User talk:Srich32977/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Following me to pages

What's up with your edit to Edgar Steele? I can't imagine anyone having interest in that man's page apart from 1) neo-Nazis, 2) members of anti-hate groups, such as the ADL or SPLC; and 3) members of Steele's direct or extended family. Since you're none of those, I have to assume you're stalking me. If you want my attention, they're easier (and less creepy) ways to go about it, Mister. Steeletrap (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Also, if you're going to stalk someone, you can at least be less blatant about it. Srsly dude: You made your first edit to Edgar Steele, an obscure WP page if there ever were one, less than two hours after I make my first edit. Steeletrap (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I followed you. A few justifications: 1. Most importantly, you are banned from editing certain topics and determining what you have done is within the parameters of ban enforcement. 1a. In order to evaluate your edits, looking at the articles is necessary. 1b. When I looked at the article, there were obvious areas where I could improve it. 2. Also, the name similarity (Edgar Steele) was interesting. 3. In any event, I quite agree with the edits you did on Steele. (In fact, I have now sent a "thank you" for the Steele edit.) 4. The edits I did were helpful improvements. 5. Also, your edit summary referred to "fringe" – you and I have had discussions about "fringe" vis-a-vis WP:FRINGE, so the edit summary perked interest. 6. Since the arbcom, you have revisited certain areas and made unproductive edits. Notably, you worked on the competence essay and infobox "opposed" question. Perhaps your stress comes from those reverts. In WP:HOUND it says "If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I do not think my edits constitute TE, PA, or other disruptive behavior. Please don't think that this one instance of follow-on edits is designed to harass you – look at the Steele edits as collaboration. I will try to be less blatant. Okay d–––? (Egad, what is the transgender equivalent for dude?) – S. Rich (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: (talk page stalker) Hi. I'm one of those pro-gun editors Lightbreather mentioned to you about. I was hoping to preempt Srich's reply so I'll just chime in. One of the key points in WP:HOUND is if the editing is "in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". I don't think that's the case here. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply to both Steeletrap & Chris: I thought about quoting the confront language. In a sense I am doing so, but I hope in a non-confrontational manner. Steeletrap, some of your edits deserve "confrontation" in the sense of challenging or criticizing them. – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't be stalking other users. It's a simple proposition. Steeletrap (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

In the context of your relationship with Steeletrap, I think there are hundreds of other articles you'd do better to be working on Srich. Nobody will blame you if you're not the one to revert any possible misstep by Steeletrap. SPECIFICO talk 03:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been working on hundreds of other pages. That's part of the reason I'm 576 on the list of 5,000 most active Wikipedians. And, Specifico, you've been known to follow me on various edits. Didn't you take a sudden and unexpected interest in a listing of notable and non-notable pornstars a few months ago? Wasn't it because I had suddenly and "unexpectedly" done a few edits in that area? – S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Pornstars??? What? No, certainly not. Frankly I think that garbage has no place on WP. If you were over the age of 25 and making a specialty of it, I'd say that's downright weird. Just my opinion, but anyway please don't libel me by associating SPECIFICO with 'pornstar" nonsense. I suggest you close this thread and leave Steeletrap to her devices. Before you hat it, you should strike through your false reference to SPECIFICO and be more careful with statements about other editors in the future. SPECIFICO talk 04:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, I am still puzzled as to why you followed me to Edgar Steele. What objection did you have to this particular edit? Do you disagree with my view that Stormfront is not RS? We can take this issue to RSN. Another fringe source I removed was from a prolific LewRockwell.com columnistt, alleging that Steele's prosecution was a government conspiracy to silence him. After all, what else could it be? Do you believe this is RS? Would it become RS if Llewellyn posted it to Mises.org, along with the latest 'vitamins cure cancer' piece? Steeletrap (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Steele, you misread me. I did not have an objection to that edit. I have thanked you for it!!

Specifico, there was something back a few months with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and another editor. You sent a thank you to that other editor, and the thanks dealt with the other editor's dislike of what I had done. Does that refresh your memory? (If not, it's not worth pursuing.) But the point is that you've followed me once or twice. – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, look at the edit history of Judie Brown. That user, GoingBatty, is at it again – I make an edit and GB comes in to make more. – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, I have no idea what you're talking about. You are violating policy by making unsupported and disparaging assertions about me. I warned you, you repeat your claims. If you don't strike them now I am going to pursue remedies. SPECIFICO talk 12:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the sequence went like this: Wolf removed a redlink on a list of Asian or Asian American pornstars. I think it was MilesMoney who restored it. There were several redlinks on the list. I went in and removed all of the redlinks. Another editor (and Miles, I believe) gave me some shit. You sent a thank you to the editor who gave me the shit. As you were encouraging that other editor, who had worked on the pornstar listing, you had been following Wolf, or Miles, or me and that led you to the pornstar list. (That's not a problem at all. But encouraging the other disruptive editor was.) So, pursue your remedy. – S. Rich (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you don't remove your remarks about me editing articles on pornstars, etc. I will seek remedies. I shouldn't have to repeat that, but I've done you at least that courtesy. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not say you had edited any pornstar articles. You had thanked an editor about an edit or comment. Think back. This was in late December. MilesMoney and Wolfowitz had a little back & forth about redlinks and another editor chimed in with a less than helpful remark to me. Your thank you was to that other editor. – S. Rich (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC) In fact, you sent thank yous to that editor two times. 15:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Other editors are creeped out by your behavior. I can't imagine how much work it would take to reconstruct the timeline and narrative of whatever you think others did or might do. I suggest you consult some resources on stalking behavior. It's possible that others are mistaken, or it's possible that you're in denial about your behavior. I'm reminded of your incident with EllenCT. I won't be posting further to this thread. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the facts don't favor you, you switch topics and allude to another, unsubstantiated and false allegation. As to the pornstar comments, I did my best here to remind you of the facts, but you misread and made an incorrect statement (i.e., about editing pornstar articles). You said you will seek remedies. Well, it did not take me long to find the data and I've already laid out the narrative of what you did. So it would be interesting to see you carry out your remedy. In any event, I'm glad you won't be posting on this thread. But you are welcome to post on this page again. – S. Rich (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresenting another editor is a Personal Attack

