User talk:SPECIFICO

please read WP:EW

You have made 3 reverts in quick succion at Paul Ryan. There is a bright-line rule against exceding 3RR in 24 hours and your next edit will break that line. Such acts would be reported at WP:AN/EW. Note also that you could be blocked even if you do not hit the bright line, as your reverts and summaries show a clear intent to "edit war." Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

--Greetings, Collect. I don't believe that my adding high-quality references and inserting new wording that is a compromise with the critics of this sentence constitute 3 reverts under the EW rules.SPECIFICO 15:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi SPECIFICO - please take a sec and review the policy Collect has pointed to - also WP:BLP, which sets a high bar for sourcing controversial material and characterizations on bio pages. You've been adding some questionable material, including blogs and opinion pieces, and then trying to use these to justify a highly charge characterization such as "lie". As Collect said, if you persist to add these without trying to get consensus, you run the risk of being blocked. Ronnotel (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your note, Ronnotel. I presume you've reviewed the history of that section in the Ryan article. I attempted to add higher quality source citations after a previous editor had complained about National Review. I also feel that said previous editor's substitution of near-meaningless language "drew criticism" weakened the meaning of the section and attempted to be more specific in characterizing the cited sources' concern. At any rate, I'd be pleased to discuss this further on the Paul Ryan talk page if you wish.SPECIFICO 16:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ok, that's great. However I note that you reverted material without engaging concerns that had been raised on the talk page by myself and others. I suggest you self revert and look for consensus on to address this topic. Ronnotel (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid edit-warring

Would you try not to revert the changes of other editors? You should discuss matters on the article talk page or the talk pages of specific editors rather than repeatedly reverting. Reverts should be used sparingly, if at all, with amicable resolution of disputes serving as the norm.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

--Hello I appreciate your taking the time to comment here. I believe that my recent edits have not been "reverts" but rather compromises, additions of citations, or other edits that acknowledge the concerns of other editors. Naturally however, I will keep your comment in mind.SPECIFICO 21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

While I understand that reasoning, it is generally considered a revert when an editor restores nearly identical material to an article repeatedly without getting consensus. Minor alterations do not usually suffice when considering whether something is a revert. Discussion and compromise should be reached through talk page discussion, especially when there have already been so many reverts.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

--Got it. Thanks D.A. In a way then it seems dangerous to try to approach consensus gradually since each edit will involve partial reversion along with addition such as I was doing on that article. I'm not sure that I understand what constitutes a revert under those circumstances, but I did subsequently post on the talk page.SPECIFICO 01:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

5RR in under 7 hours reported at WP:AN/EW

I gave a very gently worded warning. I regret that you did not heed it, even with others telling you to. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at Paul Ryan

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Paul Ryan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Collect (Result: 31h). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE NEW "PERSON" Infobox in my sandbox. Comments Welcome.

If there are no further comments, I will replace the current infobox 24 hours from now and remove the word "economist" from the opening sentence of the Article. Thanks.SPECIFICO 16:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I have mentioned you at ANI here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

General Sanctions on Paul Ryan

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Paul Ryan, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.--v/r - TP 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for Short (finance)

Hi SPECIFICO, I saw that you'd recently edited Short (finance) and it seems that you have an interest in and are knowledgeable about the financial industry, so I wondered if you'd be able to help with a request I've made on that article's Talk page. (I'm not editing directly because I'm working with the Managed Funds Association to prepare new material for this article, so am mindful that I have a COI on the topic.) I've suggested some new wording to help clarify the lead and also provide more detail in the Concept section. If you can take a look, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again SPECIFICO, I've replied on the Short (finance) Talk page but also wanted to leave a note here in case you hadn't seen: I think the changes to the lead that you and RegentsPark have made look good. I was wondering if you'd seen the other change I suggested, for the Concept section? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just replied again on the Short (finance) Talk page regarding the wording for the Concept section. I've addressed the ambiguity you mentioned and have proposed some new wording. If you're able to review this, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And hello once more—I am OK with your changes to my draft paragraph, although I do mean to avoid making direct edits on account of my COI. Would you be willing to make the update yourself? If you don't have time, it's OK. I can also seek another editor's assistance. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm going to have more suggestions for the article going up on the Talk page this week, but I don't mean to monopolize your time, so it's up to you to get involved again or not. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

Hi SPECIFICO, my apologies for making a lousy assumption when adding an occupation that is not sourced and not being cognizant enough when I removing some of the categories. I've already made changes to the article and will be more careful next time. Magellan Maestro (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and thank you for working on this article.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Which type of Austrian?

