User talk:Srich32977

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

Ron Manners, etc[edit]

Thank you for your edits. I think you're right about my tone--I am a bit harried because of a DYK which turned out to be a nightmare yesterday (although it is finally on the front page). Then I come back online and see that an unregistered account wants to delete his page...Anyway, I will take a short break from Wikipedia after this one gets saved I think!Zigzig20s (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The same unregistered address has just removed some of his books. Would you like to add them again?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)



Thanks for your note.

I do not have an commercial interest in my postings ref Michael D. Echanis.

If you have specifics otherwise please share and I'll be happy to clarify / correct. Please include sources of such allegations if there are any.

Nor do I have a conflict of interest in any regard or respect. Far from it, actually.

I have, in the recent past, self-edited the initial lengthly piece down to a very reasonable length.

It is heavily referenced - more so than many other such pieces I see on Wiki - and certainly more so than previous postings on the subject prior to my becoming aware of and entering into the contributor catagory.

Certainly, however, if you have specifics please let me know and I'll respond in an appropriate manner.

Thank you.

Greg Walker (Retired) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magmaster (talkcontribs) 21:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you and User talk:Walkergreg the same person? If so, you have a WP:conflict of interest, specifically WP:SELFCITE when you add this material to the article. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
And here you clearly have a conflict of interest. I am not the COI police, nor an administrator. I'm trying to be helpful so that you can edit Wikipedia within the guidelines. – S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Mr Walker had any bad intentions. For the record he is one of the foremost authorities on Echanis and is by no means a "fly-by-night" hack writer. He has authored a number of books and was the editor of a number of magazines in the gun/knife/martial arts/military genres. If he had not added the sources to his own work, I would have added them, myself.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so either. But the article has problems and needs fixing, which I am glad to see you doing. If Walker would declare COI, we can resolve one of the template messages on the article page. – S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. If being the acknowledged subject matter expert on Michael Echanis is a COI please advise. This as opposed to the initial fabrications, fiction, myth, lies and other less than stellar "historical" information I encountered when I first saw/read this WikiPost. I am the only authority on this subject who has properly researched, to include FOIA, Echanis' military background and stated for the record he was NOT either Ranger or Special Forces qualified as so often quoted. That is not the action of someone seeking to continue to paint the subject in the best of lights...which would be a COI. As stated in the August/September 2013 issue of Black Belt Magazine, in conjunction with the article I wrote on Mike Echanis, I have not asked for or received any financial reimbursement for said work - nor the article in the December/January 2014 issue of the same publication announcing Mike's induction into the BB Hall of Fame. I believe if you will re-read the current Wiki post you will find it quite concise, accurate, referenced and appropriate. Magmaster (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

People like to see their work cited. Please look at WP:SELFCITE. Also, see WP:COI declaration. And please answer whether you are the same person as User:Walkergreg. I'm glad that you are an expert and that you've published material about him. The question is how do we use the material in Wikipedia. When an individual gets FOIA results and says Echanis' Forms 2 & 2-1 say such and such, they are using Primary Sources and conducting WP:Original research. We've got rules, and we assist each other in following the rules. – S. Rich (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Hey, just a quick note to say that I appreciate your contributions to ALEC. We might disagree on a few issues but that's healthy. I've been editing the article lonely and largely unchecked for some time and it's always good to get some critical feedback. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Re this edit, I think the sourcing is sufficient to support the "wave of criticism" language but I'll find additional sourcing sometime soon. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
"criticism against" ALEC is far different than "critical coverage about". "critical coverage" is a neutral term, whereas "criticism" is often seen as negative (even though it is, dictionary-wise, a neutral term). "Criticism" sections in WP are problematic. So if you find additional sourcing about ALEC, please be sure it is balanced. In any event, stick to what the sources say and you'll do better and get less critical commentary from me. – S. Rich (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand the difference. There is nothing wrong with criticism or the term criticism in WP. The problem is with whole sections that are devoted to criticism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yup, I'm afraid you don't understand (or simply misunderstand) the difference. I recommend the essay WP:Criticism for more information. But an example of my concern is here: I edited the section heading to provide a neutral term. "Secrecy" by itself may be a neutral word, but when it is used as a section heading for a section in which all of the 5 paragraphs are negative critical commentary about ALEC and its' confidentiality policies, it is a less-than-neutral section heading for a blatantly non-neutral (e.g., "Criticisms") section. (BTW, I've fixed a typo in my previous post, but I don't think the typo contributed to your misunderstanding.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Please don't say, "you don't understand" and then point me to an essay I've already discussed at length with other editors. If you have a problem with neutrality, then explain your view. Is it the language "criticism against" that you feel is non-neutral as compared to "critical coverage about"? And if so, can you explain why you feel that way? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Come on, you said "I don't understand". And don't expect me to go back to a 6 month old discussion. Also, it is clear that using the phrase "criticism against" is entirely non-neutral when the word "against" is not in the source. – S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not at all clear to me. There's no obligation to use the exact same language that a source uses. In any case, perhaps "criticism of" would satisfy you? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Doc, I do appreciate your discussion with me. Please forgive me if I become brusk. And I should not like me bruskness to chase you off from the topic or your editing contributions. Regarding the edits, while you say there's no requirement to use the same language, we must avoid using language that modifies the meaning that the source has provided. When we say "criticism against", we are doing just that. When we keep it neutral, and say "critical coverage regarding", we are comporting the meaning provided by the source. I do not think "criticism of" works because of the general negative connotations that "criticism" contains. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. I'm not aware of the negative connotations associated with "criticism." Please explain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I shall. But some other issues concern me at present. I'll cogitate and post more tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: Other issues (and fatigue) persist, and I'm limited to gnomish edits at present. Perhaps I can apply some real mental power to your concerns a bit later. (I do see another, brand new editor has made some changes to the article.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete talk page sections?[edit]

Why did you delete these sections? They were improperly archived, appearing in the archives below the archive footer. You are hounding me? I am well aware of the battleground mentality you have repeatedly expressed, e.g., at Austrian Economics arbitration, and I will not hesitate to open an RFC/U on the history of your interactions with me if you do not improve your behavior immediately. EllenCT (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The sections were not "improperly" archived. Such archiving is done automatically. In this case the archiving is set for 60 days of no activity. I answered the concern about the archiving and I suggested a work-around. E.g., start a new discussion and provide a link to the archived page. Feel free to bring up an RFC/U. – S. Rich (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


