User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 2

Check before edit warring

I'm sorry but you don't know basic English grammar. Please do not "warn" me again without checking your "corrections" with an English teacher. I was initially polite, simply saying "grammar correction" but your arrogant persistence - in the midst of being wrong on basic grammar - is no longer a laughing matter. I have taken it to talk. Feel free to argue the case there if you still think you know what you're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.209.200.93 (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Fractional reserve banking. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Adding/revising template message.) Seeking to achieve balance in my user talk page comments, I'll tag yours and present the following: Saying that so-and-so is a suspected sock is an allegation without proof and is directed towards the editor, not the edit. I quite agree that these edits should be hashed out on the talk page. But the comment supporting the reversion of an edit based on an ad hominem "sockpuppetry" argument is, IMHO, poorly based. S. Rich (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Srich, What does it mean, "I'll tag yours?" Thanks. I am not familiar with many features of Wikipedia.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For the verb tag, see: WP:Glossary#T. I am endeavoring to keep the discussions civil, so reminders are sent out to all concerned editors as appropriate. Hopefully this will lead to happier editing. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Different request regarding Short (finance)

Hello, SPECIFICO. I'd like to draw your attention back to the Short (finance) page, where an unregistered IP editor in France has been deleting significant parts of the article—entire sections—then adding in a long, thinly sourced, arguably unencyclopedic discussion of the pros and cons of restricting short-selling. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is also heavily weighted toward the EU and France in particular. Another editor (L2blackbelt) had previously reverted similar changes this week, although that editor seems to contribute only occasionally. For your convenience, here's L2blackbelt's rollback and here's the IP editor's latest. I'm going to ask elsewhere, but in case you're around, are you willing to roll this back again? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just saw you got to it—very much appreciated. Meanwhile, my Talk page request from last month (about a partial reorganization) is still open, if you're willing to look at it. Regentspark offered some feedback and support, but then never returned. Here's the discussion, if you're available. Thanks again, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I am the author of the last two edits, both reverted, on the Short (finance) page. I am also the author of most of the French version. Actually, I had written both versions at the same time. I am sad to see that, even though the talk pages of the article are full of people lamenting about how this article is ill-structured and ill-balanced, any attempt, not only by myself, to improve it inexorably fails. Regards. Bmathis (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For both of your benefit: having received a similar note on my Talk page, I've replied over there. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And FWIW my last request has now been completed. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking

I've been away for sometime, and just noticed that the Fractional reserve banking page has been edited to insert some heterodox ideas about money creation. Specifically, it's been made considerably friendlier to the fringe idea that the concept of money multiplier is not correct. I'm not sure that I understand all the viewpoint(s) of those who have been editing it correctly, but it seems to be one or more of the following:

1. Bank lending and hence money creation is not limited by bank reserves
2. Banks lend as much as they like regardless of the amount of reserves that they have, and so they do not lend out excess reserves
3. A central bank does not control the amount of broad money in the economy, the amount of M2 depends on how banks feel about lending.
4. The process of lending and relending of new base money described in textbooks doesn't actually happen.
5. An injection of reserves into a bank will cause the bank to immediately lend out so much that the reserves are all immediately used to fulfill the reserve requirement (seems to contradict the above, may be another group of editors)
6. Banks don't actually act as financial intermediaries

I notice that you have been editing the Fractional reserve banking page quite a bit, can you keep an eye out for these editors? Let's try to keep the description of fractional reserve banking close to what one would find in a typical banking textbook that one would find used in economics or finance undergraduate and masters programs. I should also ask, do you hold any of the above beliefs? If so, which? Let's see if we can come to a consensus about what should be in the article. LK (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for asking. No, those are not my beliefs. I mean really: If the Fed were willing to wink and facilitate unlimited bank lending, how would the POV editors here explain that we have no hyperinflation after 100 years of the Fed? I think some of the weird text is from the persistent sock, and editors should now go back and remove those. On a related note, do you feel that the blog-like essays on Mises.org are valid sources for Wikipedia? I find a lot of questionable content originates there. I recently removed some Lew Rockwell and Hulsmann and other such material. Anyway I have really just been nibbling around the edges of this article because the meat of it seems like a daunting project. I'll have a look in the next several days. There is of course an abundant literature from which to draw material for this article, but it's currently confined to only a narrow sample. Thanks for the note.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I think where some of these people are coming from is the endogenous money views of post-Keynesian/Chartalist/Modern Monetary Theory (I'm not sure what the differences between them are). About the blog-like article on Mises.org or Lew Rockwell, I would say they are generally unreliable sources except for the views of those groups. I've seen these blog articles from Mises.org used a lot, especially for statements about what Austrian economists believe, but personally, I think they are only RS for what their own organization believes. I think one can argue that these articles are not RS because they don't undergo editorial oversight. If there are any disputes, the best place to ask is on reliable sources notice board. The articles in the academic journals housed there, like "Review of Austrian Economics" are of course of a different caliber. LK (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. That's helpful. I have shied away from removing some of the Mises.org material because of the militant following among some of the editors here. I am quite concerned that some of the fringe Mises.org views are supplanting valuable Austrian School contributions, to say nothing of settled consensus economic theory and findings. Knowing there's a board to help vet source material is very helpful and supportive. I'll continue to have a look at the articles in this area.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, do you know of WikiProject:Economics? If you ever find yourself in an intractable situation with a fringe POV warrior about an economics topic, posting on the talk page there can get more people to look at the issue. LK (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Full-reserve banking

