User talk:Steeletrap

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)

A cupcake for you!

Happy Halloween back at you.  :) Arzel (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Arzel. I will have to break my diet to eat your treat! Steeletrap (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I hope you like kitty. Thanks for your sweet Halloween surprise, Steele.

SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Kitty is adorable. I will take good care of her. Steeletrap (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And one for Caroldc

This is for Carolmooredc, leaving it here for pickup.. I hope you enjoy this pussy cat!

SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween Carol Moore!

Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween User:Carolmooredc! I am out of baked goods but I brought you this Jack-o-Lantern. I am banned from your page but you should come over here and pick it up! I hope you enjoyed your night and picked out a good costume.Steeletrap (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Steeletrap and User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Srich32977 (Result: ) Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning regarding Austrian economics/General sanctions

I'm sure you're already aware of this, but just in case, I want to make sure that you're aware that Robert P. Murphy is under [Austrian economics/General sanctions]. Your edits here[1] appear to be a violation of WP:BLP. You are not allowed to use self-published blogs, special interest groups or other questionable sources as third-party sources regarding living people. Further misconduct may result in sanctions including blocks and topic bans. As I explained on the article talk page,[2] the content may possibly be restored, but proper sourcing is required. Rather than edit-war, I strongly suggest that you attempt to reach consensus on the talk. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you an admin? I need to figure out whether your adding this is blatantly unjustified or if I have to explain things further. Steeletrap (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Not NE Ent 03:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nickname for Binksternet

I see that Binksternet goes by "Bink". Adding the -ie, to make it diminutive, may not be appreciated. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If anyone calls me Steelie they'll be banned. Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC) ;) Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich are you on retainer? Are you his Kinsella? SPECIFICO talk 04:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And if anybody calls me Adjwillie...oh...wait... ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I do not think your "Binkie" edit was so innocent, or playful. It followed this edit [3] within a matter of hours. Rather than taking a message (above) about civility at face value, and considering its implications, you and another editor had to mock it. You should have apologized and engendered some good will. Sadly, while Adjwilley did well by toning down the matter, you would not take the hint. – S. Rich (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

PS: I do note that you addressed Bink by his proper nickname here: [4]. Thank you. That said, I hope we can get back on track on proper editing and discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977:You need to assume good faith, and stop your meddlesome and uncivil behavior. Please remove your reference to me above, which I consider a PA and a violation of Sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree Rich. I don't mind you commenting here but the frequency of your comments (and the typically trivial occasions which give rise to them) make them seem meddlesome. I will have to create a walled garden for you to leave your comments in if this continues.

Also: The post you link to seemed quite playful, although admittedly not so innocent (it was, after all, written by perpetually naughty User:SPECIFICO). Steeletrap (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Fringe categorization

If you think any of that economic stuff, which you disagree with, is fringe, you ought to bring it up on the WP:FTN. Fringe, in WP, has a particular meaning. State your case regarding fringe on the noticeboard, but please don't add inappropriate categories. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 I'm not talking about econ, but rather talking about their publishing of articles (for instance) arguing that HIV is harmless passenger virus/does not cause AIDS and that vaccines cause autism. Those claims are fringe. The fringe characterization was WP:Con for years, originally added by User:Mastcell (now an admin), prior to being removed without explanation. Please resolve to read things more carefully before criticizing other users. Steeletrap (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you have commented in the past that economics is a science and that the Austrians, et al., are really not scientists. The article is about LRC. LRC may be a platform for different views, but the views of someone who is not directly associated with LRC other than by the fact that LRC has published stuff about certain subjects is not enough. In other words, you are trying to bootstrap "fringe" into the article categorization scheme. LRC has published a lot of nonsense about a lot of topics. That does not mean we categorize the LRC article into every category that has some tangential relationship to LRC. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion of "fringe science" regarding LRC, which we both participated in, was about the articles they've published on physical sciences (not econ). Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting late for me, so please forgive me if I defer at present on a further reply. You well deserve my full attention. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977 You know better than to refer to Ms. Steele's good faith (and amply justified) edit as an attempt to force her opinion on WP. I have removed the comment and to be blunt, I don't want to see that kind of thing happen again. Don't mistake her polite manner for acquiescence. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I think I understand your concern on the categorization question. You see disagreeable stuff in LRC, particularly on topics involving AIDS denial, homosexuality, vaccine & autism, and you disagree with the LRC writers on economics. But I also think you don't understand the role of categories in WP. Please take a look at WP:CAT. In the overview, you'll see:

"The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics."