:@SPECIFICO: If it is so stupid, if it is so irrelevant, if it is so miniscule, you could leave it alone. But the source found the detail interesting enough to put in his article. Netoholic likes SM and you (Personal attack removed) remove the wikilink. And then you present Nobel as a straw-man and expect me to report back to you. Hell no. If Nobel's article had a wikilink to the neighborhood of his boyhood playground, no editor would remove it. – S. Rich (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, here is the diff from the page history of what Specifico considers to be a personal attack and therefor justification for a {{rpa}} template: [1]. – S. Rich (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Stefan_Molyneux. 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.
You've posted text which falsely attributes inappropriate views, feelings, and motives to me. This is not acceptable. Because you've recently made considerable progress in avoiding such behavior I have decided, rather than proceeding immediately to pursue a remedy, to extend you the courtesy of this warning. I request that you redact the inappropriate personal remarks you made about me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the personal attack. Your point could have been made within talk page guidelines and WP principles. With at least one other editor apparently preparing an RfC/U against you at this time, I hope you will exercise the caution that can help you get through the process without unnecessary travail. I certainly don't wish to see your efforts needlessly diverted. SPECIFICO talk 21:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so I mis-read what your feelings are about SM? You could have been a bit clearer and said that you have no dislike or like for SM. (And like specify what language you'd want revised or redacted.) You know, like saying that you only feel he is not a filosofofer, whatever. Then I might have revised my statement. (Even so, I think your stated rationale for removing the wikilink is an invented one.) But no. You get on your high horse and template me and accuse me of NPA. Oh, who is the editor preparing an RFC/U? Are you going to join him or her? Well, you two can have at me all you like. It'll be fun. – S. Rich (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You're on increasingly thin ice in this stupid little mess, Srich. Your edit summary on the move is sarcastic and misrepresents and belittles the simple objective reason for my having contacted you about your initial misstep. I don't know whether you can fix it, but this will serve as an additional warning to you not to represent the motives or opinions of other editors and to exercise at least the level of care you would marshall to the paraphrase of a source reference in a WP article. This post will serve as a record that you are fully aware of the problem with your recent actions. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your loaded comment about "problem with recent actions" does not serve any purpose. Rather, I am aware of your tendency to post bullshit warnings to me. All you had to do was say "I do not dislike SM." But you wouldn't do that. Well, I will ask you now flat out: Do you like SM? Do you dislike SM? Are you neutral? Or what? – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Kindly undo your premature endorsement of the lede text. We operate by consensus. I don't like the change for reasons which I've stated. As I recall, there are two others who prefer the more complete version. You know better than to short circuit an ongoing discussion. Frankly, your behavior had the effect of facilitating edit warring, battleground, and ownership behavior for the other editor who was only waiting for the clock to run out on his already fourth revert before again jumping the gun on attempted resolution on talk. Please undo your proxy edit. There was no consensus for it and a short lapse in the talk dialogue is no reason to jump the gun, particularly in light of the recent history of this article. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Rob has thanked me for the edit, which indicates he's satisfied. Please post your objections to the new version (e.g., with FDR explained in a note) at Talk:Stefan Molyneux#Freedomain Radio vs BTW, my edits are my own – I do not engage in WP:PROXYING. – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me but you have the order wrong. Jumping the gun prior to consensus is particularly unfortunate in this dysfunctional editing environment. No editor should expect to step away from the computer for a few hours and find this aggressively argued change, inserted. A ping thanking you after the fact is no endorsement of skipping established protocol. There are a dozen editors more or less recently involved here. Moreover the appearance of helping an editor avoid being blocked for edit warring by doing his edit without any prior agreement is only endorsing his repeated tactic of aggressive edits in advance of consensus. I know you care about process and community on WP, so I've chosen to address you here as an aside. Please undo and let's resolve this matter as a group. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talkcontribs)

I made the change, and if it is accepted it becomes consensus. I posted a note about the change on the talk page and invited editors to comment. Take a look at policy, which says "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing."S. Rich (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As you really should understand by now, that does not mean that, once a discussion is underway, it is OK to precipitously make a change contrary to the stated and unresolved concerns of editors on the discussion thread. You're kinda in a pickle again here. If you stubbornly refuse to undo your accommodation of Netoholic's edit you are adding to the archived record of actions which likely would be disapproved in any community review. If you'd prefer that I not extend you the courtesy of coming here to give you the opportunity to correct your misstep, that's up to you. Please undo your edit. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Do yourself a favor, kimosabe, and don't repeat the "everyones behaving like children" nonsense after it's died its natural ridiculous death. What's the point? That's not grown up, is it? SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I ain't no Ke-mo sah-bee. The point about childish behavior is valid still. Netoholic inflames by using profanity (etc) and you inflame by commenting back, warning about 5RR, implying that I'm Netoholic's proxy, and commenting here. – S. Rich (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, I asked him to voluntarily step aside rather than report his 5RR which would have led to a block and a lot of wasted energy and discussion. You think that would have been calming? A courtesy, no warning, no threat. Capiche? Meanwhile, when an editor declares that he's acting childish and then continues to act the same way he was acting before his statement, that's dumb. I have made no inflammatory comments. Are you Netoholic's proxy? (Personal attack removed). I have no reason to think you're going to repeat that. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You've misused the rpa template to alter the meaning of my statement and the text you substituted with the template, characterizing your action as a lapse of judgment, is not what WP (or anyone else) calls a "personal attack." The meaning of my statement, before your alteration contrary to talk page guidelines, was that your action represented a lapse of judgment and not an unanswered open question as to whether you're his proxy or any suggestion that you are. Unless you wish your violation of talk guidelines to remain on the record, I suggest you undo your template and the resultant alteration of my civil and collegial statement. SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You were so quick to ascribe NPA to my comment that you disliked SM, and you are so quick to .... (Well, I'll say no more on this point.) Here is a suggestion: take a look at my tit-for-tat rpa templating. You don't see what I'm trying to get accomplished? I'd like you two to grow up. But I feel you miss this subtle, but important effort, as you describe my rather considered edits as a lapse of judgement. No, you dress-up your comments with "violation" of TP guidelines. No, Specifico, if you were so collegial, you'd keep WP:DTTR in mind. (E.g., with your irksome comments above.) So, here is a suggestion -- follow Net's led and remove the rpa template yourself. I'll leave it as is. – S. Rich (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You and Netoholic should both simmer down and grow up, IMO. Between the two of you, I'd say the environoment on that article has deteriorated to the point where no progress can be made. Your judgment has been erratic. For example you took him to AN, where he was roundly criticised for various disruptive behavioral patterns and then you foolishly believed that he would cease and desist if the matter were closed with no action. Well, the his behavior and personal vituperation have continued unabated and the participation of other editors has ground to a halt. With only the two of you left on that article nearly around the clock, there can be little hope of permanent improvement. The editors who previously offered a variety of constructive input on the Molyneux article have largely departed after seeing their work undone like clockwork, carefully timed -- except for today's lapse -- to avoid any 3RR violation. How embarrassing for you that after your "do the honors" comment, Netoholic admitted that he was trying to game the edit warring timetable but miscalculated. Just remember, when you lose your temper, when you make POINTy edits, when you mis-cite policy and especially when you try to position yourself in what a wise man once called your pseudo-Admin mode, it all stays in the archive. You can't undo it. Others will see it if they look. That's why I hope you'll calm down and reflect before engaging. It will be better not only for all your colleagues here, but for you personally as you struggle to achieve your goals here. SPECIFICO talk 04:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