User:TheEconomyIsDead is pretty clearly another Karmaisking sock. After a while you'll get a feel for his language and for the ways he tries to insert himself into Wikipedia. Standard policy is to Deny recognition. Just tag the sock and revert on sight. Best, LK (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There's another as well: User:Prettyladieslover. on Fractional Reserve Banking. I foolishly wasted time undoing the troll's edits. I suppose if it continues, there should be another SPI. Cheers.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Lott

Thanks for catching the link move. I don't always think to double check old links. That is why I always include author, title, pub and date in a ref: organisations like to improve their archives by moving stuff around and having biblio data helps the search. http://www.asc41.com/January-February%202000.htm old link dead http://www.asc41.com/Criminologist/2000/January-February%202000.htm new link --Naaman Brown (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG

Some of your recent edit comments refer to "non-RS" blog entries as the rationale. Without looking at all of the particular edits or references, I think you are going overboard with the "blog" rationale. WP:NEWSBLOG does allow "blog" entries by institutional editors. (Entries not under editoral control by readers are not allowed.) The WSJ blog edit you recently deleted is a bit vague. It seems to say that reader may contribute and does not tell us that they are under editorial control. Also, I think you are going too far in removing the lewrockwell.com entries. They come from the organization and are not blogs. (LewRockwell.com has been discussed on the WP:RSN.) --S. Rich (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. The deleted material was no from Mises.org but from the lewrockwell site, which is not RS. I did not remove any author's statement of his own opinion on Mises. In fact I strengthened the statement of Shostak's opinion. Thanks for your comment.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My bad

I apologize for my reverting of all the blog stuff--I thought I was reverting something else. Thank you for the correction--you're quite correct about the blog thing. Byelf2007 (talk) 18 December 2012

thanks hats off to you.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Deletion of CHE attribution

Thank you for pointing out that John Lott is the subject not Levitt. My reason for the revert was the removal of a cited statement without any more of an edit-summary than "irrelevant". Would you do me the favor of reviewing the text in question to confirm that this short part of the article is in fact "irrelevant" to the article as asserted by user 107.15.60.100. I have no intention of edit-warring over your undo of my revert of 01:15, 20 December 2012 on the article. I understood and still believe the CHE statement to be a relevant evaluation of Levitt's concession in the disagreement. Thank you.
SBaker43 (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello thanks for your note. I'll review again, but my current view is that this reverted bit was a statement of opinion and, whatever the merits of that view, not appropriate to Lott's BLP.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Tough guy

You like tough guys, huh? Well, I like you too. ! – S. Rich (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There could be a WP reality show coming up on cable... SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:COOL

WRT this edit: [1] I certainly was not citing WP policy or guidance. My remark was directed to both of them in an even handed manner to hopefully achieve WP:COOL. Steeletrap had no business bringing up hurt feelings (for lack of a better term) about old perceived PA (based or baseless) and I have commented to that effect on Steeletrap's talk page. WP:WIAPA says making allegations of PA can be PA in and of itself if there is no evidence of PA. In Steeletrap's remark about Carol's PA, he was suggesting implicitly that her previous remark was PA, and then "clarified" that the complaint was about previous PA. Either way, the remark was improper. Carol needs to couch her language better and Steeletrap needs to see the remarks for what they are.

Moreover, as I read Steeletrap's reply to me, I am astounded by the suggestion that I am (hypothetically or whatever) "homophobic/transphobic because you [I] think my [Steeletrap's] posts should be less sensitive ("overly-sensitive" is often a stereotype of GBT men, but you [I] would (rightuflly [sic]) regard it is unfair and insulting for me [Steeletrap] to (baselessly) tag you with those charges of bigotry." Where this came from is a mystery! Steeletrap seems to be saying "There is a stereotype that GBT men are overly sensitive; you have made a remark that I am overly sensitive; therefore you think I am GBT because you [S.Rich] have bought into the stereotype." (Well, tough guys, whether they are GBT or not, can be sensitive too!) No matter who's feelings are hurt, these people are not helping the discussion on article improvement with their remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Well some people are more sensitive than others and some people are more accustomed to disputes and contentious debate. But this is a community of strangers collaborating with one another so site norms appropriately set a strong standard for civility, avoiding personal remarks, and so forth. Thus when any editor makes an off-topic, sarcastic, or disparaging remark, that editor must know from site policy (if not from that editor's personal real-life experience,) that there is a risk of offending/intimidating/frightening other editors to a greater or lesser extent. If remarks are confined to content and the policies concerning content, with negligible use of first- or second-person subjects or objects in the prose, there's really very little chance of crossing the line to PA or harassment. I believe that it's easy to avoid for those who choose to do so. Moreover once another editor has remarked to another on the subject, there is really no excuse for the behavior to continue. Any gender-based remark is so out of bounds for a talk page that it is really poisons the tone in an inexcusable and irremediable way. In my opinion, that is the context and origin of Steeletrap's remark to you. In other circumstances he likely would not have had that reaction to your remark. But now that we know the air has been poisoned, not by you me or Steeletrap, we will not soon go back to normal collaboration. It's a damn shame, it hurts WP, but that's where we are this eve. Cheerio. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

