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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Congratulations indeed, and thanks for your civil service here at WP. Personally, I think this is one of the ugliest barnstars there is, but what the hell? Enjoy it in good health. SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Article talk page comments

Comments about user block logs are not advisable on article talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Srich, it was poor judgment for you to encourage that editor on his talk page recently. That editor is stepping into a discussion without regard to its history and is repeatedly reverting the stable version rather than engaging in talk. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

RP Newsletter edits

Six of your seven recent edits on Ron Paul newsletters were problematic. 1. Here [1] you tried to add an additional, unneeded wikilink on Rockwell, but only succeeded in creating a redlink. 2. Here [2] you "editorialized" by adding the descriptive term "dedicated". 3. Here [3] you added a WP:ALLEGED comment "supposedly". 4. Here [4] you cleaned up an "allegedly" problem, but you added editorial comment that was confusing and contained grammatical errors ("authored authored"). 5. This one [5] is good. You fixed a CLAIM problem. 6. Here [6] you added editorial language ("scandal broke"). And you fixed a syntax problem. 7. Here [7] you added info about the "Animals" comment that was already part of the article, but which actually is not supported by the reference (e.g., the Animals comment is about urban conditions and not African Americans in particular.) And it was ungrammatical ("Another newsletters..."). In the 7 edits, only 2 had edit summaries and 1 of the 2 was to editorialize about Ron Paul's lack of eloquence. IMO, your last edit shows you were more driven by POV than by desire to improve Wikipedia. Please note that 25 subsequent edits by myself and another editor did a lot to clean up the lousy referencing on the article. If you had taken the effort to do that cleanup, I'd be praising you. Instead I must simply say I am disappointed. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please check your meaning of 'editorial language.' The term "the scandal broke" is not editorializing. The Ron Paul newsletters issue was a scandal and it broke into the mainstream media.

As to the not eloquent thing, it's just plain true. I actually happen to like Ron Paul. He's dogmatic but his principles are of some contextual use, particularly on issues which the contemporary Left has lost interest in. "Supposedly" is weaseley, but we need a qualifier or else it implies that Paul wrote the newsletters, when he says he didn't and RS back him up. Steeletrap (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I point out the use of "eloquent" in the edit summary as an injection of POV. Why? My overall objective is to get you to think more critically of your own efforts. As for "scandal", it's true that "scandal" is used elsewhere in the article, but how much of a scandal was it? Perhaps it was big in the minds of those who wanted to criticize Paul. But are those existing edits, themselves, problematic? A NPOV approach can and should analyze them for neutrality. As for "supposedly", if we don't have solid BLP-RS one way or the other as to what he wrote or didn't actually write, we leave it out rather than violate WP guidelines. You can quibble if you wish on these minor points, but please stop letting POV adversely impact your WP editing effort. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

We need a qualifier, per NPOV. Without a qualifier the sentence implies that, as a matter of fact, this was Paul's voice (i.e. he wrote it). You can choose a different word. Steeletrap (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. My concern is not with the details of particular edits, least of all a supposed need for supposed as a qualifier. Rather, the problems I pointed out simply serve to show what is going on with your editing efforts. You can't dispute the problems with grammar, syntax, redlink, unneeded wikilink, lack of edit summaries, duplicate reference to Animals that you created. Nor can you say you improved the article by fixing duplicate citations, etc. Instead you are letting your POV interfere with good editing. Thank you. (I will leave it at that and not reply further.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you know what those words you're using mean. For instance, it is not a grammatical error to say "authored authored." That's a typographical error. Steeletrap (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on WP:No original research/Noticeboard#Synth to infer RS mentions individual by name when doesn't??. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. This [8] about forum shopping does not address the issue raised. It is ad hominem and lacks good faith. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Srich, you're misusing the term ad hominem -- it really would behoove you to check your understanding on this, because you've done the same thing repeatedly in the past. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

DiLorenzo

Perhaps you misunderstand the BRD cycle and the purpose of tags. The tagging of the article is not an edit to the article text. It is a signal to other editors that an issue exists, and invites editors to join in the discussion. Please note that you first made the Bold edit to the article text, I had Reverted and I opened the discussion. (Per BRD, the editor who opens the discussion is the one best using the process.) But your edit summary for removing the tag says "Now we discuss." (Are you suggesting we get into a BRD as to whether the tag is proper?) With this in mind, please undo your removal of the tag [9] so that interested editors can be nudged to join the Synthesis discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Mister Rich: what is your source for the idea that one can add tags to articles and they are not subject to the BRD process. This seems to be a figment of your imagination. Moreover, it would lead to absurd consequences (one could add erroneous, obstructionist tags to articles with impunity, and then claim that another user's attempt to revert to the consensus version violates BRD.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

BRD is not a policy anyway, and it is certainly not a noun, nor is it an excuse for fabricating accusations against good faith editors with whom one might disagree. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

1. There was not "consensus" version of the paragraph – you made the change a few months after the latest change.
2. Your change was the first recent Bold change. Notably, it was you, Steeletrap, who added "examined" back on December 1st.
3. In any event, the BRD was then opened and the Synthesis issue has been raised. (So how could my opening the BRD suggest that the article is "not subject to the BRD process"?)
4. Tags serve to alert editors as to issues, and when tags are added they serve to encourage editor participation.
5. There is no such thing as an "obstructionist" tag. (That description is a figment of your imagination.)
6. You ought to engage in the discussion. (I'd like to see you explain how the 2005 article is not SYNTH and why you think "examined" is not the best term.)
7. As part of the discussion, you might show how erroneous I am.
8. Also, if you ever think my tagging is done with impunity, you can post something on the ANI – after all, the article is subject to AE Sanctions.
9. And what sort of accusation have I made? I've sought to point out how the BRD process has begun and I await your participation in the discussion.
10. [Added] You might read the essay WP:TAGGING, particularly the section WP:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Disputes_over_tags.

