User talk:Srich32977

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #163

Notes to self

--S. Rich

SPECIFICO's comment section

User:SPECIFICO – rather than add comments to article talk pages about me, which do not relate to article improvement, please add your comments here, in this particular section. I think (and hope) doing so will help keep discussions focused on the articles. I will respond as I consider appropriate. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll start you off:

At this diff [1] you said: "[inserted]Who do you speak for Srich, or is that the royal Us? [Timestamp omitted]"

This was apparently a comment about my remark "Let us know if you think this is an improvement. If not, we can change it back or find other phrasing. – S. Rich (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

Please add more comments as you wish below the line. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Added note: SPECIFICO, since you are worried that your comments from other talk pages might be construed as having been posted by you, I will provide the diffs and the quotes, taking care to remove signatures. As you say, your remarks are "for the record" and I do not want to be seen as making replies to empty space. – S. Rich (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

---

At this diff [2] SPECIFICO made certain comments. My reply (posted here because they were directed to me) follows:

Reply. MilesMoney's talk page comments speak volumes. I only cited three particular edits (out of 7 done today), which are confrontational. Yesterday I posted a novice editor service award and a message about labeling non-vandalism edits as vandalism. MilesMoney removed my message about vandalism with the comment "bs". If you think I am being BITEY, post your comment here. Why? Sadly, MilesMoney is showing a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and even more sadly you are encouraging that attitude. – S. Rich (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I will also note that SPECIFICO sought to remove his comment from this section. I have restored the diff, but not the comment. If SPECIFICO will remove the comment from MilesMoney's talk page I will be happy to remove the comments from this page in accordance with WP:OWNTALK – S. Rich (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

New comment posted by SPECIFICO on MilesMoney's talk page at this diff: [3]:
Reply: Yes, SPECIFICO has instructed me to say off his talk page, and so has Steeletrap. Alas, there are other editors who I have mentored who decided that WP is not for them. At the moment I can think of only one (above), who thanked me for my assistance. SPECIFICO is making an ad hominem comment implying that editors who chose not to continue have done so because of my comments. [Added comment: I've culled the number of userpages on my watchlist by over 100. The names were added automatically when I posted a welcome message or template warning on usertalk pages. The vast majority of these editors did not continue editing –whether this is because of or in spite of my messages is beyond my ability to figure out. Sometimes new editors respond favorably to comments, sometimes not. 05:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC) ] SPECIFICO has no evidence to support that accusation. And it is sad that SPECIFICO chose to slight me on someone else's talkpage while offering encouragement to MilesMoney. – S. Rich (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@SrichDo not cut and paste my signed text here or elsewhere. WP enables you to post diffs of my words for any legitimate purpose. You may not cut and paste with my signature, giving the appearance that such paste is my own writing on the destination page. I am telling you not to do that again. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As noted in a comment below, I will post comments by SPECIFICO which reference me or my editing behavior. Those comments will not contain SPECIFICO's time stamp. I will faithfully quote SPECIFICO, and I will not reply to an empty space. – S. Rich (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

New comment comment posted by SPECIFICO on MilesMoney's talk page and MilesMoney's response at these diffs: [4]. Subsequent diffs are omitted.

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

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

My response to SPECIFICO: You might note that the comments by MilesMoney imply that my silence in the thread is an endorsement of MM's views. That is not the case and I sought to clarify that doing so was to misconstrue my view. I was hardly "baiting" MM. Rather I pointed out that article talk page commentary should be on the subject of the article and not on other editors, as MM had been doing. Your inferring that an editor has dropped objections might be valid in some cases, but the better course of action is to reach consensus. (And note that I have continued to work in that regard.) But your implied statement that I am misquoting policy is completely off the mark. I have not done so. If you feel differently, then please provide the diffs. Now I might mistakenly mis-apply policy, but those occassions are few and far between, and never deliberate. I do not think your comment of "contentious editors" was very sincere. Your commentary in the subsequent dialogue with MM was acceptable and commendable. – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by SPECIFICO at Talk:Ayn Rand#Oxford Companion to Philosophy with this diff [5]

"@Srich -- Policy states that you should respond to Miles, not remain silent in response to his attempts to engage you in resolution of a disagreement. Miles is not "guessing" about content, and your remark to him on that score is either mistaken or disingenuous. [Timestamp omitted]."

Reply to SPECIFICO: 1. Your comment to me that I am being disingenuous (or mistaken) is not well taken. 2. I did not say Miles was "guessing" about content -- my reply to Miles was in direct response to Miles' (repeated) attempt to ascribe some agreement on my part about the comments that Miles had made. IOW, I objected to Miles' attempt to use my (temporary) quiteness as agreeing with what Miles had said. (And note that Miles repeated the un-founded and polemic "Guess you agree" comment just two minutes after I had said Miles should not make such guesses.) It was quite clear that Miles was not guessing about content and my comment that "Guesses do not help" was in direct response to Miles saying "Guess you agree." 3. What policy says I "should respond to Miles"? I'd like to see you quote such policy. 4. Editors are free to engage or not engage in talk page discussions as they wish. If an editor makes a good faith inquiry or asks a good faith question about an editing rationale, then failure or refusal to answer the inquiry/question can be noted. But Miles was not making an inquiry or question. Miles attempted to put words in my mouth by speculating that I agreed with Miles' position because I had not posted anything recently. (Again, I quickly made it clear that I did not want that to happen.) 5. Your remarks to me on the article talk page hardly helped the article improvement discussion. They are another example of how you go off-topic in order to post barbs about me and my editing behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

At this edit [6] User:SPECIFICO says:

"...@srich Please be careful to review context before using "undo" on recent edits. You've made similar errors on recently on several articles where it appears you either did not read the sources or familiarize yourself with the content and talk page history. Thanks. [Timestamp omitted.]"

Reply to SPECIFICO: Again, sadly, SPECIFICO goes off topic to criticize my edit – not by saying I was incorrect in this specific instance, but by alluding to other undocumented edits. Moreover, SPECIFICO's criticism is not well founded. The IP whom I reverted was the one not familiar with the content or talk page history. I did read the source – it was but one which addressed the question of Ayn Rand's status as a philosopher. And I was one of the participants in the discussion who proposed alternatives and cited policy in support of the proposals. If I was incorrect, SPECIFICO, please specify. (I'd like to see diffs from you.) But don't use article talk pages to make personal remarks that do not address article improvement. – S. Rich (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

At this edit: [7] User:SPECIFICO comments:

"Actually you've made two errors, the first was your decision not to familiarize yourself with the threads of article text and talk page discussion before edit warring. The second, if you care about this issue, was your failure to contribute to the discussion here. [Timestamp omitted]."

Reply to SPECIFICO: Even as I post the comments above, you make personal remarks on the article talk page. You repeat the same allegation, without proof. You fail to AGF by implying that I do not care about the issue and you blatantly ignore the contributions I have made on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack on Riggenbach page

I am asking you to remove the following personal attack which you posted on Riggenbach talk ". Placing the tag for the sake of placing it is disruptive. (I note that User:SPECIFICO had shown no interest in this article in the past.)"

As is evident from my edit summary, the tag relates to the content which you are edit-warring. The PA should be struck through. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. As per the above, you are happy to make personal remarks about me on article talk pages, but it looks like you can't accept a comment about adding inappropriate tags. And even while you fail to explain why the primary source template is appropriate, you add another personal remark: [8]. – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You removed my comment on Mises Institute talk.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#The_institute_as_a_cult. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You should note that I commented in the edit summary that the change you created appeared to be mistaken. And you should note that I commented further in that thread, commenting about the mistaken removal and my intention to re-add your remark. You should note that vandalism has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia, and that an edit summary which clearly explains what was going on should be considered before accusing someone of vandalism. – S. Rich (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, please note that I have commented further on the LvMI talk page, with the observation that my change to your edit occurred one minute after the material had been restored by the other editor. – S. Rich (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Paleolibertarian_support_for_LvMI_edits_.28BRD.29 Dif – [9]

@srich - If you have reasoned concerns, based on policy, with respect to the article text or sources please state them clearly and with diffs to text and policy so that other editors can discuss them. You have failed to do so. In order to ensure that you are understood, please refrain from any humor, irony, sarcasm, parody, or other distracting insertions, including smileyfaces and extraneous links. Thanks. [Timestamp omitted]

Lighten up. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC) [Original timestamp]

You can pose as the clown prince of WP if you like, but that stance is not going to lead to improvement of the articles here. If you can't post on topic your efforts are wasted. [Timestamp omitted]

– S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Here: [10] "@srichYour recent bizarre attempts at off-topic humor, smiley faces and proffers of personal rumination in lieu of bona fide WP policy are disruptive. In the context of your other recent actions, they contibute to a pattern of tendentious editing. Whatever you are going through, please take a break, step away, and reflect. [SPECIFICO's signature & time stamp omitted]"

Again SPECIFICO does not provide commentary which seeks to improve the article. He gives nothing more than a severe and ill-founded attempt to lecture me. Another editor responded with "Bullshit" to SPECIFICO's remark. But that was unfair -- to bulls. SPECIFICO's remark is too lightweight for bullshit. Lacking a sense of humor, it is lighter than mouseshit. – S. Rich (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Another complaint. From User talk:SPECIFICO#WP:Competence.