I just noticed your statement here:[1] I wonder if you would mind my asking which Austrian School tradition you practice. Do you follow the von Mises Institute view, or the Coordination Problem view of what constitutes Austrian school economics? LK (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello LK. Exclusively the latter. Unfortunately from what I have seen the program of the Mises Institute bears little relation to the great Austrian principles and traditions of the 20th Century. Thanks for visiting here.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It seems to me that the Austrian School article is unfairly mis-representing Mises Institute teachings as Austrian school thought. In my opinion, we would do better to present what people like Boetkke and Horwitz describe to be Austrian school economics. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a democracy of the interested; and von Mises Institute followers are the ones most interested in this page. LK (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello LK. I agree with your assessment of this article. There appear to be many editors who have little training or interest in the broad field of economics and who are partisan polemicists documenting the catechism of the Mises Institute. I note that the Mises Institute should not be entirely condemned because their website does present archives of papers and interviews of a range of Austrians, even some such as Machlup and Morgenstern who were actively involved in formulating much government policy in the mid-twentieth century. Some of the article, such as the discussion of methodology appears to have been written by editors who have little understanding of the subject. The litany of principles in the first section reads like the recitation of a cult initiation ritual. I hope that I will be able to contribute to improving this article, as I see that you have already done. Do you know whether there has been any attempt to write a more appropriate and substantive first section, without the list of precepts?'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Short (finance) again

Hi SPECIFICO, I'd like to ask if you're willing to look at a new suggestion (see here) I've recently made on the Short (finance) entry. Regentspark made a helpful comment early last week, but hasn't responded since then. Hope to see you back there, if you have the time. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Hello, I'm Srich32977. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Fractional reserve banking seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. When you remove names such as Rowbatham or Hulsmann, and justify the removals that they are not notable, you are injecting your personal analysis into the edits. Please stop. S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Both these fail Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and there are so many excellent sources of critical scholarship on these issues.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that other and better sources are available. If so, they should be used. The issue motivating my message is the judgmental edit summary that describes them as non-notable. If they are not notable persons, then their articles should be reviewed, improved, and perhaps AFD'd. But the edit summary comes across as "I don't think theses guys pass the notability test, so I will remove them from this article."--S. Rich (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you misunderstood my purpose. I did spend quite a bit of time researching those authors and the cited sources. The article does not accurately represent the cited sources in any event. My comment may have been too terse trying to fit it on the summary line, but please consider the comment. Thanks'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Fractional reserve banking, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Specifically, this edit: [2] S. Rich (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of other reasons justify my edit. I did read the NOTVAND link, thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, other reasons justify. But tagging the edit as vandalism is not WP:AGF. The other reasons should be cited in the edit summary; otherwise, reverting the/your removal would be proper because the justification given did not meet WP:BURDEN. (BTW, as the contributing editor is a suspected SOCK, the note about BITE does not apply, but was added by the TW tool.)

OAS: I'll try to look at the expungement you mentioned on my talkpage a bit later today. And I certainly do appreciate your contributions!--S. Rich (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. These are really very interesting and important topics and I have enjoyed trying to contribute here.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Check before edit warring