In this diff [1] you again misrepresent a statement I made on a talk page. Having just warned you about such behavior in the thread above this one, I'm amazed that you continue it. Please stop. It is a violation of core WP principles and corrosive to the Community. SPECIFICO talk 12:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to this diff? True, you did not make a statement "on a talk page". You used an edit summary. So how did I misrepresent anything? I linked your action and included the comment that you may disagree about whether Steeletrap's usage of "binky" when commenting to Binksternet was PA. (I've commented further on Steeletrap's talk page about this.) So what is the specific misrepresentation that I made? Please explain. – S. Rich (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You're a bright guy. Have a close look. SPECIFICO talk 14:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I don't see it. Please explain. – S. Rich (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder

that the purpose of the List of cemeteries in the United States is not to list every cemetery in the country and Territories, but to list the notable ones. Notable, to me, means that there (1) is an article about the cemetery already, (2) is someone notable buried there, (3) it is on the NRHP, (4) you plan to do an article or meet the other criteria. These criteria are mine, but they are in line with other lists on wikipedia. There are (wild guess) half a million cemeteries in these areas, way more than we need here. Like all issues I prefer to resolve this on the discussion pages rather than most of the other options. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course you are right about listing every cemetery. At present the list has a lot of redlinks for the states, and I did not add redlinks to the territories. I do think they have potential and listing the territories was done in an effort to make the list less State-centric. Basically I'm done. – S. Rich (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree with you that adding the Territories moves the list into another dimension and as such all the ones you added are thus notable. Thanks. Carptrash (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Take a look at [2]. As the USVI were acquired from the Danes, the historical significance of the Danish Cemetery in St. Thomas becomes apparent. At the moment, I think I'd simply prefer to move to USVI, rather than workup articles about the cemetery. – S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

USA Gini figure

Isn't anyone going to address this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylancatlow (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoever is interested in fixing the issue or improving the article will do so, Other editors will come along and collaborate on the fixes/improvements. My change to United States was done because older data was being inserted to replace newer data. (Also, the change made the information on the citation incorrect.) The best place to address the Gini issue/figure is on the talk page for the article. – S. Rich (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

minor edits

i've always been making sure that when i've edited, i've marked them as minor edits, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfthenerd (talk • contribs) 06:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

shall I warn Specifico off of Paul Samuelson? :)

Samuelson is mentions a heck of a lot on the Mises.org pages -- <g>. Collect (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

See the hatted thread on my talk RE:Molyneux. I'm in a pickle. [3] SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A few thoughts: 1. I don't mind that Specifico's in a pickle, even if it is better than being pickled. 2. You can't warn him off of Samuelson, because he hasn't done any edits on the page so far. 3. Your comments on the Arbcom page and here are appreciated. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

editors are not invited to unhat discussions here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please read mansplaining and ask yourself whether the style of communication discussed therein is similar to your style of communicating to me. Steeletrap (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks. I will. At present, though, it is a bit late. I'll respond more tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC) @Steeletrap: Thanks again. The article is interesting, but it does not describe the style of communication in mansplaining other than with condescension. The motivation (realized or unrealized) for mansplaining seems to be based on sexism. E.g., "I know more about this or that subject than she does because I'm a man and she's a woman." The flip side is "He's talking to me in that manner because he is mansplaining. (E.g., he is a sexist.)" But, I wonder – the various possibilities in any particular situation can go on and on etc.: Is he, in fact, being condescending? Is she feeling defensive? Does she know less?/Does he know more? Does he have a higher social status?/Is her social status lower? (For more on status, I recommend Desmond Morris and The Human Animal.) Or, perhaps, is he going overboard in his explanation of something simply because men, in general, love to receive the admiration of women and he thinks his superior knowledge, demeanor, etc. is the way to win that admiration? (For more on this, look at His Needs, Her Needs by Willard Harley ISBN 978-0800719388.) Steeletrap, IMO it is your POV that has adversely impacted your editing decisions. And I have criticized you in this regard. (And, sadly, you have suffered sanctions.) But my criticisms were not based at all on your gender. Still, you concern is appreciated. I am going to look at Wikihow to stop being a condescending person and I will consider this more. Again, if I am being condescending, it is not because of your gender. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Wow, you have to be one of the top 10 most condescending people I've ever spoken to in my life. What makes your condescension even more irritating is that it has so little justification. Steeletrap (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Only 10? Or is your list longer? By how much? If it is a really long list, then you must have been suffering (or irritated) for a long time. Oh, well. If you don't want to talk to me, then don't. – S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Srich, you have a history of dysfuntional interactions with numerous female editors, When you were confronted by others, you denied any bias, kind of like a Mobius strip ending up back at its origin. Venting at Steeletrap does not promote the goals and operations of the Encyclopedia and the community here. Food for thought. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Now that Specifico has chimed in with the usual bullshit, it is time to close this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC) I concur with the above in that your editing and discussion style is abrasive, noncollaborative, harassing, and makes Wikipedia editing a tedious chore for those who you decide to go on censorship crusades against, including myself. Why did you call my question "impertinent" at [4]? EllenCT (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC) If you'd like to start a new thread, then do so. Don't unhat a discussion here. – S. Rich (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

shoe dropped at midnight

[5] FYI I was just "added" though I really find the "evidence" a tad, shall we say, "weak"? I will be off most of the weekend, so I likely will simply go away unless the committee allows me time for reply. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Cemeteries

OK, I won't touch the territories. Quis separabit? 12:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Barking

Woof-woof! – S. Rich (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I can understand your embarrassment, but you should consider the spectacle of gratuitous "helpful" messages from Ms. Steele's antagonists in a matter which is entirely in other hands at this point. Best case, it appears to be harassing. Worst case it risks sanctions under GS. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

My embarrassment? Hardly. I was waiting for someone to come by and thoroughly disabuse Steeletrap. Iselilja gave a polite warning and I provided Steeletrap a little background material as food for thought. Next, Gaijin42 & Binksternet spoke up. So, four editors sent a rather clear message about talk page editing in violation of the TBAN. But after your encouragement Steeletrap did even more improper TBAN editing. Shame on you. – S. Rich (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Argentine film task force