– S. Rich (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)23:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Srich, this is really pointless. You're repeating yourself but you are not sorting out the various misstatements and misrepresentations others have pointed out to you. Why not take a break? SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I was hoping you'd comment on the DiL talk page. Please take a look at the proposed re-write I've posted. If it's acceptable, please let me know or just ping a "thank you" to me. (Let's get this one item resolved b4 the IBAN/TBAN is agreed to.) If you don't like it, please suggest changes or ignore it. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC) PS: Thanks for your work on the list of people at LvMI. 18:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed change but really wish you would wait until after Arbitration to add it. We have already agreed to stop editing the articles. Steeletrap (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I shall wait. If it turns out that the ArbCom bans us from editing AE articles, then we (you or I) can do an edit request. Thanks for your agreement. It is one example of where we can work together on these articles. (And if you have suggestions re the proposed change, please let me know.) – S. Rich (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark Twain

I think you might wish to look at the inclusion of Mark Twain on the Bohemian Club self-published membership list as being the Achilles Heel for the source being used. Collect (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Thank you, THANK YOU

I don't know you from Adam, and I don't know where you stand on gun control, but thank you, Thank you, THANK YOU, for what you wrote on the gun control talk page about comparing gun control to Nazism. Some days, I want to give up being an editor, especially in the gun-related environment - which is overrun by pro-gun guys, and some quite extreme - but every morning after, I tell myself to hang in there. When I get a little validation (whether you knew you were validating my opinion or not) my heart expands a little and I think maybe everything's gonna be OK. Lightbreather (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It probably won't be "OK", and there probably are better ways for both of us to spend our time. But thanks anyway. Steeletrap (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Srich

For whatever reason, Srich seems to have a bug up his ass for you. I hope you'll resist whatever temptation you may have to respond to his recent posts about you. It will do you no good and you'll end up entangled in a web of false premises and half-truth. Please stand down. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE of ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

You are on 3RR, recommend you stop now. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm at two reverts. But judging from your mind-blowing block log it's futile trying to show you that you're wrong. So consider yourself the victor in another edit war. Steeletrap (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

You are temporarily topic banned from articles related to Austrian Economics, broadly construed, pending the termination of the AE arbitration case. You may still participate in the talk space, but may not edit articles. This will be logged at Talk:Austrian_economics/General_sanctions. You may appeal this at AN/I at any time, but I suggest waiting at least until the closure of the current AE thread. This topic ban will automatically expire with the official closure of the AE arbitration case.

I'm sorry it's come to this, but the edit war at Hans Hermann Hoppe was somewhat of a last straw. You knew that everybody was watching, with the open Arbcom case and the ANI thread, yet you chose to continue reverting. Also, just as a point of information, you were technically at 3RR as DS said above, given your previous edits to that section header. ([10] [11] [12] vs. [13] [14] [15].) ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You're a pretty ineffectual admin, Adjwilley. "Somewhat of a last straw" is a telling (weak) use of language. Your timing is also revealing: I was about to be TBd anyway.

Are you completely indifferent to the merits of my Hoppe edit? Were the edits really non-neutral? Do you just not care? Steeletrap (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on Austrian economics proposed decision talk page

I have redacted your reference to the arbitrators as "dittoheads". It's incivil and a personal attack, and so it not permitted on arbitration pages. I understand that tempers are frayed, however editors are expected to "act reasonably, civilly, and with decorum", and continuing to conduct yourself in this manner may lead to sanctions, such as a ban from participating on the proposed decision talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL, ok. Steeletrap (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Pages related to the Austrian school of economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.
2. Steeletrap (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Steeletrap may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
3. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
4. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Carolmooredc may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
5. Editors who have not previously been involved in editing the articles at issue in this case are urged to review these articles to ensure that they are in compliance with the applicable policies and best practices, including neutrality and the policies governing biographical content.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC 2 and request for participation

There is an RfC on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page which may be of interest to editors who participated in "RfC: Remove Nazi gun control argument?" on the Gun control talk page.

• RfC: Replace existing Nazi gun control paragraphs?