I understand what you are trying to do, but in my view you are putting yourself at some risk of being found to violate WP:HOUNDING. If you are convinced that EllenCT has an established pattern of disruptive editing, it would be better to open an RfU and have the community act, rather than acting yourself. RfUs are a lot of work to set up soundly (and it is important to do that, lest the effort boomerang on you) but that is a better road to go down. You have done everything you could do talk directly with her in a civil way. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog, for your support. And I understand the risk. I'm hoping my comments will generate more support and eventually get her to stop the soapboxing etc. But I think an RFC/U will be next. – S. Rich (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Again I understand what you have been trying to do and I think the effort is well intentioned (and is deeply rooted in Wikipedia's core values of trying to work things out.) You have established a record that you have tried very hard to communicate with her and teach her. I don't think you should continue that strategy; there is no sign that she is hearing you and as I wrote above in my view you are now putting yourself at some risk of being found to violate HOUNDING. In going down this road you have to keep your own nose very clean. As I wrote above you have done plenty enough with respect to trying direct interaction. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • comment In my opinion, Srich has gotten himself up the creek in the same way with nearly a dozen editors over the past several years. It's unfortunate because there's a side of him that wants very much to be helpful and chip in where there's work to be done. What has happened is that he tends to cloak himself inappropriately in the mantle of one who's acting not as a peer but as an arbiter or magistrate. He has had a hard time disengaging or hearing feedback from those who've tried to steer him to more constructive modes of interaction. I sincerely hope that he will hear your clear and supportive suggestion that he disengage from EllenCT, with whom he's had fruitless, aggressive interactions for quite some time now. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog has given some wise counsel. On the other hand, Specifico, you reassert baseless charges. I've asked you to cite any instance where I've misapplied or mis-cited policy, but you've never responded. Why do you assert that I've been disruptive to the project? And exactly who are those dozen editors over the past several years -- those who've been banned & blocked? Here's a suggestion for you, Specifico -- see if you can get Ellen to modify her interaction and editing behaviors. I'll hold off and await your success. – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Great. If you voluntarily IBAN one way from EllenCT, then I will communicate with her to whatever extent she desires. Please indicate your acceptance and everyone will be better off. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay. And I will prompt you if I see something that needs commentary. As long as everyone benefits, I will IBAN myself. If everyone does not benefit, then an RfC/U or ANI may be the course of action to follow. – S. Rich (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hounding has consistently been a problem for you Srich, particularly wrt female editors. Even when you voluntarily agreed to an Iban, you couldn't help but snark at me on my talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No need to pile on here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
What piling on? There is no basis for the hounding accusation and the expansion of the thread into "misogyny" is unfounded as well. These folks know nothing about my family life, social life, or professional life. (Professionally I've worked with women, supervised women, and been supervised by women. A woman comrade who served with me in Iraq suffered grievous injuries from an IED. I was privileged to comfort her and her family.) Well, perhaps some persons want to play the victim, and thus invent all sorts of evil that I am guilty of. (Of course, my observation in this will become victim blaming.) Is there evidence to support the "piling on"? I don't think so. Let them squawk. (Bad pun intended.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
A unilateral IBAN here would be preposterous and detrimental to the project. Avoiding her Talk Page is one thing, but there's absolutely no reason for you or anyone else to refrain from reverting or commenting on her low quality, POV pushing edits or baseless personal attacks where appropriate. Hopefully that's not what you meant by IBAN. VictorD7 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Greetings VictorD7. I believe Srich and I have voluntarily worked out an arrangement that we are going to try, It's promising and we hope it will be effective and lead to a calmer and more productive editing environment. Please give us a chance before presenting ideas as to other avenues of approach. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I was going to comment directly on Specifico's offer, but another edit came in to disrupt my chain of thought. Nothing in WP is forever. Banned & blocked editors can come back to the community, articles change, editors change their minds. My feeling is that Specifico's efforts will help, but they do not then the "case" as to Ellen will have another aspect to it. I've agreed to the IBAN, and I can change my mind as circumstances warrant. So I await Ellen's next edit so we can see how this shakes out. – S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit confict)It wasn't clear what all that "arrangement" entails (even EllenCT didn't ask for an IBAN, just that he refrain from posting on her talk page), though it was clear that he expects you to try and address EllenCT's misconduct, which I've never seen you do before. Of course, as Srich said, this isn't just between the two of them, but involves EllenCT's habitual disruptive conduct regarding numerous editors and articles. You're welcome, I guess. VictorD7 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Your help[edit]

I think your help would be appreciated in the discussion Here, since you closed the previous discussion about Tesla's birthplace. There's some dispute regarding the conclusion of that discussion. It would be helpful to clarify whether the consensus determined that the present wording should stay, or that there was no consensus to change the present wording with the suggested formulation. Asdisis (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis, while I appreciate your efforts to improve the article (and your contacting me) it is time to put down the WP:STICK. – S. Rich (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. However I think that Tesla's birthplace still has double meanings. We have made significant progress with the discussion that went to ANI. We eliminated one of the double meanings. We just need to implement that decision in the article. Would you like to give a clarification to establish whether the referenced discussion is appropriate according to the RfC. It would be helpful because, if I interpreted the decision of ANI in the wrong way the discussion should be closed. Two people suggested that. However, I still think that the conclusion that you made when you closed the RfC is that there is no consensus to change the present wording for suggested one, not that the present wording should not be changed ever, for any other suggestion, even if it is according to the decision of ANI. Asdisis (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Machinery of Freedom page[edit]

Hi. You may or may not have looked through the history of the page in question. SPECIFICO removed almost all the content on the claim that it was "unsourced", leaving the article a stub, which I reverted today. I noticed that you have added a request for more citations on the page -- can you explain what sort of citations you believe are currently lacking? I will then look for them. --Pmetzger (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm familiar with the page and with Specifico. Articles about books are often a problem. The books speak for themselves, so it is tempting to read and add our own analysis. But that is not our function in WP. We take the secondary sources (things like book reviews or commentary from other writings) and incorporate them into the article. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article for more info. (In this particular case we have one source. One.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC) @Pmetzger: Also, please revise the "near-vandalism" talk page heading. I recommend retitling it to something neutral like "Recent changes". The section heading is not "yours". It is simply a title that all editors can refer to without point of view being asserted. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I've retitled the Talk section as you asked to simply reflect the net effect of the recent changes -- the original title was indeed insufficiently neutral and I have corrected my mistake. On the subject of the content, the stuff I restored was not analysis but pure description of content, which is easily sourced to specific pages in the book itself. Analysis about Friedman's methods appears to have also been added, but it has been footnoted with references at this point. You've also mentioned some suggested improvements on the Talk page, which seem largely reasonable -- would appreciate it if you could respond stating if you think my proposed ways of handling each of your three suggestions would be adequate. Lastly, the notability discussion seems quite oddly flavored -- if you wished, and wanted to propose a simple way of solving that which does not require encrusting the article with references to the all of the mass of scholarly works citing it, it would be a help to all involved. --Pmetzger (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on the Talk page, I've replied to two of them. Also, I restored the AC navbar to the page. It might not have been obvious, but the article is about one of the first modern books on anarchocapitalism (which is why it is so well known), and it is indeed listed in the "literature" page linked from the navbar. If it isn't quite yet all per hoyle for inclusion of the nav bar, it should be made so by the time the clean up we're doing here is over, as the bar is almost certainly needed as people reading the page will want to look for more information on the topic of the book. --Pmetzger (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Your revert on Bitcoin[edit]

For my education: does WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALL also apply to the following text in the article, or what is the difference between the following and what you deleted:

The IRS classified bitcoins as a capital asset end of March 2014[169] and subject to taxes on capital gains.[170] On 8 May 2014, the US Federal Election Commission issued draft guidance to US politicians who want to receive bitcoin donations.[171] The Commission declined to declare bitcoins currency, opting to deem them items "of value."[172] In May 2014, Brett Stapper, the co-founder of Falcon Global Capital, registered to lobby members of Congress and federal agencies on issues related to bitcoin.[173] As of June 2014, there are no new rules at the state level, although the New York State Department of Financial Services intended to propose regulations no later than the end of the second quarter of 2014. As of 11 March 2014, it officially invited bitcoin exchanges to apply with them.[174] In June 2014 California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) drafted legislation (Assembly Bill 129) to legalize bitcoin and all other alternative and digital currency, such as Litecoin, Dogecoin, Starbucks Stars, and Amazon Coins.[175] However, Dickinson "thinks the federal government should regulate the cryptocurrency" and said "I saw this legislation as a ways of cleaning up the code in California to conform to reality".[175]

It seems to me that what I contributed is exactly the same as the above. Must the above then also be deleted in terms of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALL.