oh my goodness srich. You are totally misrepresenting my comment! You called me overly sensitive. I disagreed, but tried to use the opportunity to help you imagine why I might have felt hurt by the accusations of bigotry made against SPECIFICO and myself. Here was my full remark:

Her personal attack of sexism based on SPECIFICO's comment about her posts being rageful (which is not the same as saying she is personally rageful), is akin to me making a personal attack on you as homophobic/transphobic because you think my posts should be less sensitive ("overly-sensitive" is often a stereotype of GBT men, but you would (rightuflly) regard it is unfair and insulting for me to (baselessly) tag you with those charges of bigotry; please hold Carol to that same standard.) for the full context, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LewRockwell.com#Fringe_Science.2FAIDS_Denial; note that I bold in this excerpt for emphasis but did not use bolding in the original test)

The whole point was that the charge of homophobic/transphobic bias would -- like Carol's charge of sexism toward me and Miss/Mrs. Specifico -- have been utterly unjustified and a PA! It was clearly meant as an analogy to help explain to you why Carol's remarks were insulting; no fair reading of that text can imply that it was an insinuation that you were either of those things. Please apologize immediately for your misrepresentation of my comment and consider how other comments of yours toward me could also have been based on unintentional misrepresentations. Steeletrap (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note that user CarolmooreDC continue to focus on my personal character throughout what Srich would have me think is a "good faith" attempt to resolve dispute regarding the LewRockwell.com page. In response to an attempt to compromise by me, she responded: "I know you prefer throwing in some WP:OR, but at least we are finally talking about what the sources say (i.e., "which (on LRC) advocated AIDS Denial"), though I would have to double check them. Can we continue this at the talk page?" (bold mine, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Concerns_on_WP:Undue_regarding_AIDS_Denial_and_LewRockwell.com) Basically, she is saying that my personal preference/desire is to violate WP rules.

It is simply bizarre that Srich admonishes me to "be civil" in response to constantly charged/sarcastic language and regular personal attacks, even going so far as to warn me that I may be subject to "sanctions" for his (in my view, preposterous) view that I keep violating various WP rules. Yet his criticism of Carol is either extremely mild or nonexistent. I call that a double-standard. That double-standard -- along with misrepresentations like that quoted above -- is why you, Srich, and I (and I feel entitled to invoke you here since you first discussed me above) have a poor editorial relationship. Steeletrap (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If you [Steeletrap] are making a comment in response to a post I make, and if you use the pronoun "you" in the remark, it is fair for me to read it and assume that "you" referred to me. You could have used the third personal pronoun and said "personal attack on someone ... because someone thinks my posts ... [etc]." As you mis-spoke in your analogy I accept your apology. And I apologize to SPECIFICO for the senseless clutter that is now clogging up this page. – S. Rich (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)01:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just shows what I know. I thought I got along OK with each of you. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying my remark above, I was addressing Steeletrap. You are getting along quite well with me. Indeed. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what in name you (Srich) are taking about. Of course the "you" referred to you. It was describing a hypothetical situation in which I accused "you" of homophobia/transophobia based solely on your saying I was "overly-sensitive." The explicitly point was that the accusation would have been unjustified, because, while GBT men are often called overly-sensitive on the basis of their orientation (as are women called angry on the basis of their gender), there would be no evidence for my hypothetical charge (as there was no evidence for Carol's charge) of bigotry. Please apologize for your misrepresentation of a clear-cut remark. Steeletrap (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

dispute resolution

[2] you are mentioned here Darkstar1st (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Austrian School". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Austrian economics page