I'm sorry but you don't know basic English grammar. Please do not "warn" me again without checking your "corrections" with an English teacher. I was initially polite, simply saying "grammar correction" but your arrogant persistence - in the midst of being wrong on basic grammar - is no longer a laughing matter. I have taken it to talk. Feel free to argue the case there if you still think you know what you're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.209.200.93 (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Fractional reserve banking. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Adding/revising template message.) Seeking to achieve balance in my user talk page comments, I'll tag yours and present the following: Saying that so-and-so is a suspected sock is an allegation without proof and is directed towards the editor, not the edit. I quite agree that these edits should be hashed out on the talk page. But the comment supporting the reversion of an edit based on an ad hominem "sockpuppetry" argument is, IMHO, poorly based. S. Rich (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Srich, What does it mean, "I'll tag yours?" Thanks. I am not familiar with many features of Wikipedia.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For the verb tag, see: WP:Glossary#T. I am endeavoring to keep the discussions civil, so reminders are sent out to all concerned editors as appropriate. Hopefully this will lead to happier editing. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Different request regarding Short (finance)

Hello, SPECIFICO. I'd like to draw your attention back to the Short (finance) page, where an unregistered IP editor in France has been deleting significant parts of the article—entire sections—then adding in a long, thinly sourced, arguably unencyclopedic discussion of the pros and cons of restricting short-selling. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is also heavily weighted toward the EU and France in particular. Another editor (L2blackbelt) had previously reverted similar changes this week, although that editor seems to contribute only occasionally. For your convenience, here's L2blackbelt's rollback and here's the IP editor's latest. I'm going to ask elsewhere, but in case you're around, are you willing to roll this back again? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just saw you got to it—very much appreciated. Meanwhile, my Talk page request from last month (about a partial reorganization) is still open, if you're willing to look at it. Regentspark offered some feedback and support, but then never returned. Here's the discussion, if you're available. Thanks again, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I am the author of the last two edits, both reverted, on the Short (finance) page. I am also the author of most of the French version. Actually, I had written both versions at the same time. I am sad to see that, even though the talk pages of the article are full of people lamenting about how this article is ill-structured and ill-balanced, any attempt, not only by myself, to improve it inexorably fails. Regards. Bmathis (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For both of your benefit: having received a similar note on my Talk page, I've replied over there. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And FWIW my last request has now been completed. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking

I've been away for sometime, and just noticed that the Fractional reserve banking page has been edited to insert some heterodox ideas about money creation. Specifically, it's been made considerably friendlier to the fringe idea that the concept of money multiplier is not correct. I'm not sure that I understand all the viewpoint(s) of those who have been editing it correctly, but it seems to be one or more of the following:

1. Bank lending and hence money creation is not limited by bank reserves
2. Banks lend as much as they like regardless of the amount of reserves that they have, and so they do not lend out excess reserves
3. A central bank does not control the amount of broad money in the economy, the amount of M2 depends on how banks feel about lending.
4. The process of lending and relending of new base money described in textbooks doesn't actually happen.
5. An injection of reserves into a bank will cause the bank to immediately lend out so much that the reserves are all immediately used to fulfill the reserve requirement (seems to contradict the above, may be another group of editors)
6. Banks don't actually act as financial intermediaries

I notice that you have been editing the Fractional reserve banking page quite a bit, can you keep an eye out for these editors? Let's try to keep the description of fractional reserve banking close to what one would find in a typical banking textbook that one would find used in economics or finance undergraduate and masters programs. I should also ask, do you hold any of the above beliefs? If so, which? Let's see if we can come to a consensus about what should be in the article. LK (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for asking. No, those are not my beliefs. I mean really: If the Fed were willing to wink and facilitate unlimited bank lending, how would the POV editors here explain that we have no hyperinflation after 100 years of the Fed? I think some of the weird text is from the persistent sock, and editors should now go back and remove those. On a related note, do you feel that the blog-like essays on Mises.org are valid sources for Wikipedia? I find a lot of questionable content originates there. I recently removed some Lew Rockwell and Hulsmann and other such material. Anyway I have really just been nibbling around the edges of this article because the meat of it seems like a daunting project. I'll have a look in the next several days. There is of course an abundant literature from which to draw material for this article, but it's currently confined to only a narrow sample. Thanks for the note.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I think where some of these people are coming from is the endogenous money views of post-Keynesian/Chartalist/Modern Monetary Theory (I'm not sure what the differences between them are). About the blog-like article on Mises.org or Lew Rockwell, I would say they are generally unreliable sources except for the views of those groups. I've seen these blog articles from Mises.org used a lot, especially for statements about what Austrian economists believe, but personally, I think they are only RS for what their own organization believes. I think one can argue that these articles are not RS because they don't undergo editorial oversight. If there are any disputes, the best place to ask is on reliable sources notice board. The articles in the academic journals housed there, like "Review of Austrian Economics" are of course of a different caliber. LK (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. That's helpful. I have shied away from removing some of the Mises.org material because of the militant following among some of the editors here. I am quite concerned that some of the fringe Mises.org views are supplanting valuable Austrian School contributions, to say nothing of settled consensus economic theory and findings. Knowing there's a board to help vet source material is very helpful and supportive. I'll continue to have a look at the articles in this area.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, do you know of WikiProject:Economics? If you ever find yourself in an intractable situation with a fringe POV warrior about an economics topic, posting on the talk page there can get more people to look at the issue. LK (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Full-reserve banking