Posted by me: " Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ludwig von Mises Institute, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. The reason you gave for removal here [11] is not valid. My edit summary referenced the talk page, which in turn references the RSNs. Either way, the citations are under dispute. Readers who are not following notice boards may wish to comment, and the SPS tags properly serve to alert them. Also, the tags put the article into Category:Accuracy disputes. Resolution of the dispute (on the talk page or RSN) is the only valid reasons for removing these templates. Please restore. – [[User:Srich32977|S. Rich]] ([[User talk:Srich32977|talk]]) 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)"

Reply by Specifico 3 days later: "Srich you have been told not to post on my talk page. Do not post anything other than required notices on my talk page. Your template appears to refer to something from several days which has already been addressed on the article talk page and elsewhere. [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)"

Specifico's post from today implies that I just now added the template. In fact, I posted it immediately after he had removed several SPS tags. Moreover, a discussion was opened on the specific edits. The template did not address something "which has already been addressed". The tags were posted because there were discussions ongoing at the time. Specifico's removal of the tags may have been mistaken because he lacks understanding as to how the tags function in WP, but perhaps it was an effort to divert attention from the SPS problems in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Final EDMC request

Hi there, S.Rich. I've posted that final request on the EDMC page, which I'd mentioned previously. If you have time to take a look at it, please do (you can see it here). If you're busy elsewhere, I understand and appreciate the help you've given me so far. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Good news! This has been  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning U.S.D.S prisoner

Srich32977 Many reliable sources are there, including his attorney, and it is documented on Manning wiki page. If you want to stick to fantasy and not facts on trial site, leave this info out.Patroit22 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Coombs

Srich32977. Why did you revert my addition to this sentence and let stand another unsourced addition of name that did not exist in 2010 cite?Patroit22 (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair question. I think you are referring to the last sentence in the Coombs article where Manning's new name is added. That info does deserve a citation, and the RS for Manning's name is contained in the Manning article. Earlier in the article you added "who was sentenced to 35 years in military prison". But the citation for that sentence, as a whole, only talks about the fact that Coombs represents Manning. I'm trying to provide guidance about how to add info on Wikipedia that is supported by the verification process. At the same time there is a lot of discussion going on about how to use Manning's name in WP and about what gender pronouns to use. So I've tried to steer clear of that issue. Regarding your other edit, you talked about how Manning will end up in FLKS. But there are problems with adding that info. 1. The article is about the trial and legal proceedings. Once the sentence is approved by the GCMCA that is the end of the case. (Except for appeals & requests for a pardon.) What happens to Manning after the trial is not part of the case or the US v. Manning article. That is, the judge didn't say "You are sentenced to 35 years at the USDB." She only said "You are sentenced to 35 years imprisonment." 2. We do not have RS that says Manning is going to spend time in any particular prison. As a convicted inmate Manning comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corrections Command and may end up at the Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility. Wherever Manning goes, we need RS to support that info. – S. Rich (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich Thanks for you explanation. I am skeptical. The article as written does not answer the question of where Manning is a prisoner. He is at the U.S.D..S in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and his mailing address is at that maximum security facility. That is factual and it is speculation that he may end up elsewhere. Wkii contributors should stick to facts and not political correctness or shading content to what editors want to portray. .Patroit22 (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How do we know Manning is at the USDB? We need a source that tells us. (There is a Kansas City Star article that says Manning is "likely" to end up at USDB.) I personally believe Manning will go to JRCF (partly because my professional experience). But WP does not operate on what you or I know. If we get a news article that says so. The fact that Manning is physically male and psychologically female will present an unusual problem for USACC. They probably don't have any experience, much less regulations, to handle this. Can Manning mix with the male population at USDB? Oh-ho, Manning self-identifies as female! So Manning will suffer even more isolation in the future. Of course these thoughts are my own speculations, so we can't use them (or inject them) in WP. – S. Rich (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Associated Press and Kansas City Star on August 22,2013 and several TV stations report and Fort Leavenworth spokesman confirms Manning is prisoner at USDS.Patroit22 (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

With this in mind, we need a link(s) IOT verify. Once we do, we can add the info – with the link/s – to the articles. Take a look at WP:BURDEN for more info. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient guidance but Wiki rules and conventions are too cumbersome and subject to nit picking beyond my desire to jump through all the hoops.Patroit22 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't go. Give the tutorial a try. The "nit picking" as you call it does not have to be cumbersome – and the rules are needed to keep WP at the level of quality it has. If there are subjects and articles you are interested in, WP is an interesting medium to explore the topics and make contributions. – S. Rich (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

S Rich-I hung on as you suggested but the cliques with POV agendas edit out the facts and post uncivil comments. So I am leaving Wikipedia. By the way, Manning is still in maximum-security facility at Ft. Leavenworth and appears to be accepted. Thanks for you experienced voice in the wacky world of some Wikipedia misfits.Patroit22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

S.Rich Looks like I am going out in flames as SineBot says I did not sign. Sorry.Patroit22 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Discharge

Hi Rich! Thought I'd drop you a note after I saw the Manning thread and posted this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Your info on AR 190-47 is spot on. But do we dare add it in? I think not. One, there is the OR aspect. Two, it will be OBE once the post-trial proceedings are resolved. For the time being the gender issue will be the blackhole of bytes in the article talk page. The technical stuff about the case going to ACCA etc will be lost in the meantime. My guess is that all aspects of the trial & sentence will be approved. In the meantime the news commentators are talking about Manning's residence at FLKS. They do not realize FL has two military prisons. The USDB is for the real bad guys and/or ones with long terms. But Manning is not a likely escape risk, so the JRCF may be the best place to reside. There there'd be less risk of Manning suffering additional punishment from other prisoners. (The JRCF folks want to just get along and get out.) For practical purposes, though, Manning is a "former" soldier and people who are upset about his actions, confinement, sentencing, heroism, etc., may be satisfied with that description. Next, will Manning get hormones? Not likely. Indeed, what a mess that would be! Such hormones have all sorts of side effects, and a lot of them are psychological. Alas, if Manning had joined the medics upon enlistment these problems would not have occurred. – S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with everything above. What a mess! Interestingly though, there are some federal court rulings on the issue of inmates wanting hormone therapy, with more than one inmate successfully getting federal prison policies changed after a court ruled that denial of the care was unconstitutional. In May 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons sent a memo to it's wardens outlining a new policy that all inmates seeking hormone therapy receive an evaluation. Since USDB and JRCF fall under the DOD instead of the BOP, that policy doesn't apply to where Manning's going, but Manning's lawyer is obviously intending to model a federal suit against the DOD after the other successful challenges. On Manning's choice of MOS, I'll always loathe the fact that he went 35F instead of 68W. I guess his ASVAB score was just too high. It's truly a shame, as everyone including Manning (except Wikileaks maybe) would be much happier today. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Coombs is a military criminal defense guy. And I admire him for that. But this stuff about a civil suit to require hormone treatments is a lot of malarky. The Constitution says Congress shall establish the rules for the military. If Manning is unhappy about not getting sex change treatments, UCMJ Art. 138 is available, and will be a required COA before filing a civilian case. In any event, what a precedent such a court ruling (requiring a sex change) would cause! People could sign up and then demand the procedures. How would such stuff enhance the defense of the nation? Or what about this scenario: Manning gets a sex change because of the status of prison confinement, based on the civilian case. Would it be fair to give sex change treatments to military personnel in prison, but deny the procedures to those not in prison? Or would the military be required to provide sex change procedures for family members? The availability of such benefits might be a great recruiting tool, but as USMC General Zinni said "Once you receive your mission, you've got to ask 'And then what?'!" – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Roger that, what a fun can of worms to open up! Hopefully this will stay in the realm of drug treatments and the fight over whether or not they should be allowed, without progressing to litigation over surgery while in prison which is pretty ridiculous. I wonder if the case will get simpler for Coombs after Manning is legally discharged from the military while still incarcerated with time left to serve. At that point, Manning isn't a soldier and sort of more like a federal inmate who happens to be in a military prison. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich-These are interesting observations but are speculation. You appear to be versed in Army procedures. Wikipedia needs factual information . Manning has a mailing address : Bradley E. Manning 89288 1300 N Warehouse Rd Ft Leavenworth, KS 66027-2304 Perhaps he or Coombs will issue a statement on current confinement protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patroit22 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Opps I must have failed to input four symbols. Sorry.Patroit22 (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that address is for the JRCF. What is the source of your info? – S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich -Sir, I believe you are wrong . That is prisoner mailing address for maximum security USDB . The JRCF address is 830 Sabula Rd, Ft. Leavenworth,KS 6-027-2315 and Manning number there before sentencing to 35 years was one digit different. Where did you get your erroneous information?Patroit22 (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, sir, you are so right! My Google Map eye-balling was wrong. The Wikipedia question is what is the source of info for Manning's mailing address? Once we have that, we have WP:V and can add to the article. – S. Rich (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC) And the laugh is on me even more considering that my first eyeball on Google Map actually shows the PX! 02:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I do not disclose sources on this. When the main stream liberal media prints where he is housed, you can add it to Wikipedia if you desire,Patroit22 (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