Truly first-rate changes. Thank you for taking the time to improve this encyclopedia. I expect future posts (from you or others) will further clarify the divide between the Hayekians (typically moderate libertarians who publish in mainstream journals using standard methodologies but believe those methodologies require an extremely burden of proof and think deduction from common-sense principles has a place in economics) and the Rothbardians (anarchists who categorically reject the scientific method in favor of armchair ratiocination, and who are known mostly through political causes like Ron Paul for President). Steeletrap (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that there are also reliable source discussions of the divergence of the Mises Institute and its Fellows from the actual economics of Mises. Mises' work was continued to some extent by Kirzner and Lachmann, but there is much reference today to Mises' name and writings that is not consistent with his work, not to mention the fact that many of those who cite him fail to consider that they're referring to work written in a 100-year-old historical and institutional context. I hope you will contribute to the article and not let yourself be intimidated or discouraged from editing there. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Too late on the intimidation, I'm afraid. Still, it was nice to learn that only admins can block or "sanction" me, and that petitions for such action have to be based in fact to work. (though blowing my top certainly played a huge role, my *freak out* moment last Saturday is partly attributable to a belief I was about to be blocked or "sanctioned" despite, as far as I can tell, violating no conduct-related policy ever.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I stayed out of the two Rockwell articles and the Hoppe article to avoid the harassment and personal attacks. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am psychologically resigned to the fact that "Argumentation Ethics" will eventually be "restored" to an extensive, uncritical OR presentation of Hoppe's belief that everyone who disagrees with his politics is irrational, paired with insinuations that the argument was well-received by mainstream philosophers. (but what would that matter for? They're all irrational anyway and therefore in no position to judge anything anyone -- musch less Hoppe -- says about politics.) Steeletrap (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

On a more substantive note, I dug up this piece by Robert Murphy describing a concerted effort by "Hayekian" style Austrian Economists at George Mason University, to step away from the "Austrian" moniker and rename themselves "coordinator problem" economists, ostensibly to distinguish them from the Austrians associated with LvMI and the Ron Paul for President political movement. http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2010/01/boettke-et-al-engage-in-product-differentiation.html I think that this adds some clarity to the divide, in terms of the fact that the academic Austrians at GMU were willing to explicitly change the name of their "school" to distinguish themselves from the LvMI types. Steeletrap (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know to what extent the split has been discussed in RS sources. There's the Lewrockwell.com article about the Rockwell, Mises.org, and Cato split. In general academic Austrian economists stay away from the Mises Inst. Yes, many whose work is squarely in the Austrian tradition, including myself, decline to identify ourselves as such. Ones work stands on its merits, and there is always the possibility for undue associations, positive or negative. Many academic Austrians interact with Cato, GMU, and other established centers of conservative/libertarian thought. Few interact with vMI. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

DigitalJournal as RS?

More specifically, Digital Journal is a wiki. Cheerps. – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, SPECIFICO. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Violations of rules

You are are deleting a common assertion, referenced with an interview where Hoppe spoke about his own studies (place, teacher, year), it isn't referencing about any controversial issue or about a claiming against Habermas -that is the spirit of be alert with primary sources in WP:BLP (check Wikipedia:Libel). Primary source is allow when it isn't use for support interpretations of facts, if it is subsidiary, and if it is used carefully. You are extending the meanings of rules, probably by confusion, so please check Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Primary sources aren't forbidden, just have a limited place. --Sageo (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you. I'm explaning what I consider is a mistake in editions, not a personal attack. It isn't necessary to victimize in the debate. --Sageo (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For all the reasons I cited, including BRD and BLP, I will now ask you for the last time to undo your recent edits. I will pursue remedies against you if you continue to refuse. You may find and cite valid sources, but you may not continue to insert the claim that Hoppe studied with Habermas when we have no evidence that is true. Primary sources may be used as to the subject's own views but not as to the actions of other people or facts concerning others, such as Habermas. This is your final warning. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol alredy give a source in discussion. --Sageo (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Any source belongs in the article not the talk page. Put your citation in for Habermas or remove Habermas' name from the article. SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaming the system

In talk page there are the explanations of why your deltions are wrong. Please check Wikipedia:Gaming the system. You aren't doing well for a consensus, it seems your ideological hostility to some schoolar stream is playing a role in the discussion. You could been making a fault. --Sageo (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you have said that you have difficulty with English, I am going to explain this to you one final time: You and I disagree, right? Yes. Now according to the guidance at WP:BRD it is not OK for you to put something back after we have discovered that we disagree about it. You say "there are explanations ..." but that is your opinion only, and I disagree. So it is not OK for you to just repeat your own opinion and then put the words back in the article. Otherwise every editor would just write his or her opinion and then "edit war" against other editors who have a different opinion.