Hi, that's not true. In fact I've been more active on Argentine films in the last few months than in several years, but I rarely edit the page. Please revert your edits. I may well use the page soon for listing articles and to-do lists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: What edit? – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

[6].♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. – S. Rich (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Taliban 5

Since the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan did receive diplomatic recognition from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates during its time in power from 1996 to 2001, and it administered 90% of Afghanistani territory during that time, it can be said to have a sovereign government. The Taliban 5 were all members of that government. This is why they were considered different from the other Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay and why their release was important to the Haqqani network. Abductive (reasoning) 20:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

But where does this say so in the Washington Times article? I think you are construing things a little too far. (Thanks for your comment.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It didn't. Anyway, the article presently explains who each of the 5 were, and has Chuck Hagel's take on it; that they are enemies, but not officially terrorists. Plus, the media have gotten their act together and the story has already been forgotten by most, so I'm fine. By the way, you did know that the Haqqani network used to be allies of the US, right? Abductive (reasoning) 03:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I should be blunt. You were engaging in impermissible WP:SYNTH when you injected your own spin on them with the sentence about the T-5 being officials of a sovereign government. Perhaps they were at some point, but since the Washington Times article did not say this, you cannot say so. Were the Haggani's allies of the US? Their article does not suggest that. There were Talibani who were anti-Soviet fighters post-Soviet intervention/invasion, and the US provided a lot of support. But that does not mean they were "allies" of the US. – S. Rich (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is true that I did not put in a reference of my own. That doesn't mean that it was my synthesis or that sources didn't exist. The article on the Haqqani network says they were buddy-buds of the CIA. As you may recall, the Haqqanis left the US forces alone for a few years following 2001. Then something happened to piss them off, a drone strike or something, and they responded with a truck bomb. Because they were inexperienced with bomb design, they packed the explosives inside a load of wood and when it went off people were injured but nobody was killed. Abductive (reasoning) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla's birthplace

I'm contacting you per your suggestion regarding the closure of "RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed?". I strongly disagree that the consensus had been established. Also, I wrote my conclusion yesterday and I think that is the only reasonable conclusion. I do not think that numerous unfounded objections to every consensus suggestion can be regarded as a consensus. Especially, since de facto only I represent one side of the discussion, and I was completely neglected with that "consensus". Although I alone represent one side of discussion, I presented numerous sources. Consensus is not the result of a vote. Also, I would like to note that the sources listed on the article page support my suggestion. Only fer people have argued that the present construct should stay. I already said that we can not have a discussion whether the change is needed. The present construct should be equal to all other suggestions and we should determine the best possible construct by consensus. In the contrary, no edit could be made on Wikipedia since every suggestion can be rejected with the explanation that the present one is adequate (with no or inadequate explanation provided), although numerous sources point to more understandable and better construct. Overwhelming majority of the sources have been neglected. Also, note that I regarded one of the most important sources, which contains the present construct from the article, mentioned by Enric Naval in my favor. See explanation in my answer to Enric Naval's comment. Of all suggestions the present construct had the least support. To conclude, I think that no consensus had been reached, especially not the purposed one. Also, I object to the moving of the discussion to be along other discussions of less value. That may lead to prejudices. Why was that done? I would appreciate the discussion returned to it's original place if it is possible. It certainly does not belong to "Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity". Asdisis (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Asdisis: Thank you for commenting here. The level of consensus can be difficult to determine. This is especially true when a decision does not come out the way you would like. But I did look at all of the suggestions and the sources. And I considered other articles and at the reputations of some of the editors who commented. The sources provided by MrX were especially noteworthy because they listed all sorts of different place of birth descriptions. And with that fact in mind, I determined that there was no single correct answer. We had to select something, and I believe the version which presents the best compromise (based on all the arguments & sources) is the one I approved. Also, the current version is the one which existed before the RFC was opened. So I could have said "there is no consensus to change the version." (E.g., this would be the same result.) Put another way, we can say the pre-RFC version was the consensus version and the effort to garner enough support for another version was not successful. Regarding the archiving, there were two alternatives: One, I could just leave the RFC on the talk page – in 60 days the automatic bot would add it to the other archive pages. Two, I could move it. I decided to move it to the Nationality/Ethnicity archive page because of the other birthplace-related discussions on that page. It does not matter where I put it because the RFC is closed and I am not changing the result. If you open an ANI about the result, you should link to the archive page. (Also, per Help:archiving and WP:TALKCOND, the archived page should be left alone.) – S. Rich (talk)

I think that sources that mention any other country than Austrian Empire(Austro-Hungary) should be dismissed. I refined the sources provided by MrX, look it up in the discussion. He, nor anyone else, had objected me dismissing those sources. I do not think that there is anyone who disputed Austrian Empire as Tesla's birthplace. I do not understand why are you now referencing those sources. They have been dismissed from the discussion. Also, quality should be put before quantity. I regard the sources that mention any other county than Austrian Empire of low quality. I think that any other editor would agree with that opinion. Sources that are listed in the article are of higher quality. That is way i made a summary of the sources listed in the article, which were used to write the article and which were referenced in the article numerous times. I agree that there is no single concrete answer, the existence of this discussion somehow proves it. However, in that case the construct that enters the article should be the best possible from the presented sources. I strongly disagree that the present construct is the best possible compromise. I explained the reasoning in the discussion. To briefly repeat. There are 3 main reasons:

1. The present construct can have dual interpretations as explained in the discussion

2. It is in dispute with Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia (which is a primary source that is backed up with numerous secondary sources presented in the article)

3. One of the most valuable sources does indeed contain the present construct. However, it further explains it and eliminates dual interpretations. See Enric Naval's comment and my answer.

I also note that to some people, the preferred interpretation of the present construct is just that inaccurate way. My suggestion that it should be changed to become more understandable. If not changed than we should do according to the best book of the bunch and add a further explanation that eliminates double meanings. Also, I already objected to the way of discussing the way that I should fight on double front. I can not fight the reasoning "the present construct is fine and it shouldn't be changed". That is a highly subjective discussion. However, I gave my reasoning why there should be a change. I also presented numerous sources that also support my claim that the present construct should be changed or modified. Regarding the archiving I leave that decision to more experienced editors. I only stated my objection and the reasoning. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@Asdisis: Like I said, I based the closing on what I thought was the consensus of the community. It is "for" the version I quoted in my summary and "against" making any change. I have not changed my mind. – S. Rich (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for your help. We will go to the next step in resolving the dispute. Asdisis (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not for discussion/evaluation of the subject

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.

