User talk:Steeletrap: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:16, 5 May 2013

This is Steeletrap's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2

Ben Swann deletion discussion

You might add something like "[by OP]" after your commets. (See: WP:Glossary#O.) Editors will better understand that you are the Original Poster, and not another/new editor adding commentary. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable (I did it). Also: do note that your justification for arguing "keep" for Swann is unsound. By claiming Swann meets the first criterion of WP:Creative, you show you misunderstand it. That criterion states that a journalist must be "widely cited" by RS journalists. Having had one (or, for that matter, two or three or four) citation in one RS ever does not make one "widely cited" by RS journalists. Steeletrap (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite flattered that you took up my recommendation! I should have been clearer. A better place for "OP" would be immediately after the 'Comment. (This is something that I've seen in other discussions. IMHO it just looks better. There is no Manual of Style or Guideline that even suggests it to my knowledge.) If you like, I'll move the OP comment for you (tomorrow). As for Swann, I really don't GAF. We'll let the community decide. – S. Rich (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do on the edits. And you do GAF about WP guidelines. Therefore, you should, in my view, GAF about basing an argument that affects WP on a false understanding one of them. Steeletrap (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. As discussed on the article talk page., this edit [1] was disruptive. – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm leaving Wikipedia; this harassment is just too much. For the record, I have with good cause consistently regarded you as obscenely biased (hilariously believing that a local newscaster's opinion piece exonerates all my evidence against Rockwell) and devoted to protecting LvMI people. I staunchly believe that my edits regarding the libertarian people will be held up by neutral members of the community. What's hilarious is that Carol is the one violating WP:Con here (in a section three other editors agreed on) and I'm merely reverting her personal-attack supported edits. Steeletrap (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, if one has a strong POV in an area, it's better to learn the ropes in a less controversial area since one will tend not to believe what editors with opposing views say. I certainly found that to be true editing in the Israel-Palestine area and so it took me longer to believe things they were telling me about policy that were in fact true. After 5 or 6 or 7 years of editing 10 or 15 hours a week one does get pretty good at knowing what the community will and will not approve of. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, your conduct (originally read "you're an embarassment" -- that was a typographical error that was understandably misinterpreted as a personal attack. I submit that I should be given the benefit of the doubt that I am telling the truth and 1) forgot to type one word and 2) wrote "you're" instead of your, particularly because I was writing frantically and responding rapidly to charged claims.) is an embarrassment to this community and you are in no position to lecture anyone. Steeletrap (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the typical policy language that we've used regarding your edits, that was a personal attack. Not helping you. See WP:No personal attacks for an explanation of the difference. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Steeletrap. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have your wish, S_rich; I'm out (and will not create a "sockpuppet" or anything so absurd as that). I see no reason to be subject to such poor treatment and harassment. The problem for you and Carol (who -- to talk about bias -- has explicitly said on the talk pages of Rockwell and Tucker that these men are too nice and have changed too much to report the truth about them) is that my edits to the pages of your favored scholars have already been made and NPOV editors will acknowledge their veracity. Steeletrap (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only wish that you'd join the community and follow the WP:5Ps – in all regards. But if you are WP:NOTHERE, then so be it. You can simply stop editing, or WP:RETIRE or WP:VANISH. – S. Rich (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really still going with the pretense that this is about Wikipedia rules? Mind=Blown. Steeletrap (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steeltrap, rather than engage in discourse and dispute when it is difficult for you to remain levelheaded, please consider the alternative to bring your concerns to one of the dispute resolution channels here. They are intended to provide constructive channels which deal with issues in an impersonal and open manner. Please consider this as an alternative to dropping out. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I invite and encourage anyone who is interested in drudging up the history of my edits -- specifically regarding Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, LewRockwell.com, and Ron Paul newsletters -- and comparing my contributions to those of Carol and Rich, with a particular eye to her repeated WP:PA against me, to do so. I am too irritated to do this for now. The sharing of information will go on without me and my substantive edits to this Encyclopedia, I am confident, will mostly remain in place. This effectively comes down to a personal decision which makes it an easy call. Steeletrap (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point of DR is not to make more work for you. I'm not familiar with the various channels, but there are separate ones to review content and to review user conduct [RFC/USER)]. After you regain your composure, please consider doing that. You can ask for help at the ANI for setting up your matters for review. The process is not intended to burden new editors or those who are not familiar with the details of procedure. You will find supportive admins to assist you. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SPECIFICO. You are certainly right that it is foolish to make decisions when one is angry; a very hard lesson to learn, but we have to try. Are there really channels where you can report this and they will do the research for you? I feel as if I'd have to write up a three page microsoft word document to properly contextualize my claim of harassment. Steeletrap (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Others may be more knowledgeable than I as to enumerating your options, but you could start at [2] this page. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, rather than think of this in terms of a claim or grievance, just think of it as a request for evaluation and possible mediation of the circumstances. Less stressful and more constructive. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that persistent and/or flagrant BLP violations go to WP:BLPN. I'd prefer to do other things that document all the ones I've seen, not to mention investigate others, so I'd be happy if Steeletrap just learned the WP:BLP rules and got with the program. Note that Specifico already has been report twice to WP:ANI for things that looked a lot less serious than some of the things you've done, so you actually have relatively tolerant (dare I say libertarian?) editors so far. :-) CarolMooreDC🗽