Now that we know we disagree, you should not keep putting your words back in the article. Repeating the reason why you think your opinion is the correct opinion does not make it OK. There needs to be consensus. So, please remove those words from your last edit and respond to my statements on the talk page of the article. Specifically, I am saying that you will need to find secondary WP:RS sources that support your text that Hoppe is a philosopher, an economist, or whatever. If you exceed 3RR you may be blocked from editing WP. I hope this was clear to you. Please do not accuse me of ideological hostility or any other views. You have no knowledge of my opinions or beliefs. Your inference that I am hostile to a Hoppe is incorrect. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe 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. Nothing in the preceding edit contained a personal attack. This remark [3], which makes [revised remark: an accusation of PA a personal statement about another editors personal statement, and implied that it was a PA] is not in keeping with WP:WIAPA. If you must post such admonitions, please do so on the user's talk page. Statements like this do not further the discussion of improving the article. I will be removing the statement shortly. – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)17:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

17:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC) There was no such implication. Any such inference resides solely in your consciousness. Please undo whatever police action you referenced here. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack. You have no right to remove it. You are one editor among equals here, neither a magistrate nor an admin. Please restore whatever you removed without authority. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

When you are admonishing another editor about making personal statements on an article talk page, you are going off-topic. Moreover, the statements she made were not PA. The statement you posted was removed IAW (in accordance with) WP:TPNO (which addresses the specific remark that you made about Carolmooredc's comment) and WP:TPO (which addresses the propriety of removing off-topic posts). These article talk pages have enough bickering going on without interpreting comments as PA. – S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't repeat yourself to me. I suggest you consider whether you're in denial of the reasonable reactions editors have to your micro-interference in various interactions on many articles and talk pages. Please undo whatever police action you reference above. A quick check of various article talk pages shows me similar concise admonishments either from you or on threads in which you were present, but did not feel compelled to intervene in the manner you have just done in the present instance. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you like, I'll remove this entire thread. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just undo whatever refactoring you did on the article talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please post your remark about personal statements on Carolmooredc's talk page. I won't mind. But then you or I can remove this entire thread and everyone will feel Happy Happy Joy Joy. – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't touch this thread; you have no right to modify my talk page. Now, please read the policy you violated on the article talk page and restore my comments]. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I ceased to worry about these things when I realized Rich did not have the power to ban me. Having a couple weekly "warnings" from Rich is just something one has to grow acclimated to. Steeletrap (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Like shoe shines and nail trims? SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the latter. Steeletrap (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Modification needed on EW ANI

The material you have posted on the EW ANI:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118] [119] [120] [121]

really doesn't give us "DIFF"s. The links just go to the particular sections, and they don't say which edits were made. Please look at WP:DIFF for more information on how to post them. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I do see where you provided DIFFs elsewhere in the ANI, so I apologize for thinking that you did not know how to do it. Just that DIFFs should be posted throughout the ANI when it asks for diffs. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for interrupting you (and this goes for Srich32977 and SPECIFICO), but I think you should both perhaps stop this, let's just call it teasing, and do whatever helps you relax. And no, it does not matter who is correct. Lectonar (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite correct. I figured you would not hesitate to let me know if I needed to correct my ANI notice. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Hoppe

You have been denounced for edit warring. --Sageo (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sageo, your comment about edit warring (EW) is poorly stated. If you think EW is going on, please describe it. Be specific about what you describe. If other editors are commenting about EW, then let them do it by themselves. Do not add vague comments. Above all, WP:AGF. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I also learned from Steeletrap that Sageo has posted a EWN here: [4] . I'll look at it and remark as necessary. Off-hand I think Sageo needs to learn more about the English WP before getting into these more contentious and tangled weeds. My comments to Sageo were directed towards obtaining more cordial cross-Atlantic WP relations. – S. Rich (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Sageo has "reported" us for "edit warring"; please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SPECIFICO_and_User:Steeletrap_reported_by_User:Sageo_.28Result:_.29. Best, Steele. Steeletrap (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Defamation on Hoppe talk page

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

Your talk page discussions with User: Steeletrap are making all sorts of defamatory allegations and speculations based on non WP:RS sources and cherry picked quotes which are against policy. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Making claims based on vague charges with no specific argument to back them up is meaningless. Steeletrap (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please revert Campaigning

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

Please stop canvassing with the inaccurate title and change all titles to the accurate title which is "RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?" I did it on economics wikiproject. Thank you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, please stop making derogatory personal comments ("biased users") and false charges ("canvassing") on Wikipedia. If you are concerned with the conduct of user SPECIFICO, take it to the relevant authority, so they can correct your wildly erroneous interpretation of WP policy. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of your/my material from Hoppe talk page

