User talk:SPECIFICO

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

WP:ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article

Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Molyneux

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Writing to inform you that you should consider the Molyneux article as associated with the Mises Institute, and so falls under the provisions of your topic ban (detailed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics#SPECIFICO topic-banned. Feel free to raise concerns about future citations that are needed on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC) I've left a response on the Arbitration page. Molyneux is not associated with the Mises Institute, but if he were associated, the ban would also prohibit me from commenting on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC) I feel like I was being nice to give you just a simple notification, with no prejudice. The article has several references to Mises, and Molyneux has obviously been a frequent topic there [1]. Besides, even if he is a tangent subject to Mises, your ban has provisions to expand as necessary. I will be happy to refer this or future edits to the administrators noticeboard in the future. -- Netoholic @ 23:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC) I see no basis for your claims. File a complaint at Arbcom if you wish, but do not post on my talk page again. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Stuff I'm not banned from: [[2] [3] [4] SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC) [5] [6] [7] [8] SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC) [9] SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

http://freedomainradio.com/About.aspx is a blanket source for the entire paragrah, for a lot of minor details like his areas of study at York, so this edit is unfounded. The debate source is used to point out that he was in debate at Glendon, the rest of the details are WP:SELFPUB, which is fine. You should revert. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The list of courses taken as an undergraduate is WP:UNDUE. He didn't "study debate" he was a member of the Debate Society, which is an extracurricular activity. Please make your article-related comments on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not undue detail when the issue we're establishing is whether he is a philosopher. I am here on your talk page giving you personal feedback and making a personal request to revert yourself. -- Netoholic @ 20:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't post on this page again. SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

When "The Corbett Report" posts something about Molyneux, then The Corbett Report is a secondary source. I think you may need to read up on what constitutes the difference between primary and secondary sources. --Netoholic @ 15:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

grudges are about the most useless thing in the world

In my time n Wikipedia, I have done my darndest not to hold any grudge against anyone at all. My posts are, to the best of my ability, aimed in line with policies and guidelines (especially BLP), and never at personalities. Though I am aware of some editors whose sole raison d'être appears to be to track my every edit :( and make snide asides about me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You know that I do neither of those things. As best I can recall we are on the same article/talk no more than once a month. Am I missing something? If so please don't hesitate to be explicit about it. When something is bothering me, I tend to be rather direct about it. Sometimes people take offence at that, but if you feel that I've said something to express veiled displeasure with you, it's very unlikely I did that intentionally. You said something about us not being the best of friends, but I don't recall interacting with you much at all. As to indirectness, I tend to err on the other side. Just ask Srich, who's regularly calling "bullshit" when I post on his talk page. Anyway thanks for the visit. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not assert that you did <g>. Only that I can point to some who do :( and with whom I do not correspond well. Email me for examples <g>. And might you tell me where I made a comment about "friends"? If so, I meant no insult, for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Not best friends, or something similar, on the Arbcom thread, no matter. It sounds as if we're on the same page. SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been known to say that more-or-less to show that my positions are based, as best I can, on factors other than "standing up for friends" which one does see at times around here. I make decisions based on facts, and never on personalities, which annoys the heck out of some people <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And so I get "officially added" as a disputant in the ArbCom case of course -- you may recognize the cast of characters <g>. [10] and the "evidence" on ,my evilness (shades of Despicable Me). Naturally the addition was just about at the deadline, but lurkers are free to join in the exercise, to be sure. Collect (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Caplan

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please look at Mises.org/Caplan. Also note he has published in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics ([11]). – S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Don't you have anything more productive to do with your time? Caplan is not affiliated with vMI. QJAE is a refereed peer reviewed journal. Having published there, if in fact he has, does not make him an affiliate of vMI. If you knew anything about Caplan you would not believe there's any affiliation. I have no interest in sorting out whether you're misinformed or worse. This thread is closed. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Arb Enforcement requested

I am notifying you of an ArbCom Enforcement request. --Netoholic @ 05:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, SPECIFICO. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Horchata

I noticed on your userpage that you enjoy horchata. I love horchata, and as a resident of South Texas I readily have access to ubiquitous taquerias (at nearly every corner) which make the finest horchata (as I've never had horchata anywhere else, I cannot claim NPOV on the matter). I sometimes even take it to my weekend-dedicated co-workers as a treat (accompanied by a breakfast taco of course) during certain busy seasons of the year. Store-bought horchata simply does not compare. If you're ever in the coastal bend, be sure to try some. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 23:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, I've visited almost every border town in South Texas but surprisingly, we have a large Mexican population in the NY Metro area these days and there's fine fresh-made horchata to be had throughout the area at food trucks, taquerias and upscale joints such as this one. SPECIFICO talk 03:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "fractional reserve banking". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for reversion

If you think an edit should be reverted because

A) its sources are not reliable enough AND B) you think that even if better sources were found its still should be reverted because the text does not belong there anyway.

Then please make sure you make B clear in your reasons for reversion. If you do not do this then an editor may put time and effort into finding better references, only to find out later their time was wasted.

The clearest example of this was when I noticed you had undone someone's edit in Paul Krugman with a comment "Removing unsourced content" I then went to the trouble of looking up the source, and I reinstated the edit with citation, you then immediately undid the edit with the comment "Doesn't belong in lede".

Thank you. Reissgo (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on EllenCTs Talk Page

I noted this [12]. I think you're correct to suggest S. Rich tone it down (and I'm not a fan of hatting conversations) but he has admonished several editors to stick to the topics. Having observed and interacted with EllenCT, one can have issues with her editing style and talk page conduct without being concerned about her gender. I think your "whiff of misogyny" comment was perhaps a bit strong and you might consider editing that part. S. Rich might just be fed up with her approach to the arbitration which is distracting.Mattnad (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You may not be aware that Srich has a history of unfortunate interactions with EllenCT. While I have disagreed with several of her edits and steered clear of the contentious threads on various of the related articles, I am concerned in general about bullying, biting, and blustering on talk pages. It tends to prompt defensive responses which escalate the threads and, as Srich admitted in his comment disrupt collaboration. Anyway, my perception of Srich's differential behavior toward female editors is based on various interactions which I've observed over an extended period and which I and others have politely brought to his attention. In general, I've found that Srich often responds to constructive criticism with denial and anger. I have seen him simmer down in the past, so I hope he'll make constructive use of my comment. I'm certainly not seeking any further involvement with either EllenCT or Srich on this matter. Thanks for your note. I think that I understand your concern, and I hope that I've explained why in this case I feel my statements were appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't be baited

Resorting to baiting me into a 3RR by first warning me then performing essentially vandalism on the article by deleting a key section. I am extremely sorry that you feel like you have to battle and try to get others into trouble. You should watch some of Stefan's videos and gain some self-knowledge. Examine what in your past is leading to your behavior in the present. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Posting on my talk page multiple times after demanding that I not post on your talk page is obviously hypocritical. I treat people incredibly well the first time I meet them, and then treat them exactly how they treat me. The hypocrisy you're invoking probably has its roots in childhood, where you experienced relationships in which you were aggressively forbidden from speaking by people that forced you to listen to what they had to say. Your actions in adulthood likely reflect unexamined and unresolved childhood experiences. You have my sympathies, and my offer to privately help you if you ever want to discuss them. --Netoholic @ 19:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

TBAN

As you have edited on the Freedomain Radio article, specifically mentioning Ludwig von Mises Institute persons, I think you are violating your TBAN. I suggest you revert to page so that it continues to redirect to Molyneux. – S. Rich (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)