BUT, here's an address for USDB FOIA requests: 1301 N. Warehouse. [12] – S. Rich (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I know FOIA from its beginning. It takes weeks and sometimes years to use that route.Patroit22 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Egad! I'm not suggesting that anyone do a FOIA request. That gets into the area of WP:OR. We just need a secondary source for citation purposes. I pointed out the 1301 address because it is slightly different than the 1300 address. This is just part of the fun of figuring out what parts of the puzzle go where. Sometimes we find stuff that is out-and-out-right wrong, even in the WP:RS we look at. We are constantly seeking to verify stuff. Looking again at Google Maps, I see Warehouse Rd extending past the airfield. Then it intersects with Sabalu Rd. As it's been a few years since I was there, I can't remember what facility is what. The new facility was under construction then. It's possible that one mailing address services both facilities. So let's do some more digging. Sooner or later we'll find out where Manning is going to reside. My guess is JRCF. But that's just a guess. – S. Rich (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No it is not possible that JRCF and USDB have the same mailing address. USDB mail address is Warehouse Rd and JRCF mail address is Sabalu Rd. Both have official web sites that give those addresses for prisoner mail. Manning is now at USDB. I do not know where he will end up given the current politics but his sentence is for more than 10 years and he is a high risk prisoner which suggests USDS with proper control for personal safety to extent possible. Patroit22 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Copy on the Sabalu Rd mailing address. This story will be in the news for a few more days/weeks, so we'll find out. Thanks for clarifying the mailing address stuff for me. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap's comment section

User:Steeletrap – rather than add comments to article talk pages and user talk pages about me, which do not relate to article improvement or other users, please add your comments here, in this particular section. I think (and hope) doing so will help keep discussions focused on the articles. I will respond as I consider appropriate.

The area below the line is reserved for your comments. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Starting things off, here is a comment (and my reply) [13]:

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

"From personal experience, I also have to say that I consider your (Rich's) "mentoring" to basically equate to WP:Hounding. Steeletrap (talk) [Timestamp omitted]"

Reply: Let's review what I have done WRT MilesMoney: 1. I post a discussion notice about Gary North. 2. I say "don't get discouraged" and post a service award. 3. I leave a paragraph explaining the RSN & need for RS. 4. I upgrade the service award and 4a. leave a template message about EW and I add comments about tagging edits as vandalism. In response MilesMoney removes my message about EW/vandalism with the comment "bs". 5. I in turn (tit-for-tat) revert my upgrade of the service award. And then 6. I leave a message about WP:THREATEN and specify what are offending remarks. (These are not the only inappropriate remarks in MilesMoney's edit history). MilesMoney responds and implies that I am not competent. So were my remarks in July WikiHounding? Were my comments about EW and vandalism tags and MilesMoney's threats uncivil? – S. Rich (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL Srich. Stalkers always start off with the "friendly" words.. Time to chill. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Rich, I again question your comprehension of policy. WP:INTIM does not refer to simply "uncivil" comments, but to threats. If Miles were to threaten to block/report to ANI another user based on erroneous claims (something you're fond of doing with your "template-bombs"), or for that matter threaten to murder or kidnap another user, that would constitute a threat. But Miles did nothing of the sort.

I think you need to try to unwind for a bit. Your stress levels are very high right now, and it has me worried. Steeletrap (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich is fortunate to have the gentle touch of a woman here, urging calm. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Steele, MilesMoney had made a series of explicit "threat" type remarks in the past, not just today. (And as you have often commented, uncivil remarks are often not appropriate.) I choose to post only the diffs from today, with hopes that MilesMoney would look at the guidance and take a different approach to talkpage commentary. Your comments -- which were actually digs at me -- only served to encourage MilesMoney's undiplomatic commentary, which I still hope is at an end. – S. Rich (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a personal attack on my and an accusation that I slyly posted in bad faith with intention to dig you, whatever that means. Do not interact with me until you are able to do so in full accord with WP core principles and policies. If you are unable to control yourself, I will seek community support. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

?? What is a personal attack on whom?? Steepletrap says I don't comprehend policy and I was replying to Steele. – S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, it looks like you thought I was replying to you. Your remark was unsigned. In any event, I will post remarks on this talk page (preferably in the section above) whenever you make comments about me. If you don't want interaction, don't mention me in commentary or make personal comments in reply to other comments I make on article talk pages or other user talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Bleeding Heart Libertarians

This website is a forum for academic discourse among libertarians, most of whom are tenured university professors (see: here for a list of contributors). Exactly how is this a non-RS while the LewRockwell.com blog (which unlikE BHL publishes creationist/AIDS denialist/911 truth nonsense) is one? Steeletrap (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here. No matter how you look at it, BHL is a WP:BLOG (and is not a news blog), and the guidance is clear: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." As the blog post refers to third parties, living third parties, we cannot use it. BTW: You posted the BHL piece Boldly, I went and Reverted it, and so the next phase is to Discuss it on the talk page. I am going to re-revet so that you can open a discussion if you desire. – S. Rich (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia rule says that blogs cannot be used as reliable sources? WP:Blogs refers specifically to self-published sources; it does not cover every website that uses the word "blog" to describe itself. A source published and reviewed by dozens of academics is not self-published. Steeletrap (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So as to avoid being accused of mis-quoting policy, here it is verbatim: "...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. [emphasis added]" Even if composed of academics, BHL appears to be a group blog. (Also, it may qualify as unacceptable BLOG material under the other criteria.) Accordingly, no matter how distinguished the contributors seem to be, it is "largely not acceptable". Even so, where are there academic reviews, let alone academic peer-reviews, of BHL? And since the blog mentions BLPs, the greatest care must be used. Since the blog involves living people, the WP:BURDEN is on you to show why we should include it. You might post something on the WP:RSN and ask. Perhaps it has already been discussed. – S. Rich (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you're edit warring again. Please read the policy.