---

"WP:TALKNO: Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article."

Do not restore talk page content that is in clear violation of this. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Not really a clear violation. "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." Per my edit summary, Steeletrap should be given an opportunity to make her point regarding article improvement clear. So, err on the side of caution and restore the material. If Steeletrap does not come up with something, then it can be hatted or removed. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I did err on the side of caution by closing the topic as it was presented, which was not about article improvement, but rather a soapbox. I intended to leave the section in place in case someone wanted to use it for sourcing, but since you removed that option, removal of the section becomes the next step. If it's restored, the next step is to locate an uninvolved admin to close down the soapboxing and warn/block those that try to insist on continuing it. If you really care about Steeletrap participating in a productive way, then explain to him how do so, but do not violate WP guidelines by encouraging soapbox discussion. --Netoholic @ 19:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap thinks I'm a stupid person, so I minimize contact with her. I am not encouraging her soapboxing, but do welcome her contributions when helpful. At the same time, I am one of her severest critics. – S. Rich (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that her remarks were addressing the issue of whether undue and poorly-sourced content of no encyclopedic importance was being added to the article. The article can't improve if the problem of primary sources and undue exposition of insignificant events and opinions is squelched. Srich, don't be too harsh on yourself. I never saw any Wikipedian call you stupid. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sadly this dustup is not very exciting. Her remarks were not that clear – she should state what sort of article improvements are pertinent. – S. Rich (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've left them a short note about the guideline and suggestion to keep discussion about article improvement. I think by unhatting the section, it can send the wrong message to them about proper ways to use talk pages, and very well can set off more soapboxing by other editors back and forth. Its far better to cut that short, and ask that they re-submit their views in a way that'll improve the article rather than discuss the subject. --Netoholic @ 19:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You and Truther already said you did not think the comments were helpful. That was fine. But hatting the remarks and then deleting them were not helpful steps. But now you are posting on the ANI. Incredible. And, BTW, where is the note to me about the ANI? Whether I have the page on my watchlist or not is beside the point – normal practice is to post such notices to all interested editors. (This does not matter now because I am aware.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not soapboxing. In the U.S. and Britain, philosophers are people who use principles of deductive logic. Molyneux does not. This hardly a controversial contention, and is relevant to whether he should be described as a philosopher in the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

How people (or philosophers) use deductive logic is of little relevance to this talk page. The real question is what do reliable sources say about Molyneaux's use of deductive logic. And the Molyneaux talk page is the place to make your arguments. – S. Rich (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Stoopid

To clarify, Mister Rich: I don't think you're stupid. I did say that only a stupid person could buy the arguments you made against me in the Binkster ANI. But my point was that you couldn't actually believe in what you were saying. You were 'working backwards' to find a policy justification for the 'ban miss steele' conclusion you already had decided on. I am sorry that it didn't work out for you and Bink. Steeletrap (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. I should have said I think you think I'm stupid. (But that would have made for an awkward sentence.) But there is some strange logic to your statement here. You really don't feel sorry, do you? And you really don't think I would buy that do you? No matter. – S. Rich (talk) 23:57, 4 June 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.

Service Awards

@SPECIFICO: 7,310 edits per this count. Wikipedia:Service_awards#Veteran_Editor_II_.28or_Grand_Tutnum.29 asks for 12,000. – S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO – Why do you advertise yourself as a Veteran Editor II on your userpage when you lack the edits required? Did you edit under another username or as an IP? In fact, your first edit was September 1, 2012, so you lack the 2 years of service and 8,000 edits required for even for the Veteran Editor I award. – S. Rich (talk)

IP going way back. Thanks for your note. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that the WP:SVC edit counts and time frames are based on "the number of contributions the editor made to Wikipedia and the length of time they have been registered." You do not qualify. (4,600 edits as an IP?) – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, some of the discussion here may be of interest to you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Y'know, hopefully you didn't miss the bottom thread in that archive you linked, where it says: If you suspect they've made a simple mistake, let them know on their talk page and leave it up to them whether to fix it. Don't push the issue if they choose not to fix it, since it really isn't a big deal. This is the kind of thing y'all are bickering about now? Seriously, S Rich? Those awards don't really mean anything: they can be accounted for however one wants, and it's really the last thing one should be arguing about. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I did read the archive (and some of the earlier ones). I'm not bickering with Specifico on this at all. If other editors look at his award and do the count, he will be the loser only because his modesty (and integrity) will be questioned in their minds. (And I am reminded of an instance a few months ago when there was some kid who was posting all sorts of nonsense on his page. Some editors didn't like the fact that the kid had been awarding himself barnstars and sought to revert the awards.) With your thoughts in mind, I've revised the section heading. It's NBD. – S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Srich appears to follow various editors with whom he's particularly smitten in a most assiduous fashion. He can't find fault with my editing or conduct, so I presume he staves off boredom by noting the trivial details of his list of faves. I know it's nothing personal because I've seen him do it with so many others. I didn't realize it was 2 years registered, but rather 2 years history of all editing. I used to do an ungodly amount of international business travel some years ago and I'd pass the time late nights alone at the hotel by editing some WP. I had no idea of policies, noticeboards and the like. I just went from spot to spot adding what I knew. I know Srich is only trying his very best to be helpful with the editors he engages. Since my 2 year qualification will come up shortly, I'm inclined to leave the page as-is and be careful to count the qualifying times in any future updates. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm hardly smitten by Specifico. And I think he is staving off boredom as well. My first edit in this thread had the edit summary "AGF inquiry". – S. Rich (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

barnstar of GOOD INTENTIONS

	Speak no Evil
	All's well that ends well! SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux talk