User:TheEconomyIsDead is pretty clearly another Karmaisking sock. After a while you'll get a feel for his language and for the ways he tries to insert himself into Wikipedia. Standard policy is to Deny recognition. Just tag the sock and revert on sight. Best, LK (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There's another as well: User:Prettyladieslover. on Fractional Reserve Banking. I foolishly wasted time undoing the troll's edits. I suppose if it continues, there should be another SPI. Cheers.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Lott

Thanks for catching the link move. I don't always think to double check old links. That is why I always include author, title, pub and date in a ref: organisations like to improve their archives by moving stuff around and having biblio data helps the search. http://www.asc41.com/January-February%202000.htm old link dead http://www.asc41.com/Criminologist/2000/January-February%202000.htm new link --Naaman Brown (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG

Some of your recent edit comments refer to "non-RS" blog entries as the rationale. Without looking at all of the particular edits or references, I think you are going overboard with the "blog" rationale. WP:NEWSBLOG does allow "blog" entries by institutional editors. (Entries not under editoral control by readers are not allowed.) The WSJ blog edit you recently deleted is a bit vague. It seems to say that reader may contribute and does not tell us that they are under editorial control. Also, I think you are going too far in removing the lewrockwell.com entries. They come from the organization and are not blogs. (LewRockwell.com has been discussed on the WP:RSN.) --S. Rich (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. The deleted material was no from Mises.org but from the lewrockwell site, which is not RS. I did not remove any author's statement of his own opinion on Mises. In fact I strengthened the statement of Shostak's opinion. Thanks for your comment.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My bad

I apologize for my reverting of all the blog stuff--I thought I was reverting something else. Thank you for the correction--you're quite correct about the blog thing. Byelf2007 (talk) 18 December 2012

thanks hats off to you.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Deletion of CHE attribution

Thank you for pointing out that John Lott is the subject not Levitt. My reason for the revert was the removal of a cited statement without any more of an edit-summary than "irrelevant". Would you do me the favor of reviewing the text in question to confirm that this short part of the article is in fact "irrelevant" to the article as asserted by user 107.15.60.100. I have no intention of edit-warring over your undo of my revert of 01:15, 20 December 2012 on the article. I understood and still believe the CHE statement to be a relevant evaluation of Levitt's concession in the disagreement. Thank you.
SBaker43 (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello thanks for your note. I'll review again, but my current view is that this reverted bit was a statement of opinion and, whatever the merits of that view, not appropriate to Lott's BLP.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		A beer on me!
		For your civility and patience at Peter Schiff talk

• Ooops! a very belated signing of my name :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

TB

Hello, SPECIFICO. You have new messages at Srich32977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not edit warring