It doesn't matter that you believe the "wrong version" resides in the article text during discussion of your dispute. Do the Right Thing and undo your removal while you attempt to convert other editors to your erroneous assertion that policy forbids this source. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What policy, Specifico, what policy? If the page has a BLP issue, then the offending material has to go as a matter of WP:BLP policy and it's best to keep it off the page until the issue is resolved. And since the BHL posting involved living people the policy says: "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Maybe you mean EW? Well, the bold face policy which I've quoted is pretty clear. And 3RR has an exception for BLP issues -- see WP:NOT3RR. What policy do you want me to follow (or quote)? Steeletrap has done the right thing by opening a discussion, which I suggested above IAW BRD. Edit warring "again"? Please feel free to post my "EW" on the notice board. – S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what page this is about, but one general comment: The exclusion of blogs as sources for BLP material refers to material that is used in the article. If the blog is being cited for something in the article that is not about a living person, and there just happens to be other material about living people somewhere in the blog, then I would expect the normal WP:SPS standards to apply. Those standards aren't exactly pro-blog, but they aren't as strict as the BLP rules and definitely don't provide a 3RR exception. So, as I said, I don't know what content is in dispute here, but be careful with the distinction. If the disputed claim in the article is about a living person, then leave it out by default until the issue is resolved; removing disputed BLP claims is not a 3RR violation. If the claim in the article is something else, follow the normal 3RR guideline. --RL0919 (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are the diffs: [14]. – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on that content, I doubt that an uninvolved administrator would consider removing it a 3RR exception. The in-article content is a claim about an organization, not an individual, so per WP:BLPGROUP it wouldn't get the same treatment. So my advice is to proceed as if this were a normal, non-BLP dispute. (Please note that I am an administrator, but I am involved in disputes with some of the people in this discussion, so this is just my opinion as an editor, not any sort of "ruling" or "warning".) --RL0919 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

We did not get close to 3RR – a discussion was opened. I requested that we open BRD with the 2nd revert. And Steeletrap did so. Here and on the article talk page. Specifico's comments, as far as I can tell, are directed towards me. I'm glad to see them here, rather than on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't raise a straw man (3RR is solely your statement). Your behavior is EW reinsertion based on your false assertion of BLP and later of half a dozen other inapplicable policies and if you wish to proceed with a good faith discussion, you would do well to reverse yourself. Jockeying to ensure that "your" version stands prior to discussion is unfortunate. Up to you. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If no one is pushing 3RR and the policy issue is clarified, then I disclaim all further interest in this dispute and hope everyone strives for a productive collaboration. WP:TPW, over and out. --RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For User:SPECIFICO, I await an answer to this question: [15]. With your answer, the discussion can proceed. If you say "yes", then I will pose the next question. If you say no, then I will ask what sort of source BHL is. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Murray & Gary

I notice you are in "doubt" about whether Rothbard influenced North.

These two men were not only intellectual fellow travelers but exceedingly intimate friends, who saw eye-to-eye on cultural as well as economic issues (North's Christian Economics epistemology grew out of the breakthroughs of Man, Economy and State). Please see North's beautiful lecture in honor of Rothbard, where he cites the career of the profilic lecturer of economics at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute as an "academic role model" for all future economists ever. (1) The lecture (supposedly relating to "economics") is an hour comprised solely of anecdotes and clichés with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Thus even in this lecture, we can see Rothbard's "footprints" on North's "methodology" as well as his heart.

North's eloquence and empathy, as well as his irrepressible love for Rothbard, make this lecture a "treat" to listen to, as Llewellyn Rockwell says in his introduction of the prolific Christian Reconstructionist theorist. Most revealingly is when North says Rothbard was the best economist ever because of Man, Economy and State, and that no student ever will come close to matching his achievement.

I'm also trying to find Professor North's acceptance speech after receiving the Rothbard Medal in 2004 -- the picture on North's entry appropriately pays homage to this occasion, one of the (if not THE) highlight of North's life.) I think you'd agree that the Youtube link above is sufficient to substantiate Murray and Gary's intimate intellectual relationship. But I think we need to add a section to North's article detailing this connection, so seminal it was in forming North's theoretical views. Steeletrap (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for posting your comments. By itself the fact that North cited Rothbard is not enough to say he was influenced by him. (Frankly, the "influenced/influenced by" parameters in these infoboxes are subject to abuse. The infobox should summarize what is in the text, so a mere mention in the text does not justify mention in the infobox.) But I did not want to dig too deeply to figure out how the context of North's article played into their saga. I'll take a closer look at the UTube video. As both articles are on my watchlist, I look forward to seeing what pops up. – S. Rich (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I note, in general, that "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." – S. Rich (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Professor3929

Please stop your safeguarding of false information misleading readers. Read wikipedia rules, any post can be edited any number of times. Do not continue reverse edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved. It is you, who acts in disruptive way. Information on the page "Editing List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations" is obviously incorrect. This post promotes CHEA and misleading all readers (that has no any authority). Continuing to act in disruptively way , as you do, can result in your being blocked from editing.

Professor3929

August 2013[edit source]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. Please discuss your suggestions for improvement on the talk page. The approach you are taking is not helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor3929 (talk • contribs)

16:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal opinion

SRich My good faith edit to this article is based on New York Times publications in the referenced web site as to the destination between leaks of legally classified U.S. intelligence and whistle blowing of improper U.S. actions. I assume that you are acting in good faith and not following my edits due to past differences.Patroit22 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually the "reference" to the NYT stories is not an acceptable source. And I have removed it IAW WP:ELNO #9. The second problem (with they NYT search result) is that references "should directly support the information as it is presented in an article." WP:RS. So, even if one or more of the NYT stories used the term traitor, we do not have direct support for that description. Third problem is the definition of traitor. Legally it is waging war against one's own country. Since Assange is Swedish or Australian, we do not see him waging war against anyone and cannot properly describe him as a traitor.

In any event I apologize for mistaking your edit as motivated by POV and I will strikeout the message left on your talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

SRich Thanks for apology. Now that NYT source is deleted, there is no direct support cited that Wikileaks publishes whistleblower information. Should you delete that? Th term traitor referred to sources and not Assange.Patroit22 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair question, but a bit tougher to answer. Information published by WikiLeaks gives us a blow-by-blow description of what WikiLeaks has put out. Did they get the info from whistleblowers? If so, the WP:LEDE in the Assange article is correct when it says he got stuff from whistleblowers. Assange article does have RS that describes WikiLeaks as a website for whistleblowers/whistleblowing website. (See footnotes 68, 82, 122 & 160.) So that tidbit of info in the lede is proper. Could it use a citation right there to support it? Yes. But I'm not inclined to do that bit of work. – S. Rich (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks self reporting on what they do is not objective and credible. CiaoPatroit22 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But the footnotes I referred to are not WL self-reporting sources. When we see stuff in WP:RS like various newspapers we accept it as "reliable" because the source, the newspaper, is designated as reliable. – S. Rich (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC

Hi, thank you for the advice on the RFC. The main problem is that everyone is letting their emotions rule instead of reason. That's why I never commented in the discussions or think they're constructive. If they weren't yelling at each other, I wouldn't have to have raised these points. While this will make a lot of arguments, it will benefit the community in the end by making a new precedent. If it was a few people, I would gladly give warnings. However, 50+ people is too large for me to track down. Again, thank you for the commentary. --Thebirdlover (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hatting some of the purely bickering/PA portions might help. Even though you are an non-involved editor, such efforts might be herding cats. I think the real (and only) cure will be time. – S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with WMSCOG page

Hello, I am writing regarding some edits on the World Mission Society Church of God page. It looks like a potential edit war and I saw that you had given a 3rd opinion on the page's talk page. It seems there are 2 completely different versions of the page, and that someone, who was not signed in, made drastic changes to the page that do not agree with wiki's NPOV policy. The page formerly was objective and provided history from both the church's website as well as 3rd party sources. However, the page was changed and added history that is completely contrary to these verifiable sources to try to make up negative, untrue claims and digging for negative information from opinionated, subjective articles. One neutral article is from a major magazine in Korea which lists the church history (see here: http://monthly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?nNewsNumb=200903100002&ctcd=&cpage=1 & translate). If you could please provide your assistance in this matter I would greatly appreciate your help and experience. Thank you! Watts9595 (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Watts. I've left a welcome message on your talk page. It has a lot of links that explain WP editing procedures and policies. As for your request to review the WMSCOG page, I think I'll pass. I've got some other pots on the stove at the moment. I suggest you post a request on the WP:3O project page. – S. Rich (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi, thankyou very much for your kind and constructive feedback regarding my edits to the Nidal Malik Hasan article. It's very rare to get in touch with another Wikipedian. I was born in Malaysia and lived there for twelve years before migrating to New Zealand, which is now my home. Now, I am interested in the Nidal Hasan article because I felt that not many other editors were paying that much attention to the ongoing trial and sentencing. I wanted to provide a balanced and neutral account of the Hasan trial based on news reports from Google News. Besides that topic, I also have an interest in editing articles related to Malaysian and New Zealand topics, particularly those relating to history and government institutions.