Your statement here [7] reads like a personal attack and accusation of bad faith against the editor who started that thread. Please redact your comment. SPECIFICO talk 00:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack? Whatever do you mean?? As you started the thread, I don't think I said anything about you. As David Gerard started the straw pole, I simply added an unsigned template for him and commented on the merits language of the poll question. It should have been framed more neutrally. – S. Rich (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll take that as a concession. Now I suggest you remove the PA on Gerard and that you be careful in the future not to further impugn his good faith. SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You can take it anyway you like. And you can report me for PA and AGF if you like. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

non-interaction

As is my human right to choose those who I associate with and not associate with, you are hereby requested and required to limit your interactions with me to the only those issues directly to article content. You will no longer move my comments, comment on my comments to others, or otherwise impede my ability to communicate with others. Your bias and decorum have made this course of action the only possible, and in the future I advise you avoid getting yourself between with the interactions of other editors. No reply or acknowledgement of this message is needed, only your adherence to it. --Netoholic @ 03:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Netoholic: I will edit and comment, as I always have, in accordance with WP policy. By editing on Wikipedia, you have agreed to abide by those same policies. Your comments on the Molyneux talk page do not comply with the policy. (See WP:TPNO.) In any event, you do have a choice about associating with the community – you can exercise your choice by following the policies or by staying away from the community. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I have asked you not before to comment on my comments, except those issues directly related to article content. This thinly-veiled insult directed at me is exactly why I've asked you to not interact with me directly on non-content issues. I've seen how you do the same thing to others, needlessly mocking and instigating stress, and I have no tolerance for you to do it with regards to me. Again, do not comment on my comments to others. --Netoholic @ 18:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The comment was thinly veiled because it deserved it, but it was not an insult. You made comments about others yourself, that could be construed as insulting as well. I have posted a warning on your talk page with a more explicit message. – S. Rich (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that you admit that your comments on the article talk page were not about the article. They were about other editors. So what gives you the privilege to make non-article comments about others on the article talk page but not to expect comments about your comments? [[File:|25px|link=]] – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

…for your attempts at balance and peacemaking in the matter of Bink v Steele. My very occasional happening upon users like you make it somewhat sad that my time here is coming to an end. I wish you the best in these efforts, but especially in the content creation to which you are committed. In the end, it is what we get accomplished, as expressions of our character, that is important. See my closing comment to Steele, at her page, if you have the interest. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. And thank you Le Prof. (I'd hate to call it a "B verses S" matter. Binkster is a prodigious contributor and should be left alone to create and fix stuff. Steele is talented and well intended, but gets 'involved' too much in the personal aspects of editing. As you indicate, the personal aspects of editing can frustrate even the best us.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux Primary Sources

If you're still following/interested in the Stefan Molyneux article, there's some primary sourcing there about which several editors have expressed concern on the talk page. In the section about the Freedomain podcasts, here: [8]. There's a large number of citations which launch video of Molyneux' podcasts. There's no secondary RS cited to establish which guests or episodes are significant for an encyclopedia article, and the content of the entire episodes contains all sorts of statements, including statements about various living people. In addition, I wonder about WP:LINKFARM and WP:NPS. I believe you've commented on similar issues in the past on other articles, so it might be worth a look to see what you think about this section and its sourcing. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk Molyneux

@Netoholic: WRT: Talk:Stefan Molyneux, I have this to say about your response. (But I'm not going to clutter the page any more with personal opinions.) I'm concerned about who doesn't get it – TALK#USE says "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus." You are dismissing opinions because in your view they are not objective or based on what you consider good evidence. Sadly, your confrontational dismissals fail to engender cooperation or collaboration. And you seem to misunderstand or misstate that opinions on editing questions do matter. Which is why you devoted a page and why you want editors to decide if your opinion is a good one or not. You cannot say "Your opinion doesn't matter at all. Neither does mine,...." – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ping test

@Truther2012: – S. Rich (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh! It works! Thanks again.--TRUTHER 02:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Article: Pat Condell

Srich32977 - On Pat Condell I undid your revert as there are references to support the edit that I made. I added one and apologize for not adding it before. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jersey92: Okay. While WP:SPS sources (Condell himself) are not always favored, I can live with the edit. You may find that other editors disagree. – S. Rich (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect information re: Baldwin Hills

Your information is incorrect. The picture you show is NOT Baldwin Hills. It is the BALDWIN VISTA neighborhood, which has nowhere close to the affluence of the residents of Baldwin Hills, View Park, Windsor Hills or Ladera Heights neighborhoods. These neighborhoods encapsulate the most affluent black areas in the U.S., and therefore the world. These areas are considered comparable to Westwood, Brentwood, Carthay Circle or Cheviot Hills. Check the census reporting on education, income and property value. We just want to reflect factual information on Wikipedia. Please update. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.35.87.234 (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't think I've edited Baldwin Hills, California. – S. Rich (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Updating definition of Economics

Tanks for your orientation. I left my comments on Talk:Economics#Updating definition of Economics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firulaith (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

Was not trying to vandalize. Sorry. . . I'm learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femmso (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Harvard Law School

Take a look at that page if you get a chance. It needs a major rehaul. And you know are the only WP-er I know with knowledge of law/law schools. So get on it, Private!

The page reeks of boosterism, in that it presents information about HLS that has little to no relevance or notability. It presents an extensive history of the tenures of various deans (such as Elena Kagan); these histories (which include mention of Kagan's installing an ice-skaing rink and subsidizing free coffee for students) are almost entirely sourced to Harvard Law School website, rather than independent RS. Also, in the lede, it is claimed that 25% of all Supreme Court Clerkships are won by Harvard grads. I clicked on the actual link this was sourced to, and found that this was technically true but incredibly misleading (Harvard has a much bigger class size than the other schools with the most clerkships (Yale, Stanford, and Chicago)). Maybe take a look at the page to see if the boosterism and out of context "statistics" I found in a quick read-through are indicative of a bigger problem? Steeletrap (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tahquitz Canyon article tips!