Good evening, SPECIFICO. It is my great regret to inform you that, via independent research on the Hoppe talk page, I have learned that user Carolmooredc has unilaterally "cleansed" the talk page of much of our important research and remarks from earlier today, which is now "hidden" under a hatted section whose header baselessly alleges defamation. (All the stuff from Chronicles, as well as the discussion of the PFS' "traditionalist" speakers, plus Hoppe's remark about the time preferences of "negroids", and many other things, has been cleansed without (of course) any specific justification, apart from unsubstantiated charges of "libel" and "defamation".) I am too wiped out to gather the diffs right now, but I thought you should know what Carol has done. Steeletrap (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Update. Another user has "un-hatted" Carol's erroneous changes. Steeletrap (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Nbound (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What a beautiful image of that peacedove! It inspired me to review the basic DRN info, but I did not see that many specifics as to why Twitter was an issue. Still, as Twitter has been in the news, I took a look at the RSN to see what was the latest on Twitter as RS. Those little bits of info -- that security of Twitter should not be an issue & that the RSN had lots of discussion about Twitter -- were provided simply as an FYI to the DRN thread. Yes, you are quite right in saying that the question of Twitter security is not relevant to the discussion -- it basically repeated what I had said. – S. Rich (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case, the problem is that user:DA1 is not hearing my talk page explanation, so I was concerned that a general discussion of twitter would reinforce his misplaced focus on twitter in general as opposed to the content of the cited tweet. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. And note that I was trying to re-enforce that very fact. The RSN is generally supportive of Twitter as RS. The upgraded security protocol will "help" even more. But you didn't need to address me in your follow-on comment because you look like you have a beef with my comment. (Telling me to read the stuff, indeed. I started looking for the CNN story and was reviewing some of the 53 RSN threads while you were posting your comment.) Saying "Yes, I agree that Twitter is secure and often/usually RS, but the real problem is ..." would help keep that discussion on track. – S. Rich (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct, no such implication was intended. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hi SPECIFICO. I deeply respect your contributions to this encyclopedia and have enjoyed our collaborations, on Doc. Hoppe, Argumentation ethics, and other matters. I therefore want to take you up on your offer of exchanging emails. How do I do this? Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Guten Tag Steeletrap. I think you just go the "preferences" link at the upper right of the WP page and look for the section captioned "email" SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Interaction

FYI, I posted a message to certain editors to look at WP:IBAN. As they are repeatedly commenting about each other, it may be appropriate to propose one. – S. Rich (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not following the reference. Please let me know if there's an incident or other page you would like me to know about. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought you might look at my edit history, so I kept it vague. Here are the diffs: [5] & [6]. My note to you is just a FYI. – S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged. I don't look at others' edit histories. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you like for me to stop having WikiTalk with you? (Four-way or otherwise?) If so, please advise. I am happy to comply – in return I'd like an IBAN that covers (the) other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why on earth would I want you to stop talking to me? I am not following this at all. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, abstruse. (But you're pretty smart!) To explain, I'd like Carol & Steele to stop their pissing contest. An IBAN between the two of them would be nice, but you and I are part of the contest, albiet mostly as spectators. Carol has responded to my IBAN suggestion that it be a 4-way. So I am calling her bluff. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I stepped out of the Hoppe article and really hadn't been paying attention. Carol is living in her own world and it seems to be remarkably independent of the rest of the universe. Steeletrap is learning the ropes so I don't think he's likely to get into much trouble going forward. Anyway I have no reason to talk to Carol but I do like to talk to you and Steeletrap when the occasion presents itself, so IBAN or whatever would not interest me. Thanks anyway. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

3rr

On Murray Rothbard with 4th or 5th series of edits in less than 24 hours. Please revert last series.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be requesting that I re-insert the unsourced lists of influenced and influences, not supported by article text or infobox citations. You endorsed this action when I proposed it on the talk page here: [7]. There is no edit war on this article. Please do continue to share your comments and concerns on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Pardon. The undiscussed reverts in the last one or two series. I know it was four, just don't want to figure out if it's five. Also, the idea is to source some of them. But I'm sure sources can be found with lists and those lists then put in. Also, feel free to comment on my 6/1/ edits thread or I'll assume after a few days you agree with my comments. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Obviously there was a third revert there you must be aware of and of course there is the ongoing pattern. Just seems right thing to do. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor copyedits

The changes here [8] are not minor copyedits. WP:COPYEDIT has more information. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jesus Huerta de Soto WP:OR.2FSynth

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jesus Huerta de Soto WP:OR.2FSynth. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A slightly less bold Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

In return for the Austria Award, I pronounce that you are eligible to display the

The Journeyman lv 2, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 7 months 15 days and completion of 2,500 edits

{{Journeyman_lv2_Ribbon}} . – S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Materialscientist

Please note that Materialscientist is one of the most stupendous prodigious splendiforious editors on WP. I'm not suggesting that you erred – purely a FYI. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There were large unexplained edits by one or 2 IPs which were only partially undone by materialscientist, so I went back to before the changes began. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Template messages

