User talk:MilesMoney

Please note: If your message is related to a disputed edit, the best thing to do is open a discussion on the talkpage of the article instead of leaving a message here. This way we may involve as many editors as possible instead of confining the discussion here. Wikipedia is a community effort. Let's use this community component. Thank you.

Welcome!

Hello, MilesMoney, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! PrairieKid (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You may want to take part in this discussion.

Here . Casprings (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And here's another (totally unrelated to the DRN above): Talk:Gary North (economist). – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

King

Think Progress and the Colbert Report are not reliable sources. It is not my job to fix your POV errors. Additionally that section contains original research which is also not allowed. Arzel (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please use the Steve King talk page. I'm not sure how to link to it, but I'm sure you can find it. MilesMoney (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To link to an outside site, http, etc, but to link to a Wikipedia site, no http, just, for instance Talk:Steve King sections have a #before the subsection title. With respect to Arzel's comments, no, ThinkProgress is not a WP:RS because they are an advocacy site that PRETENDS to have news, but doesn't, and what "opinions" there are on it can be neither properly attributed, nor are they strictly opinions in the usual sense; they are like opposition candidates' sites; not that concerned with accuracy, nor evidence that they really believe the "opinions" expressed. Colbert report, again, is a comedy site; no evidence that the opinions are serious or not, that is not the reason they broadcast. The "not my job to fix" comment is a perhaps harsh way of expressing what is in fact a universal WP policy, that it is the posting editors' responsibility to back up an edit with WP:RS, not to post and expect others to find WP:RS. It is certainly appropriate to put content on the Talk page, and ask there for fellow editors to find appropriate refs, it happens all the time.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, this is the sort of thing that belongs on the Steve King talk page, ok? MilesMoney (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have brought this up at the ANI board here. Arzel (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Service award

This user is a
Registered Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Hello. Please don't let remarks about being a new editor discourage you. Instead, I offer this Service Award in acknowledgment of your contributions. You may leave it here, post on your userpage, or simply delete as you see fit. – S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Lemme see if I can figure out how to move it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Explaining RSN

Hello again. CarolMooreDC has provided a link to the RSN (reliable source noticeboard) in her discussion. Let me explain. For everything in Wikipedia we look for WP:RS (reliable sources). Some things are obvious, like the New York or London Times. But other things get less and less clear. When it comes to blogs, we are very careful. If a source is a newsblog, that is one under the editorial control of a RS publisher, we are okay. (I often look at WorldCat to see if libraries have obtained the material. (My mother was a librarian.)) But personal blogs are another matter. When doubtful or disputed sources are posted, we can discuss the source on the WP:RSN. If the community reaches a consensus that the source is not RS, we do not use it. In the North article, the source you want to post has repeated some of the material we find in other sources, so I wonder if we really need it. If you have questions, feel free to let me know. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Steve King

Hi MilesMoney. I've noticed that you've been making many reverts over the last few days at the Steve King. This does indeed count as edit warring - I saw that you referred to an exception for violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, but this exception is the other way round from what seems to be your current understanding. The exception is for removing controversial unsourced or poorly-sourced information about living people, not for adding it. Note that I'm not saying anything about the actual sourcing in this case, as I haven't examined it closely. Also, I saw an edit summary of yours that said "if you dont like the refs, fix the refs", but actually the BLP policy says that material about living people should be removed entirely if it is not well-sourced. It doesn't look like you have had any messages about edit warring yet, so I'll leave a boilerplate message below - sorry for the impersonal format. Feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any questions about it, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Where I come from, we call this shutting the barn door after all the cows have left. I've agreed to a moratorium on editing that page, and it looks like it's going to be frozen by admins. MilesMoney (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Interaction with other editors

MilesMoney, please take a look at WP:INTIM. Remarks like "And, no, I really don't have to put up with that" [1] and "you are not competent...." [2] and "I won't put up with it." [3] are divisive. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Try not to quote me out of context. I absolutely do not have to put up with incompetence or pov-pushing. If you think otherwise, you are sadly mistaken. MilesMoney (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and don't misquote me, either. I said "are not WP:COMPETENT", bringing up the Wikipedia rule he's violating, not personally insulting him. Now I have to wonder the same about you. MilesMoney (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement "You are not [[WP:COMPETENT]], much less [[WP:NPOV]]." addresses the other editor directly. It is not about the article. Try some diplomacy. Make this a community effort and please address other editors with that goal in mind. – S. Rich (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, your attempts at unsolicited mentoring are unconstructive, and I hope that given Miles' responses to your efforts you will take a step back. Don't bite. SPECIFICO talk 19:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Miles is a noob, so WP:Bite applies, Srich. We all should try to be more civil, but the WP:Competence problems generally characterizing these libertarian articles (note that I'm not speaking specifically to the situation in which Miles invoked that term, which I haven't read) is enough to make anyone lose her temper.