		Cookies!
		SRich32977 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Giving you something to munch on as you consider the CEE portal piece. And wondering if it is wrong, outlandishly or otherwise, in the layout. Best regards, truly. --S. Rich (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

re: Srich32977

Hi, I can't help but notice that you sometimes get into a back and forth with Srich32977 and I'ld like to give some friendly advice. As far as I can tell, you are both here to improve the Encyclopedia, and are both open minded enough to see and accept good faith evidence and arguments even when it initially contradicts your point of views. Actually, as far as I can tell, the both of you have very similar world views, at least compared to the liberal pinko keynesian rule-ignoring utilitarian humanist that I am. So, I would just like to say, try not to revert each other, be excellent to each other and party on dudes! You agree with each other more than you know. Best regards, --LK (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Good advice from a "liberal pinko keynesian rule-ignoring utilitarian humanist"? While I'm tempted to say "oxymoron" (in good humor, please), I will simply remark "Well said!" SPECIFICO has been most excellent to me, and I appreciate it. We are all here to build. Thank you, LK, for the encouragement. And thank you, thank you both, for your kind remarks. Such interaction makes this effort most worthwhile. --S. Rich (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, both. Nobody owns these articles. We just try to move them in the right direction. On that score which of you is going to prevail on Bylef to stand down while you reinsert the Austrian school inflation criticism? :)'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think all three of us agree that the critique is significant enough to be in the article, but Bylef and his horde seem determined to keep it out. I suggest developing a short section on the talk page with lots of cites to other economists who have made the same or similar arguments. When it's clear to even the most casual observer that the argument is well sourced enough to include, we'll pop it in and have an RfC if Bylef continues to be intransigent. I'ld start, but it's the start of semester and I'm a bit busy .... LK (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OAS – I suggest refraining from adding long (and sometimes short) comments that include sentences and phrases with all bold face typing. It's akin to SHOUTING ON THE TALKPAGES. Smileys are more (effective). – S. Rich (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope those bolds were not interpreting as shouting. I was trying to give structure to long threads on the discussion, but now that you mention it I can agree that they could have the unintended inappropriate effect. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Boom and bust

Hello, SPECIFICO. You have new messages at Talk:Boom and bust#Local and regional cycles.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fist stab at it. --Bejnar (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Noted, thank you.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hedge Fund

Hey SPECIFICO, Unbeknownst to you the sentences you edited were/are currently under discussion on the talk page. Personally I like your edits but if you have a moment please have a peek at the talk page where we are having a cordial discussion about the lead. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks will do.

Service Ribbon

We'll get Rothbard in the right place sooner or later. In the meantime, here's a service award for you:

The Novice lv 4, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 2 months 15 days and completion of 800 edits

You can post it on your userpage, leave here, or delete as you see fit.

--S. Rich (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice re Xerographica

User Xerographica has posted material related to you on his/her talk page. As a result I have posted a ANI: [3]. --S. Rich (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up. The ANI has been closed without further action. I have been admonished to engage Xerographica directly about this, which I am doing now --S. Rich (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Signature links

Hi SPECIFICO, I noticed that your signatures on talk pages do not include any links to your user page or user talk page. You may want to review WP:SIGLINK. I'm not sure why the links are not showing up if you are using four tildes for your signature. You may want to consider using ~~~~ for your signature if you're not already. Just thought you would like to know. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello I appreciate your taking the time to comment. I use the four tildes but I have formatted the text to be bold and checked the box to read it as markup. Maybe I need to add something to get the links that way. If you happen to know what I should add, I'd be glad to know. Otherwise I will try to look it up. Thanks. SPECIFICO 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix that. As you can see, I just stick with a basic signature. Good luck, 72Dino (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. FYI just copy the link locations into the signature box on your preference page. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, SPECIFICO. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! S. Rich (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from any further EW

Dear SPECIFICO

I have restored the contribution you reverted on Austrian School, adding Separation of money and state to the "See Also" section. Hayek devoted a book to the topic (here), as did Rothbard (here). So it is indeed a relevant link, which does not appear elsewhere in the article. It falls within WP:ALSO, which I recommend you review.

SPECIFICO: In your short time on WP, you have been warned of EW by ten different editors, and you were already blocked once. For two days now, you have been blindly reverting my edits on Separation of money and state, and refusing to engage in the debate I proposed, to answer my arguments or to acknowledge my explanations on the related talk page. You have been following me through my edits and reverting good-faith contributions while providing no credible explanation. This casts doubt on your WP:NPOV, consists of borderline WP:VAN, and is quickly approaching WP:HA.

Please refrain from reverting any further edits I post. I happily welcome any constructive discussion on any talk page. I always accept the editors' consensus. I gladly acknowledge mistakes when I make them, and trust that whatever I produce can always be enhanced.