I just don´t see any difference between the above and what I contributed. Homni (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)~

What does "Primary Source" mean? Homni (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say so. But the best place to discuss is the article talkpage. Also, see WP:PRIMARY. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I hereby kindly invite you in terms of WP:BRD to discuss the Bitcoin problem on the Bitcoin talk page.Homni (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I have done so. And I expect other editors will comment as well. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ms. Steeletrap[edit]

Srich, I doubt you'd be considered to have "clean hands" at AE with respect to Steeletrap at this point. Tenuous claims or claims that are not obvious on their face are apt to get you into trouble in that context. Let's focus on important matters, not this and that and this and that. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap has been following my edits, and I will follow hers. Removing the {{Discretionary sanctions}} template was an obvious violation. If she thinks the template does not apply, when the article is is the Category:Austrian School economists she is being stupid. But that is not an excuse for TBAN violations. Perhaps she could take a hint and get someone to revert off-wiki. But considering that Doug Casey is a person, any meatpuppet of Steeletrap who removes such a template had better "edit carefully". – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Question, Srich: If you were to put the DS on, say, Paul Krugman, would I be allowed to correct your error? What if you put AE on my talk page? Clearly the standard of whether I am banned from a page should be whether it relates to the subject of my TB; not whether someone says it does. Steeletrap (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
What? Has Krugman had an epiphany? Alas, I don't see any Austrian School or relationship in his article so I think his usefulness as a straw man in this case is limited. And without proper categorization I would not put a sanctions template on his article. Do you know of any articles that are improperly categorized? If so, you can ask me off-wiki to look at them. (I'm about 1/3rd through my survey of the Austrian School-related articles.) For your part, I repeat my admonition to steer well clear of TBAN topics, even if you think you are correcting an error. (I'm not sure what you mean by me putting AE on your talk page. I have not done so. (Rest assured that I will not post TBAN topics on your talk page.) If someone wished to discuss an AE topic with you, you'd be well advised to ignore or remove the thread. You'd be free to clean up you own talk page by removing such postings without replying.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. I meant to ask: "What if you put the DS [template] on my talk"? If I removed it, would that be a violation of the TB? Steeletrap (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Read what the template says: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully." So, 1. your talk page is not an article and 2. no one has put the DS template on your talk page. I will watch your talk page and immediately remove the template for you if I see someone adding it. And then I'll bring up the editor (or IP) who did so at the ANI for disruptive behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Schiff[edit]

Srich, is Peter Schiff an Austrian Economist? That was quite a brouhaha a couple of years ago, but eventually the truth won out. Consider whether you're on the side of brouhaha or truth. The choice is yours, but consider you've recently been called out for nitpicking. Let's focus on important issues. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No one has categorized Schiff as an Austrian economist. If they had, and did so based on RS, then Steeletrap would be stupid to edit the Schiff article. As your TBAN does not apply to AE (beyond, you could remove the categorization (and any sanctions template based on the category) if it was an improper categorization. So please find another strawman to use in your silly argument. "Called out for nitpicking"? That statement is just more of your bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Gander and the Goose[edit]

Have a peek, Srich. The Casey thing is even dumber than the Schiff thing was. And the Schiff thing went on and on and on. [2] Not everyone who writes about economics is an economist. Not everyone who writes about Austrian economics is an Austrian economist. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

WTF? A 4 year old discussion?? Where did I make any comment? Where am I saying Schiff is an Austrian? Who is saying he's an Austrian? What is your point vis-a-vis categorization of the Austrians or the templates I posted? Again, WTF? – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Your views on Casey are even weaker than those views on Schiff. They won't hold up to scrutiny. I suggest you drop the stick. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Just who is coming onto this page to wave some tiny twig around? This is now the third thread that you started. You, Specifico, can't comment (or edit) on Casey because he's related to So I suggest you drop this bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about your edit.[edit]

Here. What's your problem with "however"? It's contrasting two very different receptions, and such language is used on Wikipedia all the time. Otherwise, if readers are just skimming, they might not even notice the shift in reception in the third sentence. To the minimal extent it's "editorial", it's well within our purview as editors. VictorD7 (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"However" is specifically mentioned at WP:OPED. Whether it is used properly or not in other articles is a different question. In this article, with the NPOV debate going on, I'm trying to steer the section into a properly balanced mode. Thanks for your comment. I think the hole section will be extensively re-written by the time all of us are done. – S. Rich (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It says "Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists", but in this case there clearly is a relationship since one reception is mostly negative while the other is strongly positive. The page simply advises that such words be used with "care"; it doesn't forbid them. Apart from the word "however" simply appearing on that page, do you have an actual argument justifying your edit? Can you explain why you feel it was being inappropriately used in this instance? VictorD7 (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless one source actually references another (like they say "We DGAF what so-and-so says, the film was crap/a masterpiece!"), there is no actual or explicit relationship. We only imply a relationship by contrasting the different reviews with the word "however". But in a contentious article such as this one, we cannot do so. – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think your interpretation is incorrect. As editors we imply relationships all the time simply by page layout; assigning certain segments to certain sections in the sequence we do. What do you think "summarizing" does? It implies relationships among different sources, and I can think of many contexts where words like "but" or "however" are perfectly appropriate. VictorD7 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for realizing the bias in "however".[edit]

For the longest time, I thought I was the only one that bugged. Then just yesterday (maybe two days ago now), I found another editor doing this elsewhere and thanked him. Now this. It's good to know there are similar eyes out there. Good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. It is not an overt bit of bias – we just have to be careful. – S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I usually reword when I find it as at least in my experience it's been used to make an argument by suggesting a relationship. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You mean you didn't know about WP:OPED until now? I've criticized use of words like "however" and "though" before too, when they were inappropriate. But sometimes they are appropriate, and policy allows for that. In this case two clearly different reception results were being contrasted, so there's no legitimate reason for removal. VictorD7 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In the case we have in mind, especially with the NPOVN going on, I think I did well to "disconnect" the two sentences. "However" was being used to compare the reactions of the audiences and the critics. The article will progress quite well without the "however". – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Friendly advice.[edit]

I hope you have the presence of mind to reflect on how many Admins have rebuked you for your interpersonal lapses over the past 6-8 weeks. I suggest you stay away from situations which you find too "stimulating" for you. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. Utter bullshit. You refactor my comment to imply that I had made a personal attack. Nothing of the sort had occurred. Why don't you take your concerns to the ANI. I'd like it. – S. Rich (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Further comments: If you offer me friendly advice (or even ask me to look at certain articles), then why complain about my posting on your talk page? That is speaking out of both sides of the mouth.
Regarding your talk page comment:

...You can confirm for yourself that I did not say you are "in denial" -- a statement which would be ad hominem and require an evaluation of your psychological or emotional condition. I stated in simple terms that any attorney should find routine that you deny the proposition put forth by the cited link. Reading "deny" to mean "in denial" is bizarre and further suggests you might benefit from a breather on these challenging articles..... SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You have a strange way of reading "deny". You said:

I was referring to this, which Srich appears to deny. ...