Just wanted to say thanks for the contributions to my talk page about more sources for the Tahquitz Canyon entry I made. Also, I'm new to wikipedia, so I don't know if I should respond to your message on my talk page here or on my talk page where you posted. Advice is always appreciated! If this is the wrong place to respond, let me know and I'll delete this when I see your message. --SCorneliusB (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

IBAN discussion at ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Seeking_IBAN_for_Steeletrap where your name has been mentioned. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You appear to believe that an edit is not in error if, hypothetically, a justification could be given for it. That is mistaken. An edit is in error if its stated rationale is mistaken. (For example, if I delete content on the basis that a user I didn't like added it, that deletion is in error, even if the deletion could be justified on other grounds.) Bink's stated rationale, that general references need to be used in article, is a basic and unambiguous error of policy. Steeletrap (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. Unambiguous errors ar itmes thaet evrybody khan clerly seee ande agre upoun. Errors like typos or format problems or stray characters. In the Christianity case, three editors disagree with you. Insisting the any error correction connected to Binkersternet's edits justifies following him about is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. – S. Rich (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please list the editors who believe that removing a general reference because it is not mentioned in the article is justified. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you remove remarks like this as PA, why would you expect me to answer your question here. After all, my remark to you was as a "fellow member" of the idiocracy. (You don't get the humor behind the remark? Are one of the few non-idiots contributing to WP?) And if you can't figure out that 3 editors who determined that the removal of the "general reference" was justified, then I can't help you. (But to answer your question, I said I was a third when I made a remark on the ANI. Please don't take the concern about a specific edit and justify it by referring to a broader bit of guidance. Trying to do so is bootstrapping a weak argument about the "error".) – S. Rich (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, time to get out the dictionary. X-"cracy" doesn't mean everybody is X. It mean that the dominant or mandated influence or governance is attributable to X. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Steeletrap, Specifico got out his dictionary and says an idiocracy does not mean that everyone in the community is an idiot. But weren't you saying the community was possibly a idiocracy when you posted this to Adjwilley's talk page? Anyway, did either of us say we were the idiots? Did either of us say we were in charge. Anyway, if it is an idiocracy, and if we are members of the idiocracy community, then we've got to recognize this factor. Once we do, we have lots of choices in this regard. – S. Rich (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, sgt. I already knew my English words. You seemed to equate the lady's statement with a statement calling someone or everyone or you an idiot. Don't worry. Nobody thinks you're an idiot. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You know, as low as my expectations for this place are, I'm still surprised by the ANI. By now, I know that the practice on WP is to "work backwards" and apply policy to one's predetermined conclusions that (as opposed to trying to trying to conform one's edits to policy). But in this case, no "backwards" argument is even remotely plausible (Rich's attempts are just embarrassing -- see, e.g., his claim that Bink's removal of a general reference because it wasn't used in the article (a patently erroneous rationale) was right, because someone else with a (non-bogus) rationale could have also removed it). The plain language of WP:Hounding says correcting errors isn't hounding. Since there is no way to argue Bink didn't commit errors, his "colleagues" haven't bothered arguing anything; they've Just Said No to "Hounding!"

What surprises me is that Srich himself is highly articulate on the point that following a user's edits to correct errors is not hounding. Srich has long followed various editors all over the place, and nobody has hauled him before ANI. Sometimes he catches an error, sometimes he's just annoying, but it's part of life. Nobody on WP should really be so thin-skinned that good-faith following is called a critical violation of policy. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's bizarre. I suppose all of his talk page comments (after being banned from both of our pages) were not hounding, but correction of "unambiguous errors? Steeletrap (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI "evidence"

I just clicked the link where you testify that I first called @Binksternet: by the now-forbidden nickname which he considers derisive. I don't see that the link shows what you assert. Could you check it out and report back? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that the thread to which you linked shows a number of editors, including the very sensitive Admin @Adjwilley:, engaged in light and innocuous banter about diminutive nicknames. It doesn't seem helpful to cite that thread from the vantage of hindsight after Bink stated his dislike of the nickname. I'm not understanding your ANI post at all. Please consider whether you feel it's helpful or will only further confuse the topic. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to warn you: Your statement that my post was "the insulting referral to a pacifier...was initiated by SPECIFICO" is a personal attack on me. I made no such association or insult. Remove that attack now or I will seek sanctions against you. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I am considering what you have said. – S. Rich (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I see your change. It doesn't dissociate me from Steeletrap's negative association. You're capable of understanding my complaint and resolving it if you wish. If you want a quick fix just get me out of there. If not, WP requires you to be accurate in your representations concerning other editors. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What FRINGE is not

Working on this, what do you think?--v/r - TP 18:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Gaines

He's really more of a general opinion columnist, but maybe that falls under "journalist" broadly defined. VictorD7 (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

He's simply listed as a journalist, so that's what I used. – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your vandalism on Vani Hari

Please revert your bad-faith vandalism of Vani Hari in the removal of an entire criticism section. You claimed that the sources were unviable but "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If you do not revert I will be forced to report your vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Vani Hari, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and WILL BE reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCIENCE MEANS REALITY (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry to say that SMR is a newbie who hasn't taken a close look at the WP:5P. I'm going to archive this thread and leave at at that. – S. Rich (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin

Have a look. See what you think? Maybe you can be of some assistance there. SPECIFICO talk 13:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And so did I do a good job? If I did, perhaps someone who mis-cites and mis-represents policy isn't such a ..... – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

removing my comment

In reading your talk page I see you have a possible conflict of interest in the discussion about Bowe Berghahl on the article talk page - yet, I would not remove your comment as you did mine. My opinion is based upon special training and experience as well, probably much more so than yours, and unlike most of the editors here, I have had actual professional experience with men such as the subject. I did not edit the article for that reason and would hope you do not either for ethical reasons. 162.198.9.231 (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Your point is correct, to a limited extent. My comments were made in the context of other edits about the POW medal. I was addressing the question of how such speculation is pertinent to the article. Even with my professional experience there is no conflict of interest. It matters not to me whether he gets the medal or not. It matters not to me whether he or his father have problems. And I did not offer my personal opinion on those topics. Any edits I make on the article are and will be, I hope, within Wikipedia editing guidelines & policies. – S. Rich (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to your experience in the UCMJ. My opinions were personal in that they related to this particular POW. My experience is professional, like yours, and therefore, according to my interpretation of Wiki guidelines, neither of us should edit the actual article itself. I thought the talk page would be permissible. I will search the guidelines for talk pages but will refrain from this one for reasons given. 162.198.9.231 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