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:List of Bohemian Club members. 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. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Specifico may not agree, but your linking of "pacifier" to Binksternet's name was completely inappropriate. As I recall, you used the diminutive "Binky" when referring to him in past discussions. And you were admonished by an admin for the usage. Next, your recent posting on Specifico's talk page about the "B word", while very vague, makes your comment about Binksternet suspect. Yes, Binsternet started the interchange with a comment about pinning a medal on you. But your response was insulting. You could have, and should have, just said "thank you". And, yes, your edits a few months ago were indeed helpful. But the commentary at present is about what to do next on the page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not call Binksternet a pacifier. I suggested he use one. Please re-read my remarks (or suck on a binky yourself). Steeletrap (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that you called him a pacifier, but that the suggested usage is demeaning – particularly when you had used the term before. No matter what, you should not post such nonsense on article talk pages. (And Binkster should have ignored your comment about how you had improved the article.) Still, perhaps you can clarify what the "B word" is about. I've raised it as a questionable thread. Please disabuse me. – S. Rich (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Antipathy" towards Binksternet is showing through in other ways. The latest is in the tagging exchange on the Bohemian Club listing. He is correct about the reliability of the sourcing and as an editor with more experience than you and I combined, he is quite qualified to evaluate the sources in context. I've expressed reservations about the addition and removal of tags in articles as being part of the BRD process, but in this case re-adding the tags was not helpful. When tags are added, it is often helpful to open a BRD thread about the problem that the tag is concerned with. (IMO tags should be to specific items when there is discussion about specific items.) In this case the re-adding of the non-specific article-wide tags, while not a big deal, was not helpful. We already have on-going discussions and an RfC on the source question. (And the article is getting about 400 page views a day.) So tags are not needed to draw attention to the issue. More importantly, I hope you will consider how antipathy (again using Binksternet's term) is impacting your editing efforts. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you substantively agree with my criticisms of the page. And you thank me for my bringing the even more egregious BLP/sourcing violations of a view months ago. Yet still believe my edits could only be motivated by "antipathy"? Talk about a failure to assume good faith.

Also, are you able to get through a single "reprimand" without committing a logical fallacy? Bink's long "tenure" here does not establish that he is right in a given policy dispute. (Nor does he epic block log establish that he's wrong in a given dispute.) Steeletrap (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

My comments should not be construed as "substantively agreeing" with you on the talk page. The concern I have is your interaction with Binksternet – and, logically, the criticisms of the article itself do not impact that interaction. The thank you I presented was in terms of encouragement to edit productively, it does not mean that you were right. (And, bringing up the fact that you had edited the article in the past does not, as I have said, help in resolving present issues.) No, I do not believe your edits are "only" motivated by personal antipathy. This is false because I never suggest that antipathy was the only motivation. (You are the one best qualified to evaluate to what extent your antipathy is a factor.) The effectiveness of argument depends on many factors. Binksternet's experience does not make him the be-all and end-all of editor competence, but it does give weight when evaluating his comments. Saying an argument fails logical evaluation does not make the argument (or advice or reprimand or admonishment) "wrong". – S. Rich (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal note

You might consider requesting a one-way IBAN. There's a bit of a history with various other female editors. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Cato.org edit

Noting that this edit involved a persons associated with Austrian school economists, I think it infringed upon the TBAN. – S. Rich (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)23:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

In law school, didn't you learn the difference between a technical and a substantive violation of the law? My edit had zero whatsoever do with Austrian economics. I was removing poorly sourced promotional content from an article about a think tank whose scholars generally revile Austrianism. The are improperly trying to tie their work to that of a half dozen Noble Laureates, only one of whom (arguably) is an Austrian.

I'm not anti-Cato. They are extremely biased, but do have some serious scholars who do serious work. (That's in contrast to the Mises Institute, whose "scholars" propound creationism, AIDS denialism, 9/11 truth, white nationalism, and so forth.) But I'm surprised you think this weaseley "associated with" stuff merits inclusion an entire sub-section in the article. Many of these people have no substantive association whatsoever with Cato. For instance, it appears that the extent of Ronald Coase's "association" is his having once contributed one chapter to a book edited by an Institute fellow. Steeletrap (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, other than Hayek, which names on that list do you associate with Austrian economics? I don't see any. In light of your previous interactions with Steeletrap, may I suggest you leave this unimportant matter to others, if in fact there is any cause for concern. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a camel's nose issue. It has nothing to do with sources, bias, mises.org people, etc. As Hayek is Austrian, you cannot do anything related to him. Accordingly, you cannot remove the other NoBull names from the Cato article and leave him as the only name. More importantly, the issue of the listing of the NoBull people was discussed a few months ago and the article, as it stands, is the consensus version. If there are arguments to remove the names, then editors, other than you, must make such arguments. The best course of action for you is to avoid, completely, any edits related to your TBAN. – S. Rich (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, that's nonsense and in fact it reads as if you're stating it's OK for you to harass Ms. Steele for no valid purpose. You should leave this to others who do not have your history of involvements with her or the AE situation. She's not a camel and you should not be making negative assumptions as to her future behavior or intentions. If a serious or significant violation occurs, you should bring it to the appropriate forum. Hectoring editors with whom you may disagree on content issues is not the way we do things on WP. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Your topic ban