I have also edited for about nine years at Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki. I divide my time between those two places. It's a pleasure to get to know you even though we live on the opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean. I also read through your user page and see you have served in the US Army and are experienced in law as well. Thankyou very much for taking the time to help a fellow user like me. Best regards. Andykatib 05:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.90.142 (talk)

Andy, you are a young Asian/Oceania guy and I'm an old American/European guy. But the internet and Wikipedia have created a miracle whereby two guys from across the Pacific can work together on a project (WP) that impacts the world in a most positive (at least hopefully positive) manner! I am thrilled that you took the time to respond to my message. Best regards, and thank you for your thoughtful comments. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, glad to hear from you very quickly. Sorry, I forgot to log in just now. That was my IP address. As a university student, I know that a lot of students in my generation would turn to the Internet when they do research. Since it's not advisable to cite Wikipedia, it's good that users like us add references in order to point them out to other reliable primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is useful because it serves as a medium for people to locate sources for their research. Best regards and thanks for your time. - Andykatib 05:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Weird

I can't remember removing that content.I must have been tired.Anyway my intention was probably to change no to No with a capital N.--Killuminator (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps so. What I thought was you had seen the infobox without the Alexa data (in the read state) and thought it was not worth keeping because it did not appear. All is well with the world and Wikipedia. Thanks for the comment. – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

gladwell article link

https://www.byliner.com/malcolm-gladwell/stories/blowing-up

it is a profile on taleb from 1996

another link to same article http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/04/22/020422fa_fact_gladwell

Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

byliner only gives us a partial view of the story. Feel free to improve the article by adding the New Yorker link! – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Economic Value of a Law Degree

Placing the Economic Value of a Law Degree article front and center in the "Law School in the United States" article appears to give undue weight to the article. I definitely think it should be included, but I disagree that it should be cited in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berknyc81 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Move the section lower in the article. But removing the sourced material as you did is not the way to improve the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all of the people you are signing up for IBR need to know that they are signing up for an indenture. As Congress proved in 2005, there is no assurance that the educational loan contract they sign today cannot be modified to their detriment in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berknyc81 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. I am not signing up anybody for anything. Please explain. – S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Friedrich Hayek

I was going to mention the Guggenheim Fellowship to you, but you seem to have beaten me to it. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

Hi, Srich.

Whoever is editing the 'Objectivism (Ayn Rand)' page to read 'an amateur philosophy' is definitely engaging in an act of vandalism. 'Amateur' has two meanings, one being a statement of fact, the other an opinion. In the first, an amateur is someone who does an activity as a pastime, rather than for money. Ayn Rand was definitely a professional rather than an amateur. She wrote articles and books on philosophy for money. An encyclopedia deals with facts. One can subscribe to the view that Rand was an amateur in the second sense, 'amateur' meaning lacking the skills of a professional, i.e. 'amateurish'. But, that is an opinion. An encyclopedia does not present an opinion as a fact. If the vandal wishes to cite any such criticism from reputable sources, he should be free to do so in the appropriate section of the article. But, he should not use weasel words.

Renren. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renren8123 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Renren8123, there are two issues involved. One is the back and forth edit warring on those article pages. I requested page protection to stop the EW, and it was granted. If I see more of this edit warring, I will post advisories on the editor talk pages. (As I have in the past.) The second issue is about "vandalism". Wikipedia uses the term vandalism with a very specific meaning. There is discussion about using "amateur" in the Ayn Rand and Objectivism articles. Those discussions are open for everyone to read and contribute to. But using "vandalism" (or "vandal") to describe good faith edits is uncivil and does not assume good faith. This applies to talk pages and to edit summaries. Please do not use the term except when reverting edits which are clearly vandalism, and not merely part of the slow moving discussion/edit war about "amateur". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ayn Rand

Srich32977, I'm not going to revert you, but I would be grateful if in future you didn't do things like this, on the Ayn Rand talk page. It may be undiplomatic to point out that someone is editing incompetently or making incompetent suggestions, but it's not a personal attack. It would have been a personal attack if I had simply said "You are an incompetent", but I didn't do that. There is altogether too much prissy over-sensitivity regarding this kind of issue on Wikipedia. By the way, when and if you do make a bid to become an administrator, you can expect me to oppose it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As you objected I was about to restore the material. But looks like you've removed the template. That's fine, in fact, it's good. The difficulty was in saying "incompetent". Comments themselves are not incompetent, they get posted by incompetent editors. The comment "Your comments are an example of what I mean by incompetent editing" directly challenges the editor's competence. The discussions on Ayn Rand get pretty heated, so I've sought to temper them. Alas, I've rushed into to an area where angels fear to tread. Your admonition is well taken and I shall be more cautious. – S. Rich (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Lake Cahuilla

Per WP:ALSO, "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Like Lake Cahuilla, Tulare Lake was an enormous lake in California. Both lakes were important to the indigenous peoples inhabiting the regions and both lakes went dry after European contact. That seems to me at least "tangentially related." --50.46.245.232 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Add it back with a note about how it is related in this regard. But without a note Tulare is no more related than Mono, Tahoe, or other natural lakes. We do not want See also sections for lakes that go on and on listing lakes. (And thanks for the lake infobox.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure where to add this information. "By the way, there was another huge lake in California also named after a local tribe that suffered a similar fate!" seems a little out of place. If I can think of something, I'll add it back in.--50.46.245.232 (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. When you decide, you add Tulare back into the SA section – ({{spaced ndash}}) it and give a brief description. (And you want L Tulare to be a worthwhile article to link to.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ramona High School

Dear S. Rich, thank you for correcting me and pointing out "conflict of interest" policy regarding contributions to the Wikipedia. I agree with your reasoning, and respectfully concur with my article being deleted. Markharbour (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Markharbour

You're most welcome. If you've never been overseas before, I'm sure you'll find the trip to be a great adventure! – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links

Thanks for the links. I didn't realize I had put our GLAM notice on the wrong page. We'll fix shortly. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

3RR reported

Your recent editing history at Ludwig von Mises Institute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MilesMoney (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh? Please specify the diffs. – S. Rich (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I see the WP:AN3 you posted and have responded. – S. Rich (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Hillsdale College

You appear to be edit-warring on Hillsdale College. Do not EW even though you believe you are "right." Seek dispute resolution or pursue consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 04:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I won't touch Hillsdale for the time being. But I think your edit summary reveals what's going on: [16]. The selective, partial, and POV edits from the Huffington Post story tell the real story. – S. Rich (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, the quote about "dark ones" is accurately represented by SPECIFICO. Low-tier, ideologically biased academic institutions often have scholars who make inflammatory and impolitic assertions. They've got nothing to lose.

I also have to question the self-serving "history" of the institution regarding its being the first university to oppose discrimination. Is there any non-right-wing source that attests to this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As to the "quote", I must differ. Specifico's edit summary referred to Arnn's comments as "racist". And the very selective and blatant partial quotation from the Huffington Post story bears this out. Indeed, I am appalled. Steele, your concerns about the history of the institution are well founded. I'd like to see non-PRIMARY to support this history as well. (While it is self-serving, but may be well founded in historical fact.) As Wikipedia editors, we should be looking at the RS with a neutral stance. E.g., we should not pre-judge the RS as right or left wing as the basis for our editing evaluation. All-in-all, Steele, I greatly appreciate your comments. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether a comment is "racist" is largely a matter of personal opinion. In my opinion, a glib use of a term like "dark ones" to describe blacks, Latinos and others implies some racial insensitivity (he sounded like he was speaking about some sort of commercial product). You're entitled to disagree. But why can't we present the quote? Steeletrap (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, deciding whether Arnn's comment was racist is a personal opinion. And editing WP must be done with the absolute minimum of POV. But the edit summary expressed the editor's POV and the actual material presented was a distortion of the source. Given that Hillsdale prides itself in its non-discrimination policies, established decades ago, it is hard to believe that Arnn was asserting any sort of racial prejudice when he used the term. The quote from the H-Post story is now in the article -- in full. (Thank you for the further rendition.) And that is the only way for WP to present it. – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

or...