The two ANI reports on SPECIFICO were not well-taken. The second one was basically saying an earlier ANI had been posted. No action has been taken on the first. The posting of any ANI does not, in itself, constitute evidence that an editor has misbehaved. – S. Rich (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert:} You are correct. And the ones vs. SPECIFICO were pretty feeble and even amusing. I tend to avoid ani myself except for obvious sockpuppets and vandals who need immediately attention, and I run into several of those. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, As even your colleague Srich notes, you are getting it quite wrong when it comes to WP:BLPN. I apologize for losing my temper and using shrill language. In reference to the PA accusation above: well, since I have never made a PA before, I should be given the benefit of the doubt on my (true) statement above that the appearance of the ad hominem stemmed from typographical error. (If I were to say it were "ghost written", maybe you would give me the benefit of the doubt!) However, please note that this (again, inappropriate) reaction was in response to harassment from Carol and acquiesence to such harassment from Srich. I will channel my righteous anger into more productive means of holding Carol accountable for her actions. Steeletrap (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez Carol. Did you really intend to make such a comment here? SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On CarolMoore's Hoppe "libel" accusation

This is nonsense. You are welcome to argue that it is WP:Syn to say that BLock says Hoppe says Hoppe advocates coercive violence against gays. (For the record, I disagree: What Block says is that Hoppe's advocacy of "banning gays from polite society" violates the libertarian non-aggression principle, which by definition (according to him/mises institutel ibertarians generally) equates to advocating or engaging in aggressive violence). But the "libelous" title (of "Alleged advocacy of anti-gay violence") I created merely restated and summarized what CON text in the sub-article said and what was tacitly or explicitly accepted by all editors for weeks. Given that CON text, it was an accurate description of the sub-article. The only libelousness is in an accusation of legal wrongdoing being thrown at me. Please note that even if your charges were well-founded, your making them in this fashion is in public defiance of WP: Guidelines. See: WP:Threat, according to which "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You've posted your notice on the editors board. That's enough! Let that discussion, in that forum, run its course. But for you to repeat the commentary here [3] and here: [4] and above is not acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a personal attack. You need to review WP:PA. Something that relates specifically to charges another person has made rather than personal characteristics is not a personal attack. You make a vague charge that I personally attack Carol without specifying a single remark I make about her personal character (as opposed to this specific allegation she makes against me); that's because there are none! I ask that you read WP:PA and then delete your post and apologize to me. If you fail to read and understand WP:PA, I will discuss this with an editor. I generally urge you to follow Wikipedia guidelines in specifying where guidelines are violated rather than vaguely alleging they are. Thanks! Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tu ne cede malis

		The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
		Presented to User Steeletrap. For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. You really helped me get on the right track after losing my temper earlier today. (Hope you don't mind I corrected the spelling of my name to Steeletrap. Steeletrap (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking text

To strike text you do it like this: <s>Text goes here</s> which gives ~~Text goes here~~, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will delete much of talk page following Admin Noticeboard Resolution

Following the resolution of several discussions regarding some personal conflicts that have occurred on this page, I am planning on extensively deleting much of the archives here. (Bad memories and all that) I would ask those threatening to ban me and claiming they have grounds to do so to put up or shut up, by either bringing their concerns to the relevant authorities or stop making them. I was previously naive enough to think many of the users with whom I was arguing had that power, but I know realize the difference between admins and experienced editors. I previously was considering leaving WP not only because I was very angry, but because I felt intimidated by false claims. Yet now I understand that claims that I was about to be "blocked" or whatever were hollow threats. They mean nothing if only supported by non-admins and have no factual basis. Therefore, I am going to remove all of the inflammatory accusations on this page following resolution of these matters by admin (which will likely take several days). Steeletrap (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concise debunking of libel accusations

I have made edits (which, until now, were approved by every other editor on the Hoppe article) saying that Hans Hermann Hoppe is "alleged" to have advocated violence against homosexuals. This follows from 1) The fact that he says Hoppe's view on "banning homosexuals from polite society" violates libertarianism and 2) the fact that Block says any violation of libertarianism necessarily entails advocating or engaging in coercive violence. As far as I can tell, no one disputes premises 1/2 (1 is explicitly stated in the article, and 2 can be confirmed not only in the article by in a host of online sources). From these premises, it logically, as a matter of fact, (not opinion) follows that Block believes Hoppe advocates coercion against homosexuals. You can say that this argument equates to WP:Syn (I disagree), but that isn't the same as libel. Steeletrap (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]