Per your topic ban you are not supposed to make any suggestion or take part in any discussion related to Austrian economics. (See point five). I believe your comment to Collect regarding Ludwig von Mises Institute violated this. Just a friendly advice. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. No time to explain why right now. Will do so later. Steeletrap (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion may be of interest to you. – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is about a proposed change in policy to include talk pages. From this, one must infer that the current policy does not extend to talk pages. Read in context, the passage User:Iselilja points to clearly refers only to related pages (not to talk pages). Steeletrap (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree with your interpretation of the way the policy reads, and A further argument in favor of your interpretation is WP:PROXYING which makes no sense if suggestions are not allowed -- however it appears that de-facto policy has moved out from underneath. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Gun_control_.28Gaijin42.29 where me merely quoting policy to someone involved in a content dispute (without commenting in any way on the dispute itself) was considered violation of the tban. (The first set of diffs by LB. the second set by ArtifexMayhem are not relevant to this discussion). It seems clear that the tbans now are interpreted as any involvement in any way whatsoever on the topic in any wiki venue. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons, your situation is distinguishable from my own. To name one: even the Arbys concede that I am knowledgeable about the AE subject matter. Steeletrap (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap cannot put anything at all into Wikipedia with regard to Austrian economics. The topic ban says "Steeletrap is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics." Talk pages are "other pages". Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL are you serious. So Collect's talk page is now a page "relating to the Austrian school of economics"? Since when? (Bink implies I couldn't have posted there because it became an AE related page after I posted there; talk about circular reasoning!) As usual, Bink bungles basic principles of reading comprehension and logical inference. Steeletrap (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet is serious (and correct). I suggest you look at WP:MAINSPACE and namespace. In namespace, we see descriptions of books, portals, drafts, etc. A TBAN clearly extends to all of these spaces. (You can't go and say "these are not articles, therefore I can bring up TBAN topics on them.") But namespace also includes the user pages and user talk pages. You should consider the fact that the discussion I referenced is talking about clarification to own-user-talk-page editing. If the community clarifies this point as to own-user-talk-pages, what do you think the attitude is regarding other user talk page edits? – S. Rich (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, you're barking in the wind. The sanctions were imposed by Arbcom. What are you doing on this page? SPECIFICO talk 02:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you would find it more compelling if an actual arbitrator told you that your edits violated the topic ban? Yes they did. You are topic banned. That means you are supposed to stay away from the topics you are banned from. That includes bringing up the topic yourself or participating in discussions of it anywhere on Wikipedia. Further attempts to end run the topic ban and continue to attempt to influence topics you are banned from will result in blocks. I hope that is clear enough for all of you. My usual advice for anyone under a topic ban is to simply remove any page related to the topic from your watchlist and don't even look at any of it. That way it is a very simple matter to avoid violating the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't find it compelling. I won't post about "the topic" (I can't say what it is since mentioning it violates Mister Beeble's absurd standards for a topic ban) anymore because you'll ban me. But this interpretation of policy is specious. For something to be policy, it has to be written in a clear and unambiguous manner. If it were clear, there wouldn't be an extensive debate/vote going on regarding whether to change the policy to preclude talk page posts. Nor would I have gotten this "friendly" talk page notice from Beeble if I edited the LvMI page or committed some other TB violation. (I would've been blocked.)

And of course, Beeble doesn't even provide an argument for his policy interpretation; he just proclaims it to be objective fact. That's hardly surprising given the standard set by Arbys (see, for example, the preposterous Arb "principle" that allegations of disruptive or tendentious editing can be judged without judging the merit of any content an allegedly disruptive editor has added to an article). My one regret is criticizing their tardiness; the case (ignored by the arbs to that point) was shortly "resolved" following my criticism, with the usual unanimous voting tallies. Steeletrap (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Responding to your ping on Beeblebrox's page: I don't think you understand some of the more technical aspects of the project. (I had tried to provide information above.) Procedurally an appeal of an arbcom decision is not commenting on a topic – it is part of WP due process. Similarly, a user talkpage does not "become 'related'" to a topic when a topic is raised – the content of the actual post is what is or is not related to a topic. Also consider, if a TBAN appeal included a number of diffs or commentary or points about Mises.org or Austrian economics topics, then the appeal itself could be seen as a violation of the TBAN. But it would be foolish to post such diffs, etc., because the TBAN is based on editor behavior, not topic-related diffs. Indeed, posting the diffs would be further evidence against an effort to appeal the ban. Very simply, you violated the TBAN by posting topic-related commentary on Collect's talk page. Four editors tried to convince you but without much effect. And now you have a Wikipedia Oversighter (there are only 38 editors in that group) telling you so. Alas, you seem to be missing the message – the TBAN stops you from raising the topic anywhere. – S. Rich (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that the policy according to which Arbcom can judge an editor to be tendentious and biased, while not judging any content s/he has added, makes any logical sense? Or are you just sucking up to solidify your place in the community? Steeletrap (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, two editor (you and Bink) have a long "history" of trouble with these conceptual distinctions. Moreover, both of you clearly harbor personal animus toward me. For these reasons, I generally don't listen carefully to your comments. Steeletrap (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel there is personal animosity. For the most part you are an agreeable and knowledgeable editor. It's when your POV takes over that you get into trouble. (And I wish you have listened more carefully to what I, Bink, Gaijin, and Iselilja all said about the extent of the TBAN.) As for the Arbcom procedure (editor behavior vs. content added), I think the years of collective experience in WP has worked out a solution. The Arbcom does its best to focus on behavior and does so by ignoring content. (I believe I tried to tell you this was how they operated.) Moreover, even now, as I pointed out above, the consensus as to blocking policy is evolving. Am I "sucking up"? I don't think so. (And even if I was, doing so does not change the fact that you are the one who got yourself into trouble.) I am content to work various gnomish activities and my position in the community is pretty secure regardless of your opinion. Part of the reason my position is secure is because I do understand these conceptual distinctions. So, I will urge you to move on to other topics. Do more work on the David Duke & Edgar Steele stuff, etc. I have very little interest in the topics and I think you can contribute. – S. Rich (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that Carolmooredc just got blocked for 2 weeks for violation of her TBAN. She was posting comments about AE topics on the enforcement page related to Specifico. This was exactly the sort of thing I said above -- raising or mentioning or editing TBAN topics is the problem. It is not a matter of what page the topics are put on. – S. Rich (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

She should not have been banned for violating the topic ban because she didn't. But she should have been banned for disruptive conduct and frivolous, incoherent accusations against another user. (See WP:Competent) Steeletrap (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Gini index