I regret that you have posted 3 template messages on that usertalk page. They are not well founded. I urge that both of you WP:IBAN each other. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Srich. On the contrary they were simple to the point and well-founded. I have done nothing to provoke the torrent of personal attack, harassment, misrepresentation and stalking by carolmooredc. She has hounded me off of at least two articles and is working on a third. There is very little communication from me directed her way but I see no reason to limit any further statements I may feel are required. If you're contemplating an involuntary sanction, I strongly suggest you not initiate that discussion. I will either walk away from WP entirely or I will respond with some much broader issues which I have chosen thus far not to raise. I prefer to do neither. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I see that she has acknowledged the legitimacy of those warnings and has taken my advice to strike through the PA on user:goethean at Gun Control. So looks like she agrees with me and you're standing alone on this. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I don't give a fuck as to what particular messages are legitimate, acknowledged, retracted, valid, hostile, elephantshit, bullshit, mouseshit, or flyshit. (Am I standing alone? Perhaps. Aber, "Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders." (Martin Luther.)) The broader issue is the fact that both of you have an animosity towards each other, whether justified or not. Both of you make remarks on article talk pages about the behavior of each other. Is there equality between the two of you as to who is more disruptive? I could hardly measure. But overall it (the disruptive behavior) is there because the shit is showing up on talk pages, etc.. Carol has posted noticeboard discussions which were not well founded, and you did well by refraining from commenting on them. She's made other remarks that other editors have disapproved of. And I have commented on her remarks. (Don't be picky-unie about what I'd seen and commented on.) At the same time, you are showing a thinskinned attitude about her comments. I'd hate to initiate a discussion on a noticeboard about the disruptive interaction between you two, because I have better things to do. Again, the only reasonable solution to this nonsense is to WP:IBAN between the two of you. – S. Rich (talk)

Go ahead and as I said to "carolmoore" yesterday, there's no need to flail away on talk pages. Just make the ANI if you wish. I have largely ignored that user and have generally commented only where policy is at stake or where she disrupts editing of important content. Her attack on goethean yesterday offended me, so I asked her to strike it. She did strike it. Your intervention was unwarranted. She should not be allowed to harass editors to such an extent that they depart articles or depart WP. She has a history of that behavior.

If you wish to initiate the process that will end with a full scrutiny of her history on WP, it's your right to do so. I have no interest in starting that discussion, but I will reiterate my recent statement: If you begin such a process, I may respond by walking away or I may decide to present a massive and decisive account of that user's conduct. I can't say which I will decide to do. It depends on how I feel that day, but once the conversation has begun, it may be wide-ranging. I do not make statements that cannot be substantiated, and I am careful not to speak without evidence. I've observed it sometimes takes a few rounds for you or "carolmoore" to understand it, but if you would like to start the process, that is your decision. Cheers, and maybe try to calm down. It's not like you to come out in public with angry cusswords and the like. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

AS changes by ...

I suggest you look at User talk:DemitreusFrontwest and related links. – S. Rich (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy Friday. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Kinsella

Hi mate! Not sure why it was still on my watchlist, but it was, and I noticed your edit. I have no problem with the content removal (as in, I have no opinion either way) but I thought I should query the {{cn}} tag. That line (I think I might have added part of it? Not sure, must go back and check) is just a summary of the stuff we then go on to list as stuff written by him. Do we really need a citation for "he writes books about law" when we then go on and list a whole bunch of his books about law? Just seems counter-productive and a bit contradictory. Otherwise, just change it to, "he has published the following books and articles about..." and then list them. It's just something to think about - I'm going to take the article off my watchlist anyway. Cheers, Stalwart111 05:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed it, Stalwart, but I reverted the edit. As you say, the list of legal publications is right there in the subsection. As well as two of Kinsella's 'libertarian' writings. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I did miss it, because I took it off my watchlist before leaving the note here. Others are free to argue it out but I thought I'd note it. Cheers! Stalwart111 06:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You are indeed a stalwart. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please be aware of possible Wikihounding

Per Wikipedia:Harass#Wikihounding which doesn’t have template and recommends WP:Dispute discussion before WP:ANI, I am bringing this here.

In the last 30 hours you have followed me to 4 articles and/or talk pages [corrected later:first two of] which were not on current noticeboards and where you have not edited before. There you mostly either reverted me or left a negative comment. (As it happened we agreed on Neoliberalism). Just too much of a coincidence.

See, [9], [10], [11] [12].