Hillsdale states that it prides itself on its non-discrimination policies because that statement has been a useful fundraising tactic for the college, which was reported near insolvency before Lew Rockwell launched the imprimis which has been called the most successful fundraising vehicle ever devised. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Having read more about this, I can report that the culture of the university was radically transformed since the 19th and early/mid 20th century. If it had been a socially conservative university back then, it would have supported slavery and segregation respectively. The current university culture is a proud product of the Reagan Revolution, with a heavy contemporary influence by Doc Ron Paul. Steeletrap (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The entire world has changed, century by century, decade by decade, year by year, etc. It is what it is now, and they seem to be proud of certain traditions. We are here to write up informative articles, and not speculate or conduct OR on the influences that Reagan or Paul or Rockwell had on the institution. Above all, we must avoid injecting our POVs into the article. I see that Orlady has edited there recently. She's an awesome Wikipedian and I think the article will benefit greatly from her attention. – S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Incivility

Now that you admitted that this edit is uncivil, you have an obligation to fix it, else I have an obligation to report you. MilesMoney (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Impolite might be a better term. Either way, I'm not going to change what I said. While you may feel you have an obligation to report, I suggest you read WP:Civility warnings before doing so. – S. Rich (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The warning above is sufficient, but I'll give you what you asked for. MilesMoney (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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 MilesMoney (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note: this was probably overkill. I've found that templating someone for AGF rarely has the intended effect, particularly when you are involved in a dispute with that person and have been asked not to post on their talk page. It's more likely to escalate the conflict than solve the problem. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Your note has great pertinence. But what to do? A talk page section about "IP vandalism" Talk:Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#IP_vandalism is opened and I posted a link to NOTVANDAL rather than on the editor's talk page. That short note "escalated" the discussion and now there are comments implying that I am using IP addresses to make changes. To answer my own question, I shall refrain. – S. Rich (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you've been hounding and harassing user Miles for several weeks now. It doesn't matter who's "right" or "who started it" -- better to disengage. You know I've advised him the same thing previously but right now you are inflaming and needlessly provoking contention instead of cooperation. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've always found this meatball essay to be helpful in situations like this. It's called "DefendEachOther" but it could just as easily be called "Don'tDefendYourself". It's obvious to any outside observer that the IP edits aren't "vandalism" and if anybody seriously believes the IPs are you then an outside administrator will be able to clear things up at SPI. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Poor Miles. I can see how my comments have inflamed and needlessly provoked contention instead of cooperation in these edits: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], & [22]. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And this: [23]. – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, I have warned and counseled Miles about his edits on several occasions. But this thread is about you, and frankly the above post is an example of the kind of needless, sarcastic, unproductive edit we've been seeing from you recently. Please take a deep breath. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

[24]. – S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

[25] – S. Rich (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

RE:Janus U & Newport U

I have added a source, could you have a look at it? I don't have time to create an article for Janus though. Should I delete the redirect? Ajax F¡ore_talk 00:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's do this: Please delete the redirect. Then we can wipeout the old Newport U junk (dead links) and re-name/move the article as Janus University. – S. Rich (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been deleted. Ajax F¡ore_talk 22:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. One of us can redo Janus. At the moment I'm stirring other pots, but will do it later if you don't get a chance. – S. Rich (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'll have a chance, I'm currently involved in a dispute somewhere. Ajax F¡ore_talk 23:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw. Not understanding Spanish, I have no opinion on that matter. But perhaps some translations, even by Google, would help. I'll do Newport U a bit later. – S. Rich (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Mises Inst

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please undo your most recent revert and use talk per BRD rather than undo a revert. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You will be so kind as to note that I already opened threads on both the Mises.org and LvM talk pages, immediately after I made the changes. Moreover, the edits were done IAW WP:PRESERVE. – S. Rich (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You would do well to read WP:BRD -- it is not about making sure that your preferred version is in place before or while pursuing discussion. Quite the contrary. It's about thinking of the longer-term improvement of the article and knowing that whatever consensus is reached in the talk discussion will represent a durable improvement. As others have already told you, your repeated jockeying, edit-warring, gaming the system, and equivocating on policy and procedure has been a huge drain on editor and admin attention and has disrupted the improvement of these articles. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think WP:PRESERVE overrules WP:BRD and certainly not WP:EW. For instance, WP:Preserve says that material can also be preserved on the talk page. You would do well to edit a little less aggressively, especially with tempers as high as they are. Specifico said on my talk page that they intended to step back for a bit, and I urge you to consider doing the same. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

SPI and you

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/QuebecSierra, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

MilesMoney (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises Institute page

I wanted to thank you for your time in working on the Ludwig von Mises Institute page and the "appreciation" you sent my way. I discovered the pages state a few days ago (it was fine a few months ago, last I looked). Do you have any advice to give as far as fixing the bias problems? It seems like two or three individuals are trying to push a agenda over there. Do you have any incite into how the appeals process works over here? I've always been able to reach conclusion on changes in the talk page(s) in the past, but these guys seem bent on not cooperating in the spirit of Wikipedia... a "my way or the highway" viewpoint. --BookishOwl (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Note on Capitalism 06/10/2013

Hi Srich32977, thankyou very much for notifying to me to the correct protocol for editing Wikipedia. Can you please explain more to me about the polite method to delete comments from Wikipedia, I am very new, signed up today.

I know from first hand experience that the comment, starting with "In practice, all early 21st century developed economies devote 40–60% of their GDP to taxes and the public sector" is incorrect, because I am an Australian and Australia is a developed country with a commitment to the free market and (relative to Europe at least) minimalist government. According to the CIA Worldfactbook Australia has taxes/public services worth 32.3% of GDP, substantially lower than 40%. Furthermore, America and Singapore have an even greater commitment to small government, with taxes attributing to 15% of GDP for both countries. Reference: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2221rank.html?countryname=Australia&countrycode=as&regionCode=aus&rank=79#as

I would very much like to see this error corrected, and I suspect that if the "In practice, all early 21st century developed economies devote 40–60% of their GDP to taxes and the public sector" is corrected then the whole paragraph does not make sense, because it means that Joeseph Strummtler's prediction is incorrect, since many countries (including the biggest economy in the world) did not embrace such high taxing model for the economy.

So I believe it is important that this comment is removed after we get contact from the author, because it is not factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strength, honor, and liberty (talk • contribs) 06:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Riverside City College

The History section needs to be updated. You have contributed a lot to the article, so I thought it would be polite to let you know. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Gosh. I have not looked at the article for a while. The school has been around for many years and not much changes. They've build new structures and they are working on a culinary arts institute. But that's all that I know of at present. (I was a student at RCC some time ago and I'm interested in Dr. Jaeger.) At present, though, I'm working on other projects. Thanks for contacting me and thanks for your interest in RCC. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. (I attended evening classes at RCC in the 1960s). A word is missing in a sentence in the History section. I think it is supposed to be enrollment, but am not certain, so I won't make a guess. Could you put it on your "do it whenever" list? I know some of what is going on elsewhere and understand your plate is full. As an aside, please see my comment at United States Armed Forces. And take a look at your Retirement Certificate and all your Honorable Discharge Certificates. I bet they read the same as mine. Not United States Armed Forces but ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! If a discussion for name change surfaces again, please use your ammo. Sorry about the shouting. Thank you for your service to our country. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've done some tweaking on the RCC article. More is needed. Re the certificates, are there WP articles that need work? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hillsdale College

Srich, I am currently trying to repair the Hillsdale College article after a user (SPECIFICO) mass blanked/deleted large section of the article instead of adding sources or trying to fix text that was objectionable to that user. I noticed that you had made several helpful changes around that time and are an experienced user, and wanted to ask you to take a look at the page and help me repair the disjointed impact of the mass blanking as well as address other issues with the article. I am not a regular editor and only discovered the damage caused by SPECIFICO's mass blanking/deletion of large portions of the page because I came to that particular wikipedia page to learn more about Hillsdale's Washington D.C. Kirby Center. Coincidentally, the portion of the article providing information on the Kirby Center was essentially deleted as part of those mass blankings. Three of the largest mass blankings that SPECIFICO did deleted (-2,460)‎, (-2,674)‎, and (-3,207)‎ portions of uninterrupted text, respectively. I am not familiar with the editing guidelines for Wikipedia, but mass deletions of text without attempting to reword text or add sources appears to run against the spirit of what I have always considered Wikipedia to operate under. Your help would be greatly appreciated until the page settles down and some of those issues are addressed. Part of my worry is that I will further disjoint the page in trying to fix it because I do not have significant experience editing Wikipedia. If nothing else, perhaps you could keep an eye on the page for a while. Thank you for reading my long post! 66.252.102.197 (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I offer three suggestions: 1. Recommend you register as a WP editor. 2. Post your specific concerns on the article talk page. (WP:BRD is an important essay on how editing in these situations is carried out.) 3. Read up on WP guidelines. The WP:5P and WP:BETTER are worthwhile. I know that User:Orlady is monitoring the page and I trust her judgment on what is proper. – S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