I replied:

Bullshit. I have not denied anything....Add it yourself, Specifico, or are you denying that the material is noteworthy?

I did not contend that you were saying I was "in denial". (Moreover, the fact that I choose not to add material cannot be construed to mean I deny the material.) But what really matters is the fact that your comment on the article talk page was not directed towards article improvement. It was a dig at me, pure and simple. Dig away if you like. I've got a bigger shovel than you. And having shoveled a lot of shit in my life, I know how to use it. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I will add a bit of friendly advice. Whenever you feel a personal attack has taken place, contact another editor (or administrator) and ask them (informally) to consider an rpa template and/or proper rebuke to the offender. If they do so, you will be vindicated. If they do not, then you can consider why they did not act on your request. – S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You two might be happier if you had a mutual interaction ban. Don't ya think? SPECIFICO - there is no reason to provoke S.Rich. You know that your comment is not going to be taken well from S.Rich so there was no point in coming here to say anything. Anyway - what is the latest dispute, can I help at all?--v/r - TP 05:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy. Indeed, Happy Happy Joy Joy is my theme song. Provocation? My mother and her step-father were at Hickam Field when some Japanese pilots provoked the USAAF, so my family has a history of dealing with provocation. Dispute? There is no latest dispute – Specifico seems to think/agree that a 19 year old $5k donation to The Independent Institute from Philip Morris is not significant. But Specifico can't convince me to something else to the article. Anyway, I do not think Specifico would agree to an IBAN. I might apply for adminship and Specifico would like to comment if I do. While Specifico once thought I'd be a good admin, I wouldn't want to deprive Specifico of the opportunity to try and frustrate me. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That's funny you'd mention Hickam. Did I tell you I am stationed at Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam right now?--v/r - TP 06:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I do wish...[edit] would have at least waited for Gamaliel's response to my compromise proposal before creating a new subsection for your own that threatens to bury mine, and that you had to know I'd find unacceptable. VictorD7 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If I read the UTCs correctly, Gamaliel has edited since you posted the idea. I posted after he edited, but I was not looking to see what he had done. I have de-sectionalized the proposal. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean for you to undo the subsection header. I'm not sure what good that even does since there's still a bolded title and a lot of text. Undoing the edit jump may make it even harder to find where discussion of the previous proposal had left off. I wasn't calling on you to change anything. I was just letting you know for future reference that it might be better to let a proposal sit and simmer for a while before trumping it with a new one before the first one had even garnered a direct response. VictorD7 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What is it you're claiming failed to verify here?[edit]

[3] Before Gamaliel churlishly deleted the discussion without comment, you posted on his talk page to claim that "fantastic" doesn't appear in the link, and you added the failed verification tag to the article. Two points:

1. The "fantastic" quote had already been removed by Gamaliel, so are you claiming that something else that's still there failed to verify?

2. The "fantastic" quote most certainly does verify. Scroll down about halfway down the page to read this quote: "Dinesh D'Souza's America (2014) had a fantastic hold this weekend. The documentary eased 13 percent to $2.45million; to date, its earned $8.2 million."

"fantastic" is a silly item. Hollywood puffery. Let's be encyclopedic and omit it. (JFC, the important aspect of the article is the criticism of .....!) "only" is editorializing, not acceptable for us as WP editors because we are making a comparison that is not in the source. I do not see "12.8%" – have you done your own calculation? If so, you might explain the math in an editor comment. (I've added an editor comment next to the failed verify tag explaining the tag.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that an industry writer's telling description is mere "silly" "puffery", since it imparts to readers who likely otherwise don't know a sense of how strong the hold was, but that doesn't address why you claimed it failed to verify. Did you just miss it earlier? If so, do you now retract that comment?
As for the rest, the pertinent source, which supports more than one sentence, got pushed down some. A poster split it into a second paragraph for some reason, and now it follows the second sentence in that second paragraph. Did you check this reference? Looks like mystery solved on that front. Regarding "only", it's not OR considering the source called it a "fantastic hold" that "eased" back 13 percent. Most Wikipedia text is paraphrased or summarized, not directly quoted, and "only" accurately reflects the author's tone and point. If anything, it understates it. VictorD7 (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The MoJo article uses the term "fantastic" three times on one page. It is just a throw-away term. And for WP purposes, it should be thrown away. You do not have my support to include it. 12.8% is verified, but in a reference not cited. Provide that link as a citation. But leave out "only". That is an interpretation. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why using the word "fantastic" three times in a long piece covering many movies and singling out a few examples of exceptional performance in various aspects makes it a "throw away" term, but, since you now acknowledge its appearance, you never did explain why you earlier claimed it wasn't there. I'm not trying to berate you, I'm just genuinely curious why you went out of your way to post a claim that it failed to verify.
The "12.8%" link is already reference "15" in the article. I just told you where I found it. It follows the sentence ending in "...its total gross to $8,211,791." You failed to address my point that "fantastic", throwaway term or not, was expressing the author's sentiment that the receipts only dropped around 13%. Do you deny that? VictorD7 (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
12.8% is "supported" by reference 13. Straighten it out. Stop conflating. Use "only" if the source uses only. Be precise. The sources should directly verify the text, not be posted elsewhere in the text. – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the "12.8%" fact is supported by reference 15 (13 follows that sentence and was added to support the "fantastic hold" quote), precisely where I said it was. I didn't put it there though, so don't blame me if you think it belongs somewhere else. You're free to move or duplicate it (maybe via ref name). That said, I'll point out that multiple sentences cover the second week results, and it's common and acceptable on Wikipedia for references to support more than one preceding sentence. The Synopsis source currently sources a few paragraphs, lol.
Speaking of precision, do you retract your claim that the "fantastic hold" line didn't verify? I'm not asking if you support its inclusion, I'd just like you to acknowledge that the earlier claim was incorrect lest someone believe it, especially since I did add that source. Regarding "only", do you deny that the author was commenting on how small the drop was? I'm not insisting you agree with me, but please answer these reasonable questions so we can at least work from a common set of basic premises. VictorD7 (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