We strive in Wikipedia to rely on reliable sources. So we can't take my opinion and incorporate it into an article, nor yours. But if we have contributions to make based on the RS, we can do so. At the same time your professional restrictions may be more severe based on patient confidentiality requirements, but there is no such restriction on me because I do not have a professional relationship (as opposed to an "association") with the parties. Actually, professional experience is needed in Wikipedia – we just need to use it in the right way. – S. Rich (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject of WP:Hounding

I want to (for the third time) ban you from my talk page and instruct you not follow me to any other articles. Your motives in following me are malicious and not intended to improve the encyclopedia. Your malice was illustrated by the absurd and frankly tendentious arguments you made to ban me on the Binkster ANI. Steeletrap (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I kindly request that you stay out of future disputes concerning me. Other users, including uninvolved users, have spoken to your bias against me. What say you? Steeletrap (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

'[I]f a user has a good faith reason to believe you are prone to policy violations, there would be valid cause to follow your edits.' A TBAN might be one such reason.

And what is the policy or guideline that gives any non-admin editor authority to "instruct" another editor not to edit other articles (or participate in discussions)?

In any event, there is no malice or bias against you. (Please tell me exactly who as cast such WP:ASPERSIONS against me?) You are an intelligent and often helpful editor. Indeed, I might be the stupidest person you've ever met, so your assistance on things like the best usage of the Gini index would be helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

PS: Say, when you engage in discussion on an editor's talk page it is pretty clear that you are open to discussion. On May 15 I asked you for help on the Gini index question. And I posted a short note to you about the edit summary on 22 May (and you engaged the discussion). Earlier you had posted on this page the info about mansplaining (on 4 May). And we had discussion about that topic. I would not think that discussions between editors are not restricted to one editor talk page or the other. (E.g. Does WP allow us to say "I can post on your page but you can't post on mine."?) Rather, we have WP:TPNO guidelines to follow. So...you may have said for the third time that I should not post on your userpage, but on 4 May and 15 May it seemed that you were willing to have discussion. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Farce over the "fantastic hold" quote.

Now they're actually trying to justify reverting Box Office Mojo's "fantastic hold" quote on the grounds that "fantastic" is Hollywood "jargon" that might be misinterpreted by readers to mean fanciful or imaginary. They're just phoning it in now, not even putting effort into a pretense of neutral, quality editing because they don't feel they need to. Some of those comments couldn't possibly have been written with a straight face; hell, they even made me chuckle. It would likely only take one or maybe two other editors jumping in and being willing to revert to stem this obvious nonsense. Without that the article will continue to spiral in a comically one side, POV direction. VictorD7 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the clarify tag and then I saw the line disappear. I had not gotten around to taking a closer look. I presumed that "fantastic" was used because the source said so. But the fact could have been restated in SUMMARYSTYLE without the vague term. I don't think the NPOVN is going to go anywhere. Perhaps posting an RFC would be productive. I've been mulling on how to present it. (Of course, I still think my idea of a further reading section of links is the best course of action.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

How is "fantastic" vague? Did I (and the sources, and the dictionaries) cross into some parallel universe where "fantastic" isn't used as a superlative? The word, a direct quote, is important because it captures how strongly the source was remarking about the historically strong hold. The sentence and surrounding context make it perfectly clear what "fantastic hold" means. Srich, I'd ask that you stop bending over so far backwards to be conciliatory that you lend the appearance of credibility to obviously trollish/POV positions. That does more harm than good. That we still have a poster updating weekly screen losses, which I've never seen on any Wiki movie article, without context or a rationale as to why that's notable, even while we have a direct quote from the page's most frequently cited source handing us a reason for including at least the second week totals being deleted on preposterous grounds is a disgrace to this supposed encyclopedia. VictorD7 (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Consider an equivalent example from a different topic: "KCBS traffic-chopper pilot Jack McMuffin said 'things are going downhill fast on I-5.'" Encyclopedic? SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Which part are you asking about? Use of "downhill fast"? Of course it can be encyclopedic. If that's the quote, and the quote is deemed worthy of inclusion for whatever reason, then his use of a common expression isn't problematic at all. In this case we aren't even talking about a metaphor, but a source's use of an English language superlative defined as such in dictionaries. VictorD7 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hari

Angry people notwithstanding, could I ask why you removed the comments about Hari's opposition to a) the flu shot and b) microwave ovens? Thanks. DS (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to explain at Talk:Vani_Hari#Self_Published_Sources. She's not an expert on those topics, not having been published by a reliable publisher. Her opinions on the subjects come from her blog/webpage and are WP:SPS. Also, they are WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I think the best course of action is to exercise caution and omit the material. – S. Rich (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you've asked, am I getting this wrong? – S. Rich (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

SCIENCE MEANS REALITY

At this stage, I don't thing further engagement will do anything productive. I'd suggest stepping away, at least until the block expires. Kudos for keeping a cool head through that, though. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I gather you posted this a minute after my last remark. And I do intend to stay cool. Clearly SMR is NOTHERE, so it won't matter after a few days. Thanks for the Kudos. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your 4RR on America (2014)

I like you, so I'm going to give you another warning so you can self-revert and avoid being blocked.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't like you. And you don't know what overriding is. Take a look at WP:RV and consider. Then go to the 3RR report page. – S. Rich (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Specifico, you have 4 clear reverts in less than 24 hours. Revert 1 Revert 2 Revert 3 Revert 4 Arzel (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Arzel. Specifico's listing of my diffs starts off with one that covers 21 edits by 5 different editors. Number two covers 4 edits by me. Number 3 is "See also" list which is not in the article at present. Number 4 was syntax & editorial changes. Each of my edits had an edit summary, which directly pertained to the edit. (Jez, just what diff should I revert?) I get this BS from Specifico too often. That is one reason I don't like him. – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring on America

Again

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.

SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. Your edit summary said "We have no RS for calling this film documentary". I provided RS and restored the categories that pertain. This was normal editing. Nothing was overridden. On the other hand, you added "polemic" as a descriptive and that descriptive lacked RS. To use your word, "again" Bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that 3RR is what attorneys call a "bright line" test. If I recall correctly, you have 5RR on 2 recent occasions on that article. You seem to overlook the language in the warning above, which is intended to help you understand community norms. Cussin' is not likely to change site policy. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So I'm at 10RR total? Why don't you post the diffs – doing so might help your recollection. Keep in mind, though, that normal editing does not count. And each change had a WP:REVEXP. – S. Rich (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Boy. Do you really not understand how reverts are counted? You don't take 5RR one day and 5RR the next and add them up like chickens. Yes, "normal" does count, if it is arevert. You better read up. Study the 3RR board. It's what attorneys call a "bright line" -- see what the warning says: "even if you think you are right" -- that's why I posted the warning for you. See also mansplaining SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The word "total" didn't signal anything? Like I understood what 5RR + 5RR =? Since I'm at 5RR on those two occasions it should be easy for you to work up a noticeboard posting. Go somewhere else to plant your insincere kisses. – S. Rich (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I know that, from a battleground point of view, you might think others would be waiting to "nail" you on a noticeboard. In fact the contrary is the case. Most editors simply want to see disruptive behavior stop and have no interest in blaming, or filing Noticeboard cases against, their colleagues here. Noticeboards consume lots of editor time and attention and so in my opinion they are not an efficient way to get things back on track. More of a last resort. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the only reason you feel the edits are disruptive is because they have involved the edits you made. But I'm not sure because you say there are 10 reverts and you don't specify any diffs. (Now you did give me 4 so-called "diffs" yesterday when you asked me to self-revert , but I refuted your so-called RRs.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem addled. I gave you the diffs on your violation a day or two ago. You didn't seem to care. I suggest you read the policies read the 3RR noticeboard cases and be more careful in the future. I'm sure that will be more effective than a tutorial you don't seem able to hear or understand. Your "refutation" yesterday was incorrect, as was Arzel's posting on your page. You would do well to scrutinize the history after boning up on policy. The facts are there for you to see. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism

I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

John Stanton

Hey there...Thank you for cleaning up the page--JS...I check now and then to see if it is accurate and have one of my nephews play with the site...So the edits are within the guidelines plus it looked pretty sloppy...

I have no problem with the edits, of course, but the timing of Plot Spoiler's revisions are, well, suspiciously coincidental given what I have written lately. Plot's editing history nearly always focuses on matters relating to Israel and title towards trying to clean up any criticism by using the Wiki guidelines. It is all there on the record, Judge, so to speak. I know that the Israel-Arab conflict is the subject of intense passion so much so that Wiki has a policy on the matter.

I am going to contact Plot at some point for an interview by email and would like to do the same with you...

The fact that the profile was revised by you in good faith is a good thing.

But fact that someone with a long track record of subject specific revisions, relating to the ongoing nightmare in the Middle East, noticed the profile today is quite coincidental (or that anyone would!). Plot also has been the subject of controversy within Wiki as the record reflects.

That's a story. It'll go something like this: For a year profile was dormant and articles by JS were added. This did not comply with Wiki rules and so the edits were "legal" within the realm of Wiki Law. Concidently, on ________________ a Wiki patrolman PS corrected the errors. But there is more. PS Wiki history linked _______________________.....I will also mention how the conflict in the ME has affected postings and that Wiki attempts to stay neutral...according to Srich...my email is captainkong22@gmail.com...the wiki world is confusing to me esp to communicate — Preceding unsigned comment added by MISOwarfare1 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you freaking kidding me?

Why did you retain this POV garbage? What "noteworthy" changes did you make to it? Specifico thanked me for removing it and scooby actually posted in the relevant Talk Page section to argue against the material. If the three of us agree it's likely a sound position. The only one who supported it was Steelbeard...and now apparently you. Could you please explain why you support it in the above linked Talk Page section? Please provide any examples you can find of this crap ever being used in movie articles, along with whatever rationale you come up with. The only example Steelbeard could provide was another conservative movie he had personally added it to. Keep in mind that Steebeard's expressed talk page rationale is explicitly POV and invalid. Do you have a better one? VictorD7 (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I see Specifico has reverted and commented. That's fine with me. If s/he had commented earlier in the thread, I may have left it alone. (Sometimes I surmise that Specifico reverts my edits simply because I was the one who does them.) In the meantime, may I suggest less WP:SHOUTING in your comments as well as fewer loaded questions such as "Are you aware of the fact that all movies' screen counts drop over time?" (Give me some credit, of course I'm aware.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Sometimes I surmise that Specifico reverts my edits simply because I was the one who does them." -- (Personal attack removed) SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't shout. I frequently bold quotes just to clearly set them apart from my own words. I used no all caps (except for an abbreviation) and only a couple of italicized words for emphasis. The "drop" question was pertinent since it underscored the glaring need for a noteworthiness rationale that was never provided. Sometimes I wonder if you revert (or hat or tag or fuss over) my posts for less than legitimate reasons too, especially given cases like this where the material I removed was so rationally indefensible. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on Srich. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Please review the policy concerning personal attacks and what does and does not constitute PA. Keep in mind that calling another editor's words a personal attack when they clearly fall outside the defined limits of PA is itself a personal attack. Thank you. Time to chill. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution notice RE:Retrospective diagnoses of autism and WikiProject tags

This is a notification to inform you that a discussion has been added to the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute you may be involved in. Muffinator (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Direct link: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism

Challenge(s) to the closure of the N. Tesla RFC closing

Editors who wish to discuss the closure I performed at Talk:Nikola Tesla#Tesla's father, Serbian Orthodox priest may do so here. – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Re: Things

Dreadstar has been repeatedly rude to me and appears to be following me around looking for reasons to do so. It is getting very frustrating and while I am trying to stay calm about it, I do not feel I should be required to put up with that sort of behavior. Meanwhile I have not referred to either yourself or Elaqueate as being incivil or rude since our discussion and I intend to continue doing so. I think you're woefully mistaken on a number of points but you're at least talking in good faith.

If I could ask, however: (A) could you try to be more detailed when giving your objections. Your writing style and habit of holding things close to the vest do make it frustrating at times. (B) could you please clarify why you removed the 3O request between myself and Elaqueate. Your comment indicated to me that you were speaking regarding Elaqueate's mistaken reply (which I believe he intended for the Gorski section). 98.196.234.202 (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)