From personal experience, I also have to say that I consider your (Rich's) "mentoring" to basically equate to WP:Hounding. Steeletrap (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, and to bring Miles up to date, many the "mentees" on whom Srich has descended have left Wikipedia or instructed Srich not to post on their talk pages. My advice, Miles, is to keep focused on your editing and on getting up the learning curve on WP policy and community. Best regards and thanks for your efforts here. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in here. The two of you have pretty much said what I would have, but more politely, and it looks better coming from you.

I'm not going to banish him from my talk page quite yet, but he's not particularly welcome here. If he wants to post something important, I'm fine with that. If it's just unwanted advice or weak threats, I know how to revert. MilesMoney (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miles. Don't let Srich bait you into confronting him about his behavior on the article talk page. Better to give him a day to consider the matter. After that, if he has no further response to your concerns you may more reasonably infer that he has dropped his objections. Every time he mentions "policy" I suggest you take it as an opportunity to read what the policy actually says. Contentious editors mis-quote and mis-apply policy right and left around here. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 03:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here is that the two of them are dragging their feet. One keeps ignoring the fact that "popular" either means "lots of fans" or "amateur", so every mention of the second sort of "popular" is support for "amateur". The other, as you noticed, is just avoiding the whole debate by making vague noises about policy, hoping it'll blow over. Well, it won't. If they won't engage, I gotta just go right past them. They have to shit or get off the pot, already. MilesMoney (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Give it time. These articles will keep changing over and over. Also, each editor is different so try to avoid thinking of "them" -- I only commented because one of the editors made what looked like a weird remark, but give it a day or two and meanwhile work on other things or other articles. SPECIFICO talk 04:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm patient in the sense of being persistent, but it's pretty clear that their strategy here is to drag their feet and then say "oh, we already talked about it". I don't mean "they" in some general sense, just these two dudes. MilesMoney (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If I'm correct in understanding that a total of 6 hours has passed, that is way too short a time to get so frustrated. Take a day or two off and see where it stands. Good luck over and out. SPECIFICO talk 04:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but they've been dragging their feet for days, not to mention edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to say that it is a common Wikipedia tactic to provoke editors to break the WP:NPA rule as a way of getting them removed from editing for a period. Not sure if that is happening here, but this is an article with a strong history of meat puppetry and behind the scenes organisation so it behoves everyone to be careful. Sorry to remove part of your text but it was a personal attack and would detract from the important content point you were making. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't intended as a personal attack. It was intended to tell him that, since he admits he doesn't understand simple words, his opinion is worthless. If he wants to play dumb to avoid dealing with what the sources say, he's going to make himself look too dumb to matter.

Still, you have a point and I haven't reverted your change. MilesMoney (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Any passing admin would see it as a personal attack - I know I have been there :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. I left a longer explanation on RL's talk page. Any passing admin who takes that as a personal attack would be intentionally misreading it. MilesMoney (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

and again

You have brought a much needed breath of fresh air and sourcing to the Ayn Rand page, but this is going to get you blocked or topic banned if you continue in the same vein: "This is the sort of tone-deaf, biased and desperately literal misinterpretation that I've come to expect from you. It's the sort of behaviour that makes me question your basic WP:COMPETENCE and write off your opinions as noise."

Passive aggression is a standard Wikipedia tactic on controversial articles and it allows an experienced polemical editor to get opponents blocked. I suggest you strike that and replace it with something along the lines of "Its getting very difficult to work with you if you misinterpret sources and comments in this way" which says the same thing but does not break the civility rules. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make that change right now. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That having been said, Snowded, there are instances in which disruptive editors do indeed lack WP competence, including the social skills or willingness to interact collaboratively. As noted, however, and graciously acknowledged by Miles, his statement above was inappropriate. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful to stay civil while still being honest and direct. It's not that easy, and when I slip, I will apologize and correct myself, especially if it's pointed out. MilesMoney (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it's just better to ignore what Snowded indicates could be a passive/aggressive provocation strategy. Regardless of whether it is that or simply incompetence, it may be pointless to engage such an editor. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have sinned greatly in this respect in the past ....----Snowded ^TALK 16:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The incompetence strategy is widespread on these fringey articles. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I am more than ready to disengage from this person, but they keep edit-warring against all comers, as if they WP:OWN every article about Rand. Just look at Objectivism, where I fixed it to be consistent with Ayn Rand and it led to an edit war that I walked away from. I've looked around to see if there's a non-stupid way to resolve these conflicts, but haven't found a thing. MilesMoney (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Bye

My ISP is run by North York's biggest douchebags, so I've found a VPN that lets me bypass their filters but doesn't tell the world that I'm some place far away. This lets me run BitTorrent in the background to pick up rare (but legal) torrents. Unfortunately, some idiot used the same VPN to vandalize Wikipedia or something, so they've enforced a blanket ban on the IP range. I sent in a note to Wikipedia, asking for an exception, but they basically told me to go fuck myself. So I'm responding by telling Wikipedia to go fuck itself. If I have to choose between BitTorrent and Wikipedia, it's an easy choice to make. Too bad Wikipedia is run by assholes who don't trust their users.

Keep up the good fight and all that, but you're on your own.

Signing out... MilesMoney (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)