Your knowledge re the Gini index could be helpful here: Talk:Gini coefficient. I'd like to get a consistent usage for template parameters. It looks to me like "different" Gini indexes are used in the economics world. If this is correct, which is the best one to use? Once this is established, we can set up a discussion on the template talk page to work on and establish consensus for a consistent usage/parameter. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

B-

I realize you're probably just trying to be playful, but Binksternet has made it clear several times that he doesn't like being called "binkie" and continuing to bring it up isn't going to lighten the mood or help resolve any problems. It just annoys him, and by extension others. Please stop. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it really so offensive? I think he needs to develop a thicker hide. But, under threat of site ban, I will refrain from using the B-word. (I was previously banned -- I suppose on the basis of anti-Catholicism? -- for jokingly calling myself the Pope.) Steeletrap (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you show your official Pope card? 70.36.142.114 (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caucasian race, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indians (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) 08:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary with links a specific user

"This is misunderstanding of WP:Cite" along with the naming/linking of a specific editor does not comport with H:ES, which says "try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult." [Wikilink in the original guidance.] – S. Rich (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

So what is a personal attack? Using someone's name in an edit summary (which is what automatically happens when we click "revert"), or saying that an edit reflects a misunderstanding of policy? I don't think you really believe either of these is a personal attack. What, then, could be motivating this comment? Steeletrap (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that you have distorted his nickname, given that you have referred to competence over the months, given that you are following his edits and making various edits and reverts, and now, given that you have singled him out in your edit summaries on at least two occasions, one could say that you are engaging in harassment. The policy says if personal attacks are one part of "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person... and [the] outcome [is] to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target" then you can be sanctioned for the behavior. It is your behavior that is of concern. I do not think Binkesternet will feel intimidated or threatened by you. In any event, my advice is to take more care. – S. Rich (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, that's harsh. Why indeed, by that standard one might even say that you have been harassing Ms. Steeletrap. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have followed Bink a couple times lately; each time has been to correct objective errors on his part. (Bink himself conceded the first one; I expect he'll soon concede the next one, since the error is so easy to verify.) Bink's errors led him to erroneously accuse other users of vandalism or bias. Per WP:Hounding, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy." So I am using his history in a way that is not only acceptable but desirable.

In any case, you're sending your mail to the wrong address. Why not reach out to Bink? This can be done in private if you prefer. If you encouraged him to take a few minutes to read the text of an article or its accompanying sources before he edits; or encouraged him to not rush to judgment about the conduct of other users; or encouraged him to apologize and retract those statements when he is incorrect, we wouldn't have to have this intervention.

I did not make a personal comment about him in an edit summary. I tagged him so he would know I reverted him. This is what WP automatically does when we click "revert." (I had to tag him manually because there were intervening edits between Bink's and mine.)

Also, I hope you see the irony in you criticizing me for stalking someone. Steeletrap (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop hounding me. It will get you blocked. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Bink, I'm sorry that I called you that unwanted nickname one time. I apologize for that. I am going to redouble my efforts to be respectful and sensitive to you. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do in this regard.

But I am not guilty of "hounding" by correcting unambiguous errors, such as your claim that the term "anti-Islamic" is unsourced in the Stop Islamization of America article. (please see WP:Hounding) Note that this (and your previous, acknowledged) errors were not only unambiguous but led you to personally attack other (new) users. I cannot promise I will not revert any more of these errors, particularly if they lead to denigration of new users. (See WP:Bite) Steeletrap (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to fool around. If you follow me to more articles you will be guilty of hounding and you will be reported. A block is likely. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Bink, you can't expect privacy in a public place. I don't condone anybody calling another editor by an unwelcome name, but it's clear that the lady was not "hounding" you as defined by policy. I'm pleased to see that she removed a reference to the matter from my talk page. I don't understand your sensitivity, but I do respect it. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: We're suggesting that I be banned because I'm correcting Bink because I did so mere months removed from calling him the unwelcome nickname, right? The justification has to be contextual and novel because hounding doesn't apply to correction of unambiguous errors. Steeletrap (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the suggestion is that you will be blocked for a pattern of harassing behavior that has occurred in the last few weeks. Going back further may require more diff research, but would (I think) produce results that are less than favorable to you. My advice: steer clear of Binksternet and his edits. – S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:Hounding, I was not harassing Binksternet if I was correcting his errors. Therefore, to argue I harassed Bink, you have to demonstrate that Binksternet did not make any errors. (The burden of proof is on you to prove allegations of misconduct. You can't just say: "harassment.") Please demonstrate this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

Srich, why do you feel that the lady is "hounding" Bink but that you are not hounding the lady? What's the distinction? SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

One (of many things) that trouble me about Srich's communication style is that he tends to order rather than justify his position. Were he my father, or my drill sergeant, I suppose "because I said so" would be sufficient. But he is neither; indeed, we are peers.

