, (a different matter, more subjective and one that requires clear evidence of a pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing ( WP:IDHT and groundshifting, not trying to reach consensus) the appropriate board at which to bring that is WP:NPOVN. Continually bringing the accusation of COI in the course of discussions of content, is unproductive and ugly and bothers everybody that has to deal with it - that behavior will come back to bite you as well. Indeed it already has - your existing pattern of making sloppy and repeated accusations of COI are something that are already being discussed against you at Arbcom - you should really back off doing that. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the Bayer-funded source which was offered as a representative review is not skewed towards Bayer's commercial advantage relative to the independent literature reviews? I do intend to bring that up, along with the other problems that I have identified with the source, because nobody has given me any reason to believe otherwise. Why is that ugly or bothersome? Are you suggesting that [407] is not evidence of COI? And what are you calling sloppy? You said I was mistaken for balking at the idea that Bt endotoxins are necessarily order-specific, when the secondary source studying the issue says many if not most of them are toxic to multiple insect orders -- so which one of us was being sloppy on that? I brought my editing on the topic to the attention of arbitrators three weeks ago. Given how things have turned out, I have absolutely no regrets about illustrating the similarities. EllenCT (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
a) What kingofaces said, was that Bt is largely order-specific. You replied with "but bees are insects." For pete's sake. (Insecta is a class; bees are in the Hymenoptera order within that class) Sloppy then and sloppy now. This is exactly what I am talking about. I am not interested in pinning anybody to the wall, but when you make a mistake, own it and move on. b) Further confusion: this sentence "I do intend to bring that up, along with the other problems that I have identified with the source, because nobody has given me any reason to believe otherwise. Why is that ugly or bothersome? " is just baffling. I was talking about repeatedly accusing editors of having COI as being ugly and bothersome. Now you seem to be saying that the source is COI. In Wikipedia, editors have a COI or not; sources are independent or not. What are you talking about, Ellen? I really don't see any point in continuing. I can't make sense out of what you are saying and you are uninterested in the advice I have offered. So good luck to you. Really! Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I would be more interested in your advice if you would answer my questions instead of trying to change the subject. EllenCT (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I love dialogue on Wikipedia. I just can't make sense out of what you write enough to answer anything. Like I said, good luck. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-25[edit]

07:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-26[edit]

07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgism[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-27[edit]

06:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Economic growth. Your edits have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. On two occasions (July 1 & December 16) you have added the same material to the article which is not supported by the reference.S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This sentence you added was really out there, "On the other hand, without interstellar colonization, accidental collisions with dangerous astronomical objects could bring a halt to human growth until a space-fairing civilization finds sufficient anthropological evidence with which to reconstruct a simulation of it." Were you making a joke to see if people picked up on it?Mattnad (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it is replaced with sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is hounding you despite your claim in your edit summary here [462]. Note that another editor promptly reverted you again. You are boderline into an edit war over this. You've been warned.Mattnad (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-neutral talk page heading[edit]

Per WP:TALKNEW, talk page headings should be neutral. Your addition here does not meet this requirement. Please revise. Also, I suggest you move the section into the "Discussion of Bayer-funded source" section as a subsection. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I see you have renewed editing today. Would you please resolve this talk page heading issue. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you suggest a rewording that you feel would be neutral? EllenCT (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Make it a subsection of "Discussion of Bayer-funded source" and name it "Further comment". The heading is my only concern. No change to content is suggested. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The words "further comment" do not convey a great deal of information. Can you think of a neutral way to word the subject? EllenCT (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
The heading is not the place to convey a lot of information. It is simply provides a hook to hang discussion on. The place to actually convey a great deal of information is in the commentary you provide. – S. Rich (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Please seek dispute resolution if you believe there is a more neural way to phrase the subject. Please refrain from further posting on my talk page. EllenCT (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice re WP:NPOV thread[edit]

I have started a discussion here. – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

After more than a year of stalking my contributions and trying to pester me about the finer points of the smallest inconsequential details, you have ignored my instruction to refrain from posting on my talk page. You could have used the ping template. EllenCT (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please join me in asking S. Rich to refrain from further WP:HOUNDING. EllenCT (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Shock Doctrine[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Shock Doctrine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-28[edit]

07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hounding?[edit]

I'm sorry you feel I am hounding you. But there are overriding reasons for me to take a look at your edits and to respond appropriately. (E.g., your edits are not, in general, constructive.) Any irritation, annoyance or distress you may experience is an unfortunate side effect of my comments and reverts, but it is not my intention to cause such side effects. You know full well that a certain number of editors are not happy with what you have said in different forums. And you have seen various editors revert your changes in various articles. So, when you make inappropriate edits, please expect me to correct such errors. When you make inappropriate personal (NPA) comments, please expect me to respond. In other words, I (and others) hope you will look at your own behavior. Indeed, the comments of several other editors should prompt you to consider. If you feel that I am behaving inappropriately, please post on the RFC/U. (I will be interested in seeing who supports you.) Or, if you wish, post on the ANI. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Srich, this sounds like a classic hounder's denial. Once the other editor has heard all of your concerns repeatedly and in detail and has repeatedly asked you to lighten up and back off, there's nothing to be gained by your doubling down with further ineffective assertions of your guidance. Whatever the issues concerning content or behavior, it's not your sole burden to promote and enforce your preferred remedies. Over time, where there's a problem, other editors will participate in the process by which it can be resolved. It's not your sole burden and there's absolutely no reason to ignore EllenCT's discomfort with your behavior and her clear requests that you drop the stick. Threats and challenges to mount a battle of the RfC/U's is bizarre and counterproductive. Please consider taking a break from the areas of EllenCT's activity and check back in 60-90 days. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

Problems you are creating on Economic growth[edit]

You have recently created several problems with your edits on Economic growth. Most memorable is regarding your post about Planetary boundaries and space colonization, which is science fiction and not economics.

Most recently you have been reverting all of my edits related to productivity. You have also been over promoting income inequality, which I don't even recall being mentioned in one of the best books I've read on economic growth.

The last bad thing you did was post a notice about one of the most solid references on economic growth as needing peer review or else being fringe. This shows that you know nothing of the reference, which says a lot about your lack of qualifications to edit this article.

If you do another ill informed or improper edit of Economic growth I will report you to a problem editor noticeboard.Phmoreno (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the several disputes that have arisen in the past few days at Talk:Economic growth#Undue weight-Income inequality. EllenCT (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Phmoreno, an ANI report is not going to decide issues related to article content disagreements, but is very likely, per WP:BOOMERANG to scrutinize your personal attacks on the article talk page. You don't appear to be responding to other editors' concerns in the discussion of sourcing and content there. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the first notice I am filing. There may be others[edit]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

I was advised to start the discussion first, so disregard this until then. Information icon 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.

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, EllenCT. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 05:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-29[edit]

07:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-30[edit]

07:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)