With this in mind, it is correct to add articles about the vaccine nuts & AIDS denial nuts in fringe categories or subcategories because their pseudoscience views (as essential, defining characteristics) are fringe science. (And, sadly, the anti-vaccine crowd is growing. The result is the deaths of innocents who do not get the vaccines and/or benefit from herd immunity.) But the fact the LRC has published the vaccine & AIDS nonsense does not serve to give LRC essential, defining characteristics as a fringe science topic. (Continuum (magazine), is properly categoriezed in HIV/AIDS denailism because it was devoted to the topic.) The same holds true for the economics topics that LRC writers print. The fact that you and others disagree with the scientific or non-scientific nature of their ideas would not justify putting these articles in fringe science categories.

Please don't think I was engaging in PA when I say you disagree about certain topics. I disagree with the AIDS denialists & vaccine lunatics. I also disagree with vegetarianism. Telling me so would not be PA. And I think I misunderstood your purpose when I saw the "fringe science" and "AIDS denial" cats added. I apologize for my misunderstanding I have stricken then reference to econ in my opening comment. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a reply on the WP:FTN. Also, I removed the sub-section markup. Your comment is in follow-up to MrBill3's comment, but does not represent a new topic. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with homosexuality etc. It's just a fact that saying HIV is a "harmless passenger virus" is to engage in fringe science. This has nothing to do with ethical opposition to genocide (which was basically the result of the Duesberg hypothesis being implemented by Thabo Mbeki's regime in South Africa). Steeletrap (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand it has nothing to do with the other topics. My concern is proper categorization of articles in WP. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murray Rothbard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Murray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

B***S**t

Steeletrap, you might recall that I used that particular term, and I mistakenly described it as "uncivil". An ANI resulted, alleging/claiming/complaining that I had violated civility guidance – but the matter was closed quickly. As I recall, the closer said it was doubtful that an Admin would support a decision that using a shorthand term that referenced bovine feces was sanctionable. (And I still use the term, but I won't call it uncivil as it usually refers to the content that is posted, without commenting personally about the editor.) Your recent message falls within WP:DTTR. Not guidance or policy by any stretch, but the essay might explain why the posting you made won't have much impact. More specifically, I doubt that the comment really applies to a user with 100,000+ edits and 6 years years of experience. Personally, I hope the other editor won't respond. Thank you for considering my remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your removal of non-contentious content at Nubian people

I have no idea why you reverted that and not the unsourced material about horsemanship, but anyone who knows about Eygptian depictions and Nubian archers knows that the text is correct, although could be enhanced, qualified, whatever. It's not contentious. I've restored it with a fact tag and a better source for the two sentences respectively. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey User:Dougweller, I agree that removal was probably a poor decision in retrospect, as the material is certainly accurate, and a good source can be found. What irritated me was the language which contrasted "Nubians" with "Egyptians" who painted pictures depicting the former as dark skinned. Many -- perhaps most -- Nubians identify as Egyptians, even if they are of a different ethnicity or race than the majority, so a qualifier like "Northern Egyptians" would have to be made. Steeletrap (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I know what you mean although that's not the way the sources describe them. [5] [6] [7] [8] (not just the Egyptians, seems the Nubians did also). Dougweller (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fair, Doug, but in a modern context, I think a lot of Nubians would call themselves "Native Egyptians" (or something like that). As I'm sure you know, the two countries were completely distinct for awhile (politically and ethnically). But Nubia eventually conquered Egypt -- there were many Nubian pharaohs -- and I think historical acknowledgment of that period and the attachment of Nubians to the land of southern Egypt led to a change in identification. (Full disclosure: While I'm a lily-white Jewish girl, there are Nubians in my extended family, so I have some (albeit anecdotal) evidence for my position.) Steeletrap (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Observation – there were a lot of exchanges in the area over the several dynasties of ancient Egypt and Nubia. I bet they anticipated an open-armed reception when they saw the "Welcome to Egypt!" sign at Aswan as they traveled north. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Notice that you have been mentioned here regarding issues which have been repeatedly connected to Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomas DiLorenzo FYI

As you did some editing on the article, you might wish to look at Talk:Thomas DiLorenzo#Undue section. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't remove tags, such as "Undue", until the issues are resolved on the talk page. And labeling them as "obstructionist" infringes on WP:AGF. – S. Rich (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:AEGS notice

Individual editor notice and logging in per Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community regarding Thomas DiLorenzo BLP issues discussed at length on the talk page and now going to WP:BLPN (as well as past warning regarding poor RSN in BLP).
As a result of a community discussion, the community has enacted editing restrictions, described at WP:AEGS and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian economics, if, despite being notified of these restrictions, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanction being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to the community discussion and, when appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor, provided the editor has been previously informed as this message does. This notice does not necessarily mean your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice will be logged at WP:AEGS.
Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)