The word harassment has been used many times here. But no argument has been given for that, other than the fact that I "followed" Bink. As I have stated many times, that is not sufficient to prove harassment, provided that one is correcting errors of the users she follows. Yet no one seems to care about making valid (much less sound) arguments. The charitable interpretation is that they are capable of making valid arguments, but don't feel obligated to since they know 'the community's' decisions will be based on politics and camaraderie rather than logic. Steeletrap (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Update

Real-life obligations intervened before I could complete my analysis. It will probably be several hours at the earliest before I can wrap it up. It appears that events have overtaken the effort. Do you wish me to complete it? It's up to you. alanyst 21:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear your feedback, sure. Steeletrap (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have completed my analysis on my talk page and left a brief summary and reference to it at the ANI discussion. My ability to respond in a timely way to further discussion may be restricted for the next couple of days but I will do my best to address any urgent matters. alanyst 14:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Piketty is "big news" and the issue ought not be ignored

Note it is in NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Slate, HuffPo, Guardian, CNBC etc. ad nauseum. The wording I gave was as NPOV as possible and made no claims in Wikipedia's voice AFAICT. See also [16]

His most damning claim: Piketty altered U.K. data to show that wealth distribution there is worse off than it appears to be. Piketty says the share of income going to the top 10% never fell lower than 60%, and since the end of the 1970s has returned to 70%, a level not seen in 70 years. But the data Piketty himself cites shows the top 10% share of wealth is no greater than 50%, and may be as low as 42%.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a lot of sources. I'm not against including this in the article in principle; I just want to be a little careful. Could you (on talk) summarize what these sources are saying? I just want to make sure we're not cherry-picking the most damning appraisals (not saying you're doing that; I have only read a little bit about this matter, but I am under the impression it is unresolved). Steeletrap (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The summary is:

According to Rich Miller of Bloomberg News, Chris Giles of the Financial Times said the book relies on "transcription errors, unexplained statistical modifications and “cherry picking” of sources". “Some issues concern sourcing and definitional problems,” Giles said. “Some numbers appear simply to be constructed out of thin air.” Piketty responded by saying he had to adjust statistics from a diverse set of data.

And I doubt anyone could have made it any more compliant with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV than that. Some of the sources rake Piketty over the proverbial coals. Collect (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the consensus of RS wrt to this charge? This is just anecdotal, but a couple of my economist friends seem to think the matter is unresolved. Steeletrap (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have "economist friends" because I teach at a university (I'm a mere instructor).

The clear consensus, (and which is basically agreed to by Piketty), is that figures were altered - for the purpose of "smoothing" curves. Also some figures he used were simply incorrect, or for a different year, or were described by the source as being unusable for the purposes of establishing statistics of wealth inequality. Harvard University Press did not vet any of the book, as it only translated a French book. All of this is quite non-contentious. Economist, FT etc. are generally considered reputable publishers whose staffers are well versed in the topics discussed. The economist I knew was Paul Samuelson many aeons ago. I think I knew a couple at Wharton, but that was a different area indeed. FT did not check all of the Excel spreadsheets - but I rather suspect someone is doing this as we write. My position is that we well ought to acknowledge the existence of the controversy, as otherwise we look right fools. Collect (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not the clear consensus. No offense, but I think you have trouble distinguishing between methodological criticisms and allegations of incompetence, and accusations of academic fraud. The latter is implied by your construction. But there is no consensus for that among RS, though some have made that allegation. Steeletrap (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm very impressed that you knew Samuelson, by the way. I went to a school with many leading economists, and majored in economics. But I had little access to the big guns, who tended not to teach. As I understand it, that's the norm for undergrads at least. Do you have a graduate degree in econ? Steeletrap (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

MIT is unusual - the Nobel Prize winners actually teach. Charles Townes taught. I only had four econ courses - not a lot compared to people really having it as a major, but I talked a lot with folks who knew their stuff. Like the editor for the Psychedelic Review, some Sci-Fi writers etc. Isaac Asimov, Hal Clement, John W. Campbell, Fred Pohl, Hugo Gernsback and a few others. Interesting times, indeed. Collect (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Friendly advice from something of an admirer

I've learned, only very recently, how little value there is in trying to prompt change in either the WP system, or in other particular Users. And for my part, given the freedoms they enjoy and the imperfection of the WP system of conflict review and adjudication—my decision is to depart and work to create quality content elsewhere, rather than to continue to waste time. (My particular issue is with the WP system allowing rapid detection of major edits using Huggle/Twinkle-type tools, without strong WP policy to demand time be taken by users of those tools to review Talk and Edit Summaries before reverting solid, bold editing. That, alongside the positive reinforcement given to rapid reversions in WP's edit-counting culture, and the manner of counting reversions to arrive at an edit warring conclusion: taken together, these are veritable nightmares of wasted time.) Bottom line, life is just too short for the nonsense. Disengage, and focus on what produces good, lasting results. If you cannot achieve it here, you are clearly bright enough and savvy enough to create an independent web page on a topic that could rise to the top of Google hits. Goadings, tit-for-tat… this is not Oxbridge-style engagement a la Hitchens, here… and all of it is beneath those capable of creating very high quality content. Count the cost of such engagements. dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

All good re: moving my objection. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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."

Negative comments about an article subject are just as problematic on the talk page as they would be in the article itself - and can get out of hand quickly. There are other forums on the internet where you can discuss about him. Please keep discussion limited to improvement of the article using reliable sources. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Netoholic @ 23:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

TBAN and Molyneux

With this edit you modified text which was referenced by Ludwig von Mises Institute personnel (Block and Kinsella). In my opinion you violated your TBAN. Is there any reason why an ArbCom enforcement action should not be requested? – S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. My topic ban is on Austrian economics. The section I edited was about the view's of a non-economist on child rearing. I didn't even notice the authors of the RS but I don't think it's relevant in any case, since the text I edited had nothing to do with Block/Kinsella or AE.