WP policy

I suggest you read the policy on talk page refactoring and hatting. Time and again you assert nonexistent or misapplied policy rather than follow the applicable WP norms, policies and procedures which actually have been promulgated here. Such actions are disruptive and disrespectful of other editors and the WP project. It is unfortunate that you appear to disregard the many times this problem has been brought to your attention and that your knee-jerk response is to edit war rather than to engage in discussion on such topics. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Srich, you now have 3 editors telling you to undo your refactoring of the talk page. Ignoring that could really boomerang on you. You are an involved editor on that page, not an Admin or moderator. Please review WP:COMPETENCE. You are not working well within the collaborative environment. When you become agitated, it's important to disengage, not to dig in to prove (only to yourself) that you were "right." Please undo your actions. SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have read Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures and are bringing up the issue here. Also, I have commented further on the AR talk page. You may wish to have the closed threads re-opened, but I cannot see any justification for reopening them. The issues they involved are resolved. MilesMoney may wish to have them reopened, but MM has promised not to dispute the results of the RfC or edit against its stated consensus. So I don't think MM really wants to make comments about the RfC or its results. Who was that third editor? IAW "Challenging other closures", I await their comments on this talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

SRich, you might remember this warning that I gave to Miles. I was actually coming here to say something similar to you about closing discussions you're involved in and then reverting when somebody reverts your close, but when I checked your edit history I saw that you'd already self-reverted. (Thanks.) In my opinion, if a discussion needs to be closed then somebody uninvolved should do it, or it should be left to die organically and be archived. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: As the RfC had closed, I hoped the related threads could be resolved. They were suffering from more needless post-RfC additions. (And I have no stake in which way the threads run.) So I sent up the trial balloon(s) – only it turns out they had radiation shielding. (Also I posted talk page comments that urged the community to move on.) While the threads are "reopened", my efforts may have had some small positive impact. Oh well. And thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, not to belabor this unnecessarily, however... Your response above again has the tone of petulant rationalization, spin-meistering, and denial. It's not a "trial balloon" to hat the threads and then kick, scream, and edit-war when others object. You're right this is not, per se, an earth-shaking issue, but I hope that it can be significant for you in that it offers you the opportunity to reflect on and reevaluate your recent behavior and interaction with other editors -- the issues which have caused Steeletrap's and others' WP:COMPETENCE concerns. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Small side note, I think we can stop throwing around the WP:COMPETENCE essay. It's obvious that SRich is both competent and capable, and suggesting otherwise isn't going to do help anything. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your false insinuation

I was not involved in the Rand RfC and have not commented on that talk page in over a month. You should strike through your insinuating "question" on AN and next time please ascertain the facts before referring to another editor's actions. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I was quite aware of the facts, and the "insinuation" you see is entirely of your own making. You did comment some 20 times on the Ayn Rand talk page to make off-topic comments about me and about the status of Rand as a philosopher. Doesn't that make you an "involved" editor? Moreover, what justification do you have for making off-topic, personal remarks on article talk pages and WP:ANB pages? – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As I stated numerous times on that talk page, the discussion was moot and will only be resolved when the article text itself provides a definitive solution. I gave up on that long before the RfC and your accusation, in the guise of another of your rhetorical questions, is uncivil and unproductive. I've tried to counsel you many times that your passive-aggressive interference with other editors and your posturing as a magistrate or moderator among your peer group editors is disruptive. Your behavior has garnered you warnings from an incredibly diverse group of editors, from Steeletrap to Carolmoore and many others. I can only repeat: Instead of trying to impose your will on your peers, and instead of edit-warring and maneuvering to prove yourself "right," you should try to be more responsive to other editors messages. When other editors explain to you that you have misstated or misinterpreted WP policy, that is your opportunity not to argue and deny their views, but to challenge yourself to a better understanding through study and reevaluation. Instead, I see increasingly battleground behavior and attempts to denigrate and criticize other editors. It's needless and it will ultimately prevent you from getting the fulfillment you could be experiencing from your efforts at WP. I suggest you back away from Miles, an editor whom you know to be easily provoked, and concentrate your efforts in other areas including reflection and study of WP's core policies. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are just repeating the same bullshit. You have not posted any ANI's on me and my egregious behavior. I only see pink, orange, yellow, and green comments about me. (Worst yet, you do so on article talk pages.) Still, you might like to post an WP:RFC/U. That would be interesting to read and I would welcome remarks from editors whom I hold in higher regard. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Rich, I've been watching this conflict for a while, and since you said you'd welcome remarks from other editors, let me say something. It's pretty obvious that I think User:MilesMoney and User:StillStanding-247 are the same person, and even if they aren't, Miles seems to be going down the same path. My advice is, don't be Miles's User:Belchfire. It didn't end well for him either. I don't know what steps would work best for you, but you do need to do something, whether that means taking a step back, limiting yourself to a voluntary 1RR, or mending bridges with User:Specifico (you both seem to be very reasonable people). Anyway, there's my opinion, do what you like with it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Classy

Tagging me for edit warring is hilarious. Have a nice day. IrishStephen (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The second tag occurred because I did not realize Hot Spot had already tagged your page and I added to my comment explaining. But I'm glad you have a sense of humour. And I shall enjoy my day. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Pritzker Military Library

First, thank you for all your help with the Pritzker GLAM project. We really appreciate it as we want all Wikipedians to be able to use our collections.

Secondly, can you update the director on the info box you created? The director is Ken Clarke, whose official title is President & CEO. See: http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/About/staff-clarke.aspx My position at the Pritzker is more of the Assistant Director varietal; I manage Books and Library Services department. See: http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/About/staff-embrey.aspx Other key staff include Nancy Houghton, who is in charge of the TV shows for PBS and Kat Latham, who handles the institution's museum functions.

Thank you again for your help! TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Perhaps later someone can come in and add the refs. (And, Teri, please tell your volunteers thank you. If they can look at the before and after renditions of Dietz, they will see article improvements that should serve as a guideline for other contributions they want to make.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Edit Warring on Fractional Reserve

Your undo of my reversion of the Ron Paul bit is very disappointing. I had thought you were staying away from these economics articles and concentrating on other areas. If you disagree with my edit, you should use talk. To reinsert and announce your (flawed and defective) reasoning for preferring your version of the content is not collaborative or productive. All kinds of books make the NYT bestseller list. That doesn't make them WP:RS for any particular article. I don't know whether you understand this, but Fractional Reserve Banking existed long before there were central banks such as the Fed. Furthermore, this is a primary source with no secondary discussion of its notability. Your spotting it on a bestseller list -- regardless of why -- is also a primary source. You should reverse your edit and either bone up on relevant policy and find appropriately sourced content, or step back from these articles in which as you admit (e.g.Capitalism) you have little understanding. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring? Why would you say EW?? You did Bold, I did Revert. You gotta problem with how I readded the citation to the book, then you can institute Discussion. But it aint no edit war (and you accusation of EW disappoints me). Your rationale for the removal of the two names was the flawed one. Paul & Rothbard were merely mentioned as critics, and none of their criticism was placed in the section. So it is impossible to say they are improperly used as Primary source material. Also, WP:FRINGE has a particular meaning, largely dealing with science related topics. Heterodox material or contrary to your way of thinking material does not constitute fringe. – S. Rich (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Rich, your remarks are both discouraging and revealing. You insinuate that economics is not a science when you imply that invoking WP:FRINGE to evaluate sources is out of place. The problem is that economics is a science! Perhaps a "dismal" one (owing to the influence political commitments impart on one's views of economic), but a science nonetheless, and one whose (many) achievements have radically improved human well-being over the past several decades. It is sad that you think ideologically-motivated charlatans like Ron Paul, whose economic "treatise" could've been written in one afternoon, deserve equal mention to real economists, whose work is informed by years, even lifetimes of hardcore empirical research aimed at understanding the world as it is. Steeletrap (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I hear that Pee Wee Herman and A-Rod also have some doubts about Fractional Reserve. You'd still do well to reflect on the feedback you've been getting rather than lash out with the quick denials and gobbledygook. Please review WP:UNDUE WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRINGE. Monetary economics is a science and Paul's economic views are fringe. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I did not insinuate that economics is not a science. Rather, I do not like editors throwing out the "fringe" label as an editing justification. WP has the WP:FTN for such discussions and I do not think Ron Paul or the other anti-fractional reserve banking group have ever been discussed on that board. If you really think they are fringe, then bring up the topic there and see what the community says. If the community supports your idea that they are fringe, then giving them the FRINGE treatment will be justified. Until then, labeling a source as fringe in an edit summary is simply POV. At the same time, I wish there was a WP article that gave us a description of economics as a science. We see it alluded to in experimental economics and, admittedly, economics does not lend itself to controlled experiments. (And what success has economics had in making predictions?)