Thank you,

Alfy32 (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Short time on WP" – ? Alfy, you signed up on 19 January. – S. Rich (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So? How is that relevant? I (already have) readily acknowledge(d) I am a newbie-editor. Does that justify harassment against me? My contributions have consisted of reverting obvious vandalism, proposing arguments on AfDs, or contributing to articles as diverse as Air Rage and Monetary Policy. I don't think I can be accused of disruptive editing, or pushing a point of view. My record is impeccable. Please let me know if you disagree. Thank you. Alfy32 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Alfy, I am puzzled as to the change you made to the text which appears immediately above this. You originally wrote "I (already have) readily acknowledge(d) I am not much older, and that I am a newbie-editor..." and then subsequently removed the words "I am not much older" with the edit note "erratum" [4]. Since you have remarked on my tenure at WP several times, I feel that it is appropriate to ask you the following: When did you first edit on Wikipedia, and have you participated under any names in addition to Alfy32? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 15:18, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

What's with this edit? [5] You've removed material which has nothing to do with X's notice.--S. Rich (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The material's been restored by another editor, but I am mystified.01:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing. GregJackP Boomer! 01:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello GregJackP. This was entirely unintentional. As you can see from the diff, I made some changes to a previous comment I had posted on that board and apparently it also affected some other text in other parts of the board. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention, although it would have been more helpful if you had pointed out the deletion to which you referred. Another editor, Srich, showed me what happened and apparently the content has been restored. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to hear it wasn't intentional, and I can certainly understand that--I probably should have assumed that, but for some reason I did not. My apologies. GregJackP Boomer! 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC) PS, I've made similar mistakes without intending to do so, I'll strike my comment at ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Meanwhile I researched "refactor" and see that perhaps I should not have tried to edit my remark. Thanks SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Cease and desist

Despite my previous warning, you have continued to follow me through my edits and to vandalize Wikipedia by pushing your point of view.

• The term monopoly is indeed notably used to describe monopoly over money issuance. Just google "monetary monopoly" if you remain unconvinced.
• A paper from an International Monetary Fund economist, called "Current Legal Aspects of Monetary Sovereignty", is indeed a relevant source for the Monetary Sovereignty article.
• Claiming that an article about a century-old political proposal to be undistinguisable from the "Goodyear Blimb" is fairly unconstructive.

As a friendly advice, may I recommend you focus on tasks you would be better-suited for, such as recent changes patrol? Or at least, contribute to articles you don't have such strong emotions about. Thank you. Alfy32 (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You protest too much, Alfy. Offering this advice, which barely conceals another purpose, and posting an ANI some 60 minutes later, is not friendly. – S. Rich (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding disruptive editing and POV-pushing. The thread is User:SPECIFICO. Thank you. —Alfy32 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no policy excluding press releases from further reading.

And I'll quote from WP:Further Reading: "However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications." That is an acceptable link due to the fact that these ASIC chips will have a massive effect on Bitcoin mining. --Neoconfederate (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest you post the above on the article talk page so that others can join the discussion. I disagree with your interpretation, among other reasons because this press release anticipates events which have not occurred. Let's move this to bitcoin talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of choice afd

I suggest you add your suggestion to the AfD talk page. Without knowing the technical details, I would think closing the AfD would be a necessary first step. Or the admin who acts on the AfD may be able to rename the article as part of the closing process. – S. Rich (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hugo has got 183 edits, and in this regard is a newbie. Please don't WP:BITE. Will you please revert the warning? Or shall I? – S. Rich (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SPECIFICO. You have new messages at Ioby's talk page.
Message added 01:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you please answer my question on the talk page?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Bah. I screwed up the TB somehow. Talk:Ioby  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

edit warring on Rothbard

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I am not edit-warring myself. There was a consensus version of the article on February 11th. That is the version I propose we keep until the discussion on the talk page is resolved. Furthermore, I am going to ask for input other users to help with the issue of figuring out if a person that writes treatises on philosophy may be called a philosopher. -- Fsol (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)