See closing comment. – S. Rich (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please. You've reverted your own content now, "docudrama" Please use talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. You are the EWarrior in this case. First you wanted "polemic" (unsourced), then you wanted "fantasy" (based on your own interpretation of what "imagine" might mean), then you removed docudrama from where I had added it. (Why – because you don't like the term?) But then you add docudrama. Victor restores "documentary" here. His edit summary is clear and correct, and the discussion supported documentary, So who is edit warring? You are, when you again put in docudrama here. I did not revert my content. I'd prefer to have my "Styled as a docudrama" line. But that isn't good enough for you, is it? No, Specifico. This is just another of your lousy Bullshit messages. Just bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I accuse you of gender bias. You wouldn't keep cussing at me if I was a girl, would you? Now in fact you appear to be increasingly confused about this article and the sequence of edits. It was you, Srich, who added "docudrama" in this edit: [4] so it appears that your love of WP:battleground skirmish has shaken your faith in your own previous addition of well-defined, wiki-linked, and fully appropriate content to the lede. Have an ice tea and please undo the damage. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Fuck yes, I would. Now I wouldn't use words like "Jane, you ignorant slut", because of the gender denigration in such a statement. When I say Bullshit, I only refer to the crap you post here. It has nothing to do with your gender, Mr. Specifico, retired businessman. And note I have bolded my remark about adding docudrama; i.e., I am not confused. So, keep your WP:ASPERSIONS about gender bias to yourself please. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2014 (UT)
FYI, I only said I was male so as to avoid gender-based wikihounding from male editors whose behavioral lapses are widely noted. So far, it has been successful. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I assumed good faith when you said you were male, and I would not treat you any differently if you said female or LGBT. Sadly, you create a "Heads I win, tails you lose" with your accusations. If you are male, I am "guilty" of gender bias because you suppose I would not say bullshit to a female. But if you are female, then you accuse me of "manspeaking" to you and others. But neither accusation is based on evidence. (FYI, you should take a look at the edits I've done with Jennifer N. Pritzker or Chelsea Manning. All strictly within WP:5P and policy and MOS.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
"Some of my best friends are women" SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Srich, do I have permission to refer to you as (Personal attack removed)? I understand from the Binksternet saga that using nicknames without the consent of the nicknamed individual is grounds for expulsion from Wikipedia. Steeletrap (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
OK people, that's enough. Move along unless you have something constructive to say. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually I don't mind them posting here. While the comments speak for themselves, I am free to respond as I think appropriate. At the same time, if they (Specifico and others) don't want me to say "Bullshit", they can stay away from this page. If they feel that feckless jabs at me with accusations and aspersions are worthwhile, they can post here. In response, though, I can comment, reply, revert, {{rpa}}, hat, archive, ignore, tell them where to stick it, etc., as I see fit. – S. Rich (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD, etc.[edit]

Hey, counselor. Thanks for your understanding in the Nick DeCarbo AfD. I do a lot of work with sports-related AfDs, if you have any questions, or would like to get more involved with sports AfDs, let me know. I'm happy to provide quick background and a road map for future endeavors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite alright. Today I've doing backlog stuff on Bio templates. Adding living or dead, BLP/BLPO stuff. I reached a point where I thought "what's so great about this guy? is is worth posting "living=no" or shall I just template for an afd. Your quick response and guidance is appreciated. I'll leave the sports afds to others. – S. Rich (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


I hope you know that I respect both you and Specifico as editors, and have never understood the animosity between you, given that you're both likely on the same side of many issues. However, given the history between the two of you, it's probably not a good idea to leave tags like this on his talk page. (It's probably not a good idea to template the regulars.) LK (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks LK. Given that Specifico has templated me on numerous times re 3RR, all of which were inappropriate, it seemed proper to place a template. I was tempted to report the EW, but I chose to template instead. Mike V has blocked both of them for the EW. Thus the templating was validated. – S. Rich (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


I think there has been some misunderstanding regarding the closure of This RfC. From your explanation, it seems that you thought that people who supported the "present formulation" were actually supporting removal of the term "Serbian Orthodox Church". That was not the case. Only 2 people supported "Orthodox priest" while the rest supported "Serbian orthodox priest" (one editor misunderstood the question and his stand can't be determined). Asdisis (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you added a clarification to the RfC. However, are you planing answering this misunderstanding i described? MrX's revert clearly shows that there is a misunderstanding in your closure. I would just like to state that I support your present decision, however out of objectivity I have to put it in question because of reasons I described above. Asdisis (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've modified the text. Describing father as a Serbian Orthodox Church priest is confusing and I hope to avoid that description. Too much of the discussion circled around the history of the SOC. The question could have been better put by asking "What was the church that provided religious training to father and what church did the ordination when he became a priest?" It could not have been the SOC because the SOC did not exist as an official body when father was ordained. (I assume Orthodox priests get ordained.) Does this help? – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that you had understood the discussion correctly. This time in fact your consensus goes against majority. That is why I thought you misunderstood something(having our previous account in mind). People who advocated "Serbian Orthodox priest" said that they want to "keep the present wording". They were actually in majority in the discussion. Only I and one more editor advocated "Orthodox priest". You in the explanation said that "The consensus is to keep the present text..." meaning that " "Nikola Tesla was born ... to Serbian parents... His father, ... was an Orthodox priest..". That first sentence of your explanation is confusing. It confused MrX, and it may confuse others. To them "keep the present text" means that Tesla's father was "Serbian Orthodox priest". Asdisis (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


Hey, just wanted to check in and say thanks for keeping some of the pages I watch uptodate and honest. Wanted to let you know that my "interest" is as declared as it will be: I'm am a relative of the named article, as is implied by my username. Honestly, I'm not much needed anymore and if I could close my account, I would. I understand COI and the aims of wikipedia. I feel like all of my edits have spoken for themselves and I have not given reason for suspicion. If you disagree, that's ok. I'm sure you're a busy man all over wikipedia, and giving attention to my small contributions is probably more of a nuisance than a joy, for that I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubreygrossman (talkcontribs) 20:22, 4 August 2014‎ (UTC)

No apology is necessary, not in the least. I agree that your edits have been helpful. As a WP:WikiGnome I enjoy fixing the small details, so please don't fret. Thank you for your kind remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


It is preposterous to state that Griffin's article or any part of it is covered by Austrian Economics sanctions. Consider whether you would like the community to scrutinize your promotion of that POV. Especially in the context of your dysfunctional skirmishes with Ms. Steeletrap. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is Ms. Steeletrap (talk · contribs)'s edits which are dysfunctional and disruptive. Her edit summaries are incorrect. She removes sourced material. She has removed SYN & SPS tags on portions of the article which are under discussion. (Lieberman is a good source, but the others are used for SYN.) I did not mention Lieberman in the talk page posting, but Steeletrap reacted as if I thought Lieberman was not RS. She is removing references with dead link tags, which means she did not actually look at the citations (and only assumes they are inappropriate). (For example [5] is improperly linked to the Questia homepage, so she cannot have looked at the source.) She is injecting POV into section headings. (Putting AIDS denial into a section heading is UNDUE when only 1 sentence in the 5 paragraph section is about AIDS.) And sadly, although warned, she is editing on the topic Jekyll Island, which purports to be based on Austrian Economics. The TBAN is broadly construed, so it does not mean that Griffin must be an economist or engage in economic analysis. The book, for better or worse, has been cited by Ron Paul and supports Paul's theories, and I provided links to Steeletrap about the AE relationship. One author, Flaherty, said the book described the Jekyll meeting as conspiratorial, but that is not sufficient to label Griffin as a conspiracy theorist. What else? Oh, yes. She is sexist herself when she addresses me as "bub". (I would not use a similar term, such as "babe" to address her.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
This goofball nonsense has nothing to do with Austrian Economics other than (possibly) some overlap in the people who may have read the books. By the same token, Griffin overlaps Winnie the Pooh, Julia Child, and the Bible. Anyway, because I like you, I advise you to find some other egregious problem that will benefit from your attention. You are on thin ice with Steeletrap and with your tendentious misapprehension of her TBAN. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Do I read you correctly? You contest the AE TBAN, and nothing else? If Ms. Steeletrap's edits are problematic in other areas, you ought to say so. She may benefit from your guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I may edit the article, I haven't really looked at it yet. I'm just amazed at how quickly you arrive on the scene when Ms. Steele enters the room. Faster than a speeding bullet. A one-man bucket brigade, maybe. But seriously you should consider devoting yourself elsewhere. You must have faith in the Community and know that, whatever your concerns, others will eventually address them -- to the extent, of course, that they are valid. Anyway since you invited me, I will look at the Griffin article. Many such articles tend to have some inappropriate content that's accumulated over the years as well-meaning fans include ill-sourced assertions. Are you a fan of his works? SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do edit the article. (But another editor has recently come in with some changes.) Yes, we are following each other around. Steeletrap follows Binksternet, you follow CarolMooreDC and I. Binksternet is so prodigious in his edits its hard to say what he follows. I don't know what Carol follows. I'm following you, Steeletrap, and EllenCT. On Griffin I attempted to set up a discussion on the laetrile topic and Steeletrap reacts somewhat negatively. Then, while the discussion is going on, she removes the tags I posted as if there was no discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you, Sgt., but I do not stalk editors. Your envy of Bink's accomplishments is noted. Over the coming days, consider whether you could just choose a random selection of editors to follow around and see how it goes. Variety is the spice of life, they say. I know you don't generally object to removal tags, because I've seen you in action on Molyneux and elsewhere. Anyway, try to make some new friends. You'll branch out and get some barnstars for your collection. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh? Who said anything about stalking? But this was an interesting thread: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Am I really in violation of something? (And what are you going to do about Steeletrap's sexist remark to me. Aren't you interested in combating systemic bias? I believe Steeletrap respects you, so I'd think she'd benefit from your guidance.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I stalk User:Binksternet for a reason that anyone who looks at his user page can sympathize with: he's a knockout. Is your reason for stalking me equally complimentary or benign? Steeletrap (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Innocuous. But post a photo of yourself. Who knows what reactions, replies, propositions, or proposals you might get. – S. Rich (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Smearing the guy who posted that empty ANI is not a good idea. If you have a beef with him, take it up directly but don't do it behind his back. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Smearing? How so? – S. Rich (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This current WP:AE thread may be instructive in an issue that has come up several times before here and seems related to the one above : A discussion about if a topic is or is not covered by a topic area/ban is itself covered by the topic ban. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SW3_5DL - I have no opinion as to if Griffin is or is not part of AE, but those who have a ban in that area would be wise to disengage from that debate.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