Please be aware this appears to be wikihounding and stop following me to new discussions you may have noticed my participating in through my contributions list. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not "follow you" to those pages. You can set your mind at ease by reviewing the stated policy and reviewing what's on all current noticeboards, and reviewing my edits. No hounding. Do not misrepresent facts, e.g. don't say I haven't previously edited articles which I have previously edited. Don't assume you know what's on my watchlist in areas related to my expertise and interest SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just experienced the same thing. Abel (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Id4abel. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. The trigger for 3RR is not 3 simple edits, but a back and forth series of edits/reverts. I urge you to remove the template. – S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Srich, there were 3 rapidfire reverts of my recent edits which were copy edits and well-explained improvements. In the context of what appear to be agitated comments on the talk page, I feel a warning was appropriate before the user violates 3RR. I think if you'll have a looksee at the history you'll see these were all wholesale undo's of recent edits rather than adjustments for well-founded reasons. Ironically you have just unduly templated me with a talk page message. Care to strike it? Smile. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that your last edit was on the 23rd. 3RR has a 24 hour parameter. One of Abel's edits added a quote, thereby resolving the tag. Another provided an archive link. Your templating of Abel was wrong, and only served to goad Abel. (And I have remarked to Abel that his/her edit summaries etc are inappropriate. ) – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not 24 hours from what he reverts. It's that there's under 24 in his reverts. Just to be clear, what may have encouraged his incredibly hostile and aggressive tone and personal animosity toward me could have been reading some of the unbridled (nice imagery, right) personal attacks and harassment by another editor on various talk and noticeboard pages. It does poison the atmosphere, particularly for a new editor such as Abel who is just getting his sea legs so to speak. At any rate, its clear to me that the purpose of the ew template is to help the editor to stand back and take a deep breath before breaching the limit. That certainly was appropriate. Nothing wrong about my template. Your italics are a bit over the top, but I've grown accustomed to your temper and at least you didn't use naughty words this time around. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are counting. Any 3 edits (not reverts) within a 24 hour period? In fact, your last edit (according to my time zone) was 20:27 23 June. Abel's first edit was 08:52 25 June. That's ≈38 hours between your (plural) edits. AND 2 of his 3 edits were fixing a problem. There were not 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. Your misplaced warning did not encourage him to exhale. (New editor? Abel signed on in 2007 & has 1,950 edits. Compare that to 9 months & 2,875 edits, or 4 years and 48k+ edits.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please check the edits. BTW, you could have found the Atlanta information and corrected the citation rather than further upset Abel with the tag. Sometimes one should just fix the problem. He still hasn't removed his angry accusation that I tagged the Atlanta thing. Please read the 3RR policy. Any reverts, not the same material. He just undid others' edits, appropriately explained in summaries, without discussion. Then he defiantly states he's posted his objection on talk therefore it's ok to proceed and undo without discussion? Really? Now you're right I checked. He's not a new editor, my mistaken inference from his behaviour. I should not have been quite so forgiving of his disruptions. Please review policy and chill. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You are misapplying WP:3RR. That tells use how to count edits/reverts. We do the count when WP:EW is apparent. Note that EW says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion [emphasis added]." Abel did not override the edits. As stated above, a quotation and an archive url were provided. (In fact, he provided two quotes). Abel does not have to "discuss" the addition of an archive url, or the addition of quotations to justify a citation. The only edit subject to BRD is this: [13], which I feel needs prosaic improvement. (Do I misread your logic about "any reverts"? I'm sure you don't mean any 3 edits.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Amigo, you're wrong. Read about whether the same or different. The editor to whom I showed the template was abruptly and grossly reverting, rather than showing concern over parts of the edits or misgivings about particular words or meaning. It was the epitome of e.w. You still haven't asked his foregiveness for your tagging of Atlanta, which he told 6 billion earthlings was my dastardly deed. Cheers. Chill. etc. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the article history at 23:24 on 23 June 2013 SPECIFICO deleted the paragraph "The initial headquarters of FEE filled two rooms at 737 Seventh Avenue on the 30th floor of the Equitable Building in Manhattan." with an edit description reading "What is a base." Given that the text "FEE provided a base" was a part of the Significance subsection of the History section and not a part of the Location subsection, not only did SPECIFCO (not S. Rich as SPECIFCO stated) perform the edit, the edit was performed with a dishonest edit summary. Abel (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have confused two different edits. Srich was the one who tagged the Atlanta office mention. Please try to remain calm and discuss the article rather than the editors. I mention the Atlanta edit only because you got it wrong. The other personal remarks are unfortunate but at least no civilians were hit in the line of fire. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in that Srich tagged the Atlanta office text. However, the dishonest edit summary was attached to an edit by SPECIFCO. Abel (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• I notice that you have been posting daily until this ANI discussion came up. I suggest you come join and help us understand what motivates you towards this seemingly unhelpful behavior. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, SPECIFICO. You have new messages at Stalwart111's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EconTalk

Do you listen to Russ Roberts & Econtalk? I found this episode to be quite interesting: [14]. It is more than just Betsey Stevenson & Justin Wolfers talking about the Reinhart & Rogoff work on happiness. Seems they had a lot to say about publishing in economic journals. I'll let you listen, and look forward to any commentary you have. – S. Rich (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, thank you for your helpful edits at Foundation for Economic Education. I'm finding the article to be more straightforward and the references to be more relevant and better organized. Keep up the good work! Safehaven86 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is much appreciated. I am finding a lot of fascinating material about the early years of FEE and its founding Trustees. There is much more to be told, but it will take some work to flesh out the story of this group's mission and their plan to transform the public discourse on matters relating to economics and government policy. It's also interesting that there were significant interactions with many conservatives and economic thinkers who went on to significant roles in other contexts. The cited sources on the FEE article are a good starting point for additional reading. Copies of many of them are available quite inexpensively at online booksellers. I've ordered a few. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)