Since I have no desire to additional spend time defending myself, can you just copy and paste my above response to your complaint when you file it? Steeletrap (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? 1. Your topic ban extends to persons associated with the LvMI, not just AE. 2. You really modified the article text without looking at the RS which supported it?

Why don't you accept responsibility and say you messed up instead of seeking to evade the issue? – S. Rich (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The language of my topic ban is clear. Steeletrap (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent Molyneux edits by others

You might note that the philosopher designation from the lede in Stefan Molyneux following the close of the RfC (in which you made comments) was removed. The designation was re-added a few hours later. I removed the designation and posted a new thread on the talk page. (Also, the designation was re-added and re-removed. Keeping track of the "re-re-res" is not important.) However, since the new material, which may or may not justify the re-adding comes directly from Mises.org, I will consider any comments by you in the thread to be in violation of your TBAN. I suggest you see how the thread plays out. Perhaps it will favor keeping the designation out of the lede. If you want to comment, perhaps you can receive permission to do so from an appropriate authority. At present, though, I doubt that commentary will be helpful. The early trend in the discussion seems to be against re-adding the designation. – S. Rich (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Enforcement requested

I have requested ArbCom enforcement here. – S. Rich (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 208.54.4.231 (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Stanford

Hello: This edit at Stanford Business School caught my eye. (Note: I did a minor edit on the article in November 2012.) What struck me was the "world's lowest acceptance rate, 6.8%." text. Was this 'what the source said?' I asked myself. It was disappointing to see that the source was a 2013 article, but the text referred to 2015. Obviously the second sentence had been added later, but the reference was at the end of the paragraph. (This sort of academic boosterism occurs because people want their school to be the least shitty.) While I agree with the rationale in your edit summary, I don't think you took the editing task far enough. Better to have looked at the reference and then revised to summarize what the article said. (Does this make sense, or am I being stupid?) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I don't see how it's "boosterism" to state the acceptance rate or ranking of an institution in the lede paragraph, as defined by mainstream sources. A sensible definition of "boosterism" is puffery. The "rankings" are surveys of employers and academics. How is reporting the plain fact that business professors and fortune 500 companies consistently rate SBS at the top puffery?

If all reliable sources state that Stanford's MBA program is elite, it's reasonable to put this in the lede so that readers who are not as familiar with Stanford (or who erroneously believe that its business school isn't one of its strong suits) can learn about the standing of its business school. The opposite of what you misleadingly label boosterism (and what I'd call educating the public -- which often derives its notion of what a "good school" is from sports -- about what are considered good schools by academics and top employers) is populism. That is the the notion that every school is a "good school" and equal in employment prospects and academic standing to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and the like. Steeletrap (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong to think the text misrepresents the year the data come from. The 2013 data refer to the "class of 2015" (MBA is a two year program I believe), not admitted students from the future. The text accurately represents the year in which the data were obtained.

Interestingly, Stanford Business's "highest in country" GPA median is not all that impressive. As I hear it: academic standing is not the test of admissions to MBA programs: it's blue-chip corporate experience. Of course, admissions into law/medical school, or a PhD program in the sciences at Stanford (or any other top school) would be much more academically rigorous. Steeletrap (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. We still have a problem because the Fortune article doesn't compare the top 10 to non-US schools. Who added the "world's lowest acceptance rate"? I don't know or care. I'd be wary of trying to develop a Business school rankings article. Apples & oranges amongst the different countries. – S. Rich (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

TBAN

I have reverted the change you made here. He is categorized as an Austrian. And he has written for LewRockwell.com. I think you violated your TBAN. I will not ask for sanctions, but for you to remove the sanctions template, which pertains directly to you, is perilous. – S. Rich (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not every columnist for Lew Rockwell is an Austrian or an economist. David Henderson, for instance, has written articles there is and explicitly rejects AE. Please provide a source for your claim that Casey is an Austrian economist. Steeletrap (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, Casey has written for the Mises Daily. See: [17] which makes him Mises.org-related. Please leave the article alone. Whenever you see "Austrian School" you must avoid, even in an attempt to refute. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So has Stefan Molyneux. That doesn't make him an Austrian. The website you're referring to publishes people sympathetic to their politics, even when they're not Austrians.

When you are accusing another person of misconduct (violating their topic ban), you're supposed to shoulder the burden of proof. That's a basic norm of any civilized community. Please provide evidence that Casey is an Austrian. Steeletrap (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of if the subject is or is not austrian, the sanctions template even if incorrectly applied certainly does fall into the bounds of your ban. However, Casey himself says that he follows the austrain school. http://www.theaureport.com/pub/na/doug-casey-all-the-trouble-in-the-world. I think you may need a refresher on what broadly construed means. You are continually working on the edges of your ban and have gotten tripped up multiple times. Eventually someone is going to get tired of it and the sanctions are going to get much more severe. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The strawmen Molyneux and Henderson are not in the Category:Austrian School economists. If they were, it would be improper for you to touch the articles. Nor could you ask anyone on-wiki to look at the articles. Please do yourself a favor and leave the Category:Austrian School alone. I'd rather see you making constructive edits than arguing these points which can get you into trouble. – S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No offense Gaijin, but you're prone to reading comprehension fails. Saying you "credit" a school of thought wrt one of its theories is not the same as saying that that you follow it. Most contemporary Keynesians "credit" certain Austrian and Chicago School theories)such as (in the case of the former group) the subjective theory of value. There is no source in which Casey identifies as an AE. Steeletrap (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit was a good catch, but a foolish one. The topic of Casey comes under your TBAN, which encompasses Austrian Economics. It would have been far better for you to contact me or someone else off-wiki to point out the error. – S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Srich, I hope you are aware this looks like the smoking gun of trolling and harassment of Steeletrap. "Good Catch" ??? How on earth did it get there in the first place? Oh, I remember. You put it there after (yes after!) accusing Steeletrap of violating TBAN. Casey is not and economist of any sort, and in addition, you with your unclean hands (for Arbcom reporting purposes) are in no position to threaten Steeletrap, "for her own sake". If I were a betting man, I'd wager you get sanctioned for your own behavior before Ms. Steeletrap is ever even questioned. Please stop. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Self defense