Template:Third-party is different than Template:COI. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: However, the template pertains to sources which have a "very close connections" with the subject. Just who are the very close connections? Some of the 25 refs have published his stuff, but that does not create a "close connection". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! It is John Stanton writing. I note that I am up for deletion from Wiki and that's not my call, of course. Debate and delete if you must. I DO take offense to Plot Spoiler indicating that much of my writing is "fringe." When I write satire like "Interview with God" that can be considered fringe. But the bulk of my work has been cited in a lot of credible places. Efforts (cited too) for the American Behavorial Scientist, National DEFENSE magazine, papers/presentations for the International Studies Association, and cites in a host of military-related publications can hardly be considered "fringe". Just a few of those are listed below the next paragraph.

I believe that Plot Spoiler is an editor with a notable bias who uses Wiki Law to advance his cause. It is no surprise that Spoiler's call for deletion came right after a piece I wrote calling him out and discussing the recent Israel invasion and destruction of much of Gaza, and the political power of the Israeli lobby in the USA. In that piece I supported the edits made to my Wiki entry but I do not applaud censorship or the attempt to label me as "fringe."

I do not have the time or inclination to revisit this matter. But I have taken this time to dispute the "fringe" label as that is a false indictment.

Written just after 911, this piece Terrorists Will Exploit [1] has been cited, according to Google Scholar, 38 times over the years.

One of the more recent cites to the above piece is this: Information content security on the Internet: the control model and its evaluation BX Fang, YC Guo…- SCIENCE CHINA Information Sciences, 2010 - Springer Abstract Flooding of harmful information on the Internet seriously endangers thephysiological and mental health of teenagers. Due to the user-friendliness of the Internet as well as the difficulty in the authentication for the access of specific categories of. National DEFENSE magazine is hardly a "fringe" publication. My work their under the good offices of Sandra Erwin and Bob Williams led to articles cited by the US military--dozens of them in fact. Here is one: Baker, Donald L. Terrorism, a New Age of War: Isthe United States Up to the ..... Garstka, John J. "Network-Centric Warfare Offers Warfighting Advantage: ... "Guarding Virtual Borders: In Cyberspace, the Best Defense Is a Good Offense. .....Stanton, John J. "Space-Based Optical Comms Could Fix Bandwidth Problem

My five year coverage of the US Army's Human Terrain System produced over 100 articles from sources I will never name as they have bills to pay and clearances to keep. And in these times, no one dare reveal sources and methods. At any rate those pieces were cited in dozens of publications: The AAA's report on USA HTS, The Tender Soldier by Vanessa Gezari, Wired's Danger Room, The Daily Beast, etc.

My piece on Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience was cited in Rebbeca Costa's Watchman's Rattle...You may also find my work cited at Questia and even in the US Army Commanders Filed Guide for female engagement teams here: and at JSTOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJSX12 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I can't and won't do anything about Plot's descriptive. It is simply an opinion, and each editor is entitled to assert opinions when it comes to notability discussions. Considering the work I have done on the article, I do think it is worth saving. But I am holding off on commenting for a while. – S. Rich (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Gratuitous personal remarks[edit]

Please don't make personal remarks or speculate about others motives when attempting to discuss article and essay content. It's clear that for whatever reason, gender-related or otherwise, Ms. Steele is particularly sensitive about such remarks and your insertion of them on Competence talk is particularly unconstructive. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap injected the POV-vulnerable topic of AIDS (of which she is very concerned) into the essay, and can reasonably expect commentary or response on the effort to do so. Accordingly, the remark was not inappropriately personal or gratuitous. Also, the issue of AIDs has absolutely nothing to do with gender. AIDS is transmitted via sexual contact between all genders. (Also, many hemophiliacs died from AIDS in early years because they were unwittingly receiving infected blood product transfusions.) Are we applying different standards to Steeletrap because of gender? (That is called sexism.) Your own remark about how Steeletrap is "particularly sensitive" is just as personal, just as gratuitous, and just as speculative as my own. So what? Perhaps Steeletrap can take some courage and inspiration from Athena. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Nothing speculative about it. There are certain female editors with whom you seem to have persistently interacted in a problematic way. I have no opinion as to the content in this edit, no opinion as to AIDS denial, and no opinion as to whether I would react to your behavior in the same way as various others have. I do feel confident in observing however, that to respect the autonomy of other editors one needs to understand and be mindful of their feelings and reactions, not invalidate them with denial or denigration. FYI, there is some important discussion on WP gender issues at this page. Have a look if you care to investigate others' perspectives on these issues. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Could CarolMooreDC be one of the female editors that you "have persistently interacted with in a problematic way"? If so, then do both of us a favor and just lay off. You've chosen to make sly (and not-so-sly) WP:ASPERSIONS about me, and they grow tiresome. As for the Gender-gap project, I followed CarolMooreDC over there when she first edited there on June 29th. A few days ago, as you might have noticed, I took care of a slight problem on the Project that was created by the now-indef'd Jim-Situri. – S. Rich (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
You know that I do not stalk your edits, so I have/had no idea where and when you edited what. SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Just go back to the Project you recommended an take a look at its history. You will see I have edited on it. Hence your "FYI" was unneeded. Indeed, in two respects: 1. I already knew about it, and 2. I already support editing and commentary that is non-sexist. – S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Srich, because I like you I am going to give you the following feedback. I hope you will calmly reflect on it rather than react with reflexive denial and anger.
Feedback: If you re-read my comment above, I did not dispute whether you had previously edited wherever. Instead, what I said was that I do not follow where and when you post (except to the extent that it intersects with my Watchlist) and that, because I don't stalk your edits, I wrote my initial reference to the Gender Bias page without knowing whether you'd posted there. In fact, upon checking just now, I don't find your alias in the history of either the article or the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Check this. Since you like me, why don't you nominate me for Admin? You had thought about doing so last year, didn't you? And you know I'd be fair and follow guidance & policy at all times. Also, once I became an Admin, I'd be less likely to "stalk" you or Steeletrap or Carolmooredc. – S. Rich (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd be pleased to nominate you. I have seen your exemplary compliance with the voluntary IBAN from EllenCT, and that is why I continue to give you feedback that may help you attain your goals. In order for me to feel comfortable nominating you, I would have to go, say, 60 days without seeing any recurrence of problematic behavior. In particular, I'd have to be comfortable that you're able to cast a wider net in your patrol and problem-solving contributions. I have no doubt you could make the adjustment and give the Community the comfort it would require to approve Adminship. So, if you can show that you can disengage not only from the EllenCT and 3 of us but from any other faves of whom I may be unaware, I can certainly see myself nominating you some time early in 4Q 2014. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please check [6]. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: What are your thoughts about SPECIFICO's willingness to nominate me? – S. Rich (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Quit stalking me and I'll consider helping you get promoted, private. Steeletrap (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not asking for your help in getting a promotion. Only that you not oppose me out of grudges or because you think I have a prejudice for libertarianism. (If you think I'd be a diligent, competent, and fair Admin, I'd like the nomination process to proceed without disruption.) As for stalking, I'm saddened if you think this is a negative. After all, we've had several engaging discussions on this and other pages. – S. Rich (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, as an Admin I'd be very wary of any behavior which might jeopardize my promotion. So you have less to fret about in terms of "stalking". I'd seek, as I usually do, to approach you as a co-editor who wishes to collaborate in the project. – S. Rich (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mary Wayte[edit]