Specifico, bringing up Pee Wee & A-Rod are, as you sometimes say, strawmen. And you have not addressed my observation that Paul (or Rothbard for that matter) was not used as a source in the article. They were mentioned as critics, nothing more. In the interests of WP:PRESERVE they should remain. And if there are other or better sources of criticism, then those sources should be in the article in the interest of BALANCE. Moreover, whether or not Paul's views are "fringe" in an academic sense does not matter because he has had, for better or worse, a certain amount of influence in politics, which does often involve economic subjects. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] "And what success has economics had in making predictions"? A shit-ton. Have you heard of a regression? What about Nate Silver? (the guy who predicted virtually everything that happened in the last three election cycles, using methodologies he learned as an econ undergrad at UChicago) That you don't know about the awesome predictive power of econometrics makes me question whether you should be editing articles on technical economics subjects. Steeletrap (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

[Inserted reply] Good for Nate Silver! I'll look at him further. (Thank you.) But in my quick scan I see that he has had some criticism leveled because of misses. And he has not put up his methodology for peer review. In any event, my edits regarding the inclusion of Ron Paul had nothing to do with the technical aspects of economics because the paragraph had no textual material. Specifico simply removed it with an ill-considered edit summary/rationale. Steeletrap, you wouldn't be trying to say I'm lacking competence, would you? No, I'm sure you are not. (And I don't expect you to take the bait.) Still, this is not the place to discuss the merits of econometrics. Specifico started the thread with his comments, which I have refuted. Not much more is pertinent. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you're writing English words and citing WP policies without regard to their meanings, or, in the case of the policies, even whether they exist. You're orbiting some other planet. Please review WP:UNDUE WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

See if you can get yourself out of the yellow and orange Specifico. Your green arguments have not faired/fared too well either. And you sought to distort my rhetorical comment [26] in Talk:Capitalism#Ayn Rand. Shame on you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

fared? SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You did what you did with the Capitalism remark, Specifico. Don't try to hide behind it with a NPA template. My comment about what you did was simply about what you did. And you should be ashamed of what you did. – S. Rich (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. 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.

What Srich "refuted"

Srich, what part of this comment do you claim to have refuted? Please provide diffs or quote your words of refutation:

Your undo of my reversion of the Ron Paul bit is very disappointing. I had thought you were staying away from these economics articles and concentrating
on other areas. If you disagree with my edit, you should use talk. To reinsert and announce your (flawed and defective) reasoning for preferring
your version of the content is not collaborative or productive. All kinds of books make the NYT bestseller list. That doesn't make them WP:RS for any
particular article. I don't know whether you understand this, but Fractional Reserve Banking existed long before there were central banks such as the Fed.
Furthermore, this is a primary source with no secondary discussion of its notability. Your spotting it on a bestseller list -- regardless of why --
is also a primary source. You should reverse your edit and either bone up on relevant policy and find appropriately sourced content, or step back
from these articles in which as you admit (e.g.Capitalism) you have little understanding. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO talk 12:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The record shows, Srich, you had all the time he needed to edit-war this refactoring but couldn't manage a simple answer to the question you reformatted 4 times. Record is clear. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I chose to simply ignore your repeated comments. The record of what you did is clear. – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense warnings

This warning is nonsense, and I just reverted your article edit, removing the tag. You placed a tag, you got a chance to explain yourself, but nobody at all agrees with you, so now the tag goes away. MilesMoney (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding a similarly nonsensical warning to my talk page doesn't help. The bigger problem is that you're edit-warring and it looks like you crossed the bright line. What are you going to do about it? MilesMoney (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Forum shopping and specious ANI

Regarding [27] I suggest you read the WP policy regarding forum shopping and wikilawyering and focus whatever effort you feel compelled to devote to HHHHoppe's Society on article improvement via addition of content based on RS references. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on von Mises Institute

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You've reverted the removal of the Austrian School box for what is now the third time. The fact that the first reverts were made by another editor does not excuse you from the policy against edit warring. You should undo your re-insertion of the disputed content and use talk. If you edit war you may be blocked from editing WP. SPECIFICO talk 03:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion on including the sidebar has been initiated. And as you are fond of saying, the EW issue you raise as to my edits on the sidebar issue is specious. Go ahead and post a EW violation, if you care. – S. Rich (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Callahan Material

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have again reverted relevant valid RS text concerning vMI. You are in a slow-motion edit war. If you continue to edit war you may be blocked from editing WP. SPECIFICO talk 04:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Another specious EW message from you? Bullshit. Bring it up on the EW noticeboard. – S. Rich (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Helping Hand

Srich, please re-read my message about the Austrian School template on Mises article and revise your response. There's no point in a long thread that seems likely to occur if various editors try to point out your misreading of my message. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No editor but you seems to misunderstand what the AS template is about. And I cannot understand why you won't go to the template talk page to discuss the issue.

While I'm at it, I see you refer to "various editors and admins" warning me about EW [28]. This is another one of your distortions. Who are these folks? You and MM. Miles' posting of a 3RR notice was unfounded. The warnings and helping messages you post are phony and seem to exist only so that you can complain on other pages. Why do I say phony? I post SPS tags on portions of the Mises.org article that are the subject of discussion and you count those postings in your bullshit "4RR" tally. – S. Rich (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you out of your hole on vMI because you acknowledge you don't understand the subject matter very well. I tried to state this as clearly as I could. There's nothing wrong with the content of that template per se. The problem is to put the template on an article which doesn't match the template. Name X is in the template. Name X happens not to be affiliated with vMI. Name X is a living person. Name X therefore might feel libeled by the false implication that she is affiliated with the vMI. That's why we mustn't use that template on vMI. You could erase all the names, that would solve the problem however then you'd need to create a new template called vMI. That might be a good project for you to put on your to-do list and get some help with the technical types regarding the details. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

By your logic, it would be improper to put the AS template on any biography simply because the template mentions other people. That is, Mises himself is mentioned in the template, as is Hayek and the other "Austrians", therefore they are all "affiliated" with each other and LvMI, GMU, Cato, Reason, etc. No, that is not the case. These are merely associated topics in the Austrian School "Series" and the template serves to direct readers to related topics. The template does not say LvMI is the organization to end all organizations in the AS series. I've suggested edits to the template in the past, and done some editing on it. You can as well. – S. Rich (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

THIS JUST IN... Mises and Hayek are d-e-a-d. No BLP problem. Capiche? SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I only know what I read in WP. What about the others? Are they dead too? – S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Outside view: S. Rich is correct that appearing in the sidebar alongside other persons or entities does not imply affiliation, only a shared relationship with the parent topic. alanyst 23:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank, Alanyst. But I am concerned about those listed in {{Austrian School economists}} – shouldn't they have "memorials" in Findagrave? – S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Alanyst. That's exactly my point. The box implies a relationship with the parent topic. However some of those listed are living persons who have no such relationship and should not be implied to have one. My concern was not listing them as having an affiliation with one another. My concern was exactly what you have stated. That the box implies a relationship of each one with the "parent" -- a relationship which for several of them does not exist and should not be suggested or implied to readers. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I see you've made a change to the AS WP:SIDEBAR. (And I agree with the removal of Paul.) Can I interpret your change as agreement to bring up the issue of including LvMI in the sidebar on the template talkpage rather than on the LvMI page? The template talkpage can resolve these issues of relationships, implications, affiliations, associations, etc. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, if you oppose rollback say so, but don't omit your view on page protection. You needn't block page protection just because you are worried about whatever the rollback looks like. That would be like Ted Cruz, right? SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll let my comment stand as is. I am tempted, though, to offer a counterproposal. Something that might address the editing behaviors that have commented upon in the ANI. My proposal would/could/might invite concerned editors to supply diffs to document their complaints. Such a listing might make for interesting reading, or become a fruitless TLDR listing. I'm mulling at present. – S. Rich (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The OP asked a specific question which should be addressed. The accusations and boomerangs should not be thrown into this simple issue. Admin could have simply protected, but did everyone the courtesy of proposing 1RR as an alternative. That question should be settled before getting on to whatever else. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI edit conflict

I did too! Thanks for notifying me. I have restored the deleted comment. --Surturz (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Do mediation on Austrian economics??

Too soon for arbitration. But Mediation would be helpful, though I'm too burnt out to initiate it myself. A few of us did it once with a couple editors vs. a very powerful and squirrely admin who knew how to game the system. Nevertheless, even with with a less than perfectly skilled mediator, it worked really well and the squirrely admin definitely stopped dominating the article. Would be even better with a good mediator. It just seems to me the next few times I asked for mediation, requests were ignored. But with all others complaining and all these ANIs I listed, the request might be rapidly accepted. Do you want to initiate it? cc. Binksternet User:Carolmooredc 17:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless this proposal makes it unnecessary?? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal.2C