It appears that you would be within your rights in the future, should anyone make further false or unsubstantiated allegations against you, to respond in your defense on any WP page. I think that's what's being said here. I also note that an editor was recently banned per "boomerang" for posting an undue complaint at AE. Don't let yourself feel bullied. SPECIFICO talk 02:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin & AE TBAN

This message is regarding the Federal Reserve aspects of Griffin's thought, writings, and films. I have one source that describes his book as being in the tradition of Rothbard and writers at Mises.org refer to the Island book at various times. With this in mind, I have placed the AE discretionary sanctions template on the article talk page. Edits regarding Griffin's media career, Noah's ark, laetrile, and non-political aspects would not come under the sanctions or your TBAN. (BTW, I agree that his promotion of laetrile is nonsense. But I do not want WP to be a vehicle for laetrile debunking or promoting in this BLP. Please feel free to comment on the SPS/SYN thread. Thank you.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at G. Edward Griffin.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. In this edit [18], your edit summary refers to publications which are not used in the removed paragraph. (This is the second time you did this.) Moreover, the topic of the paragraph involves Griffins ideas about the Federal Reserve System, which are based on Austrian Economics. The article has been templated for AE sanctions. And a message about this was placed in a section above. Please self-revert all of your recent edits about the FRS. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Srich, please go to the article and read the paragraph I removed. Look to see whether it is sourced to the "Idaho Observer" and the "New American." Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight: You believe Griffin's conspiracy theories about the fed are rooted in Austrian economics? What part of his book do you believe employs economic analysis? Steeletrap (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

((ec))

New American is in the paragraph, Idaho is not. You also removed other material besides New American. In any event, this aspect of Griffin falls within your TBAN as it deals with Austrian Economics. (As mentioned, I have a citation which I will post later.) I will seek sanctions if you do not revert. – S. Rich (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of making these childish threats, why don't you provide evidence supporting your view that Griffin is an economist or employs economic analysis in his book? If you can do that of course I will revert. Steeletrap (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• http://mises.org/daily/5345/content/
• http://mises.org/daily/4631
• http://mises.org/media/4390/Money-Banking-and-the-Federal-Reserve/2

– S. Rich (talk)

Are you serious? That's no evidence at all. Some "economists" endorsed his conspiracy theories, solely because they are congenial to ancap political goals. But these "economists" never say that Griffin is an Austrian or engages in economic analysis. Steeletrap (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

However, one clear-cut policy violation that continues to recur is you posting on my talk page, despite my repeated requests not to. You need to learn to take a hint, bub, especially wrt to the desires of women. Steeletrap (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: You asked Srich to provide you with evidence that Griffin employs economic analysis in his book. Srich does just that, and then you ignore the evidence he gives by just stating your personal opinion, by deriding the sources you don't agree with, and by subscribing unproven motives to them. Please correct me if I am wrong, but that is not NPOV I believe. Furthermore, after specifically inviting Srich to provide you with material, you then say he is not welcome on your page. Therefore, I find your statements inconsistent and I can't find logic in what you say. Truthseeker1001 (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits at sex at dawn

As noted in the talk section at Sex at Dawn, your edits frequently do not take into account the collaborative discussions that have already taken place through the talk pages and in edit notes. You've gone in an reverted a lot of hard work from me and other editors without paying attention to a clearly discussed reasons for these conclusions or joining into the discussions. I think you will find that Wikipedia is a more fun and productive place if you take the time to engage with us in discussion and start with the assumption that we're all trying to improve pages rather than accusing us if ill intent and bias. I also think you will find that editors are more likely to consider your edits with an open mind if you show a willingness to engage and discuss in a collaborative and respectful fashion. I look forward to working with you in a productive fashion in the future and thank you for your efforts to continue to improve this wonderful resource.--Pengortm (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This stuff really needs to be taken to noticeboards. I think you guys are engaged in TE. Why would you remove the academic credentials of Johnson (who likes the book), as a primatologist? Why would you only quote the negative parts of a mixed (3/5 star) review? You're engaged in TE. Steeletrap (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia for page protection

Last call for opinions on RFC at Wikipedia page for page protection extension. User:Pundit is in support of increasing gender equality at Wikipedia and another user is opposed to User:Pundit's efforts. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikilove

		Mind the Gap Award
		Thank you, Steeletrap, for your example in quietly but persistently presenting one woman's view on WP. SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM clarification request regarding use of "TERF"

I have initiated a request for clarification from the ARBCOM regarding the use of "TERF" per discussions on Talk:Radical feminism. I am messaging you because you have been involved in past discussions regarding this issue and may wish to participate in the new discussion at the ARBCOM. The discussion can be found here. Thank you and best wishes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)