Hey, SRich. I would be grateful if you would remove your note from the talk page of this article. I came across the issue you mentioned a couple of months ago, and left a talk page message for the editor here. There are presently no changes in the article that were added by the editor in question; I subsequently reviewed and modified any such text. Most of the existing text of this article is my handiwork, and I will continue to monitor the article. If the editor in question reappears, I am certain I can handle any conflict-of-interest issues on a friendly basis, and without embarrassing an Olympic gold medalist in the process -- with an explanation of the applicable Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so yourself and mention my agreement to the revert. I won't object. (But I wouldn't think the mention is embarrassing. Take a look at Authur Rubin for example.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. I am on it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I think the talk page template is far preferable to having a COI template on the article page. Especially when editors declare their connection. I have one myself on a page I once worked on. – S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

talk page archiving[edit]

Don't be impatient, let the bot do some work :) besides, your script appears to be stuffing everything in /Archive 5, bloating it well over the designated 150K limit. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I stopped. (And I didn't think to look at the archive size.) Shall I unarchive it? 16:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Joy: I've impatiently reverted the archiving. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It's just that if we don't give the bot some time to do its work, we won't know if the new settings are actually all right :) In my experience, it seems to be running at European night time, so it's only a few more hours I think. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Joy: you are so right. Bot worked just time & actually opened a new archive page for the 179k change. Now that the cantankerous bickering is off the page, perhaps there can be some real discussion on improving the article. Thanks again. – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Good to see. Tonight, we'll see if it's going to move the next section out, where the last timestamp in the upper part will roll over the 1 month mark, and the lower part is tagged for archiving. If it doesn't, then you can move it out manually. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It didn't. You can do it now :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Challenge Coin article[edit]

FYI: I added a bunch of missing references and did other clean-up to the challenge coin article. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw. I'll look a bit closer in a while. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Lots of good changes. Keep at it and you may earn a Challenge Coin for yourself! – S. Rich (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for calling to my attention my misunderstanding about the meaning of minor edits.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome. Enjoy your learning and editing experience here on Wikipedia! – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

etymology of the word "army"[edit]

Hello Srich32977

I added the etymology of the word army by way of the Roman historian Tacitus. Martin Luther also drew the comparison between the word Army and Germanic general Arminius. In books I and XII Tacitus describes in detail the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest. In preparation for which Arminius was able to amass a large fighting force (henceforth army) the likes of which the Romans had never before encountered. In 9AD, near the historic peak of Roman power, Arminius and his "army" decimated three Roman legions, more than 100,000 strong including entourage. The victory was significant in permitting Germany, unlike the Gauls and the Celts, to remain an independent cultural and political amalgamation. Arminius' "army" almost certainly protected the Germanic populations east of the Rhine from Roman enslavement as a consequence of the army assembled at Teutoberg forest.

Greece and Rome (Second Series) / Volume 51 / Issue 01 / April 2004, pp 83-94Copyright © The Classical Association 2004 DOI: (About DOI), Published online: 05 April 2006

see also biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEE-SCAN (talkcontribs) 20:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@SEE-SCAN: I reverted the changes you made because no references were provided. Have another go at it. – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars[edit]

Ever read WP:DTR? Seriously. I made an edit, missed that a ref got tossed. It gets fixed. The bot was 24 hours late and then you pop by with a template? I have only been working on the article since late March and it passed FAC a few days ago. I do not need random templating with schoolmarmish messages. Chill out. Montanabw(talk) 04:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And back atcha! Montanabw(talk) 04:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Follow me to join the secret cabal!


John Arab[edit]

Hi there,

Thanks for looking over my work at St. Michael's Choir School. I've done my best to correctly implement changes with your notes, but would appreciate your checking back to see if there are still issues.

I just wanted to explore the issue of John Arab. While he is not a world-famous tenor he is (or was, before his death) well known across Canada generally, and in Toronto specifically. His career with the Canadian Opera Company spanned twenty years and as an instructor, his students included Michael Burgess, Robert Pomakov and Michael Schade, all of whom are significant in today's Canadian opera scene. He also performed with a number of other renowned opera companies, and was active with the Stratford Festival here in Ontario. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Astra Inclinant (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Astra Inclinant: Take a look at Wikipedia:Starting an article as a guide when you create John Arab. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Swiss Super League/Challenge League playoffs[edit]

Hello Srich32977. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Swiss Super League/Challenge League playoffs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A playoff series between two notable leagues is enouogh for A7. PROD or take to AfD. Thank you. GedUK  12:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Vani Hari massive commentary editing without justification[edit]

Srich32977, please explain your commentary removal; you removed a significant number of sources and commentary by scientists and reputed, published authors that seems wholly in line with the RS and BLP policies. Also, you left a comment stating " Not improvements (discussed)" when I cannot find any discussion you make of these quotes or sources anywhere. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'm sorry that you can't figure out why the Gorski material is inappropriate. The post which IP wants to add does not deal with the science or non-science of Hari's claims. He (Gorski) is an oncologist, and not an expert on marketing, motivations, media, and the like. The edit summary which IP quotes above is mine from the first edit I reverted. I've made a few more, BLP specific reverts. Unfortunately IP seems to be getting upset and accuses me of uncivil conduct. I quite agree with IP about the nonsense that Hari is involved in. (In fact, I've contributed money to support Mark Crislip's edgy-doc podcasts.) But we've got our BLP policies to uphold, and leaving Gorski's comments in the article does not comport with those policies. – S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Tom Humphrey[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering if we still need the notability tag on Thomas M. Humphrey's article. What do you think? (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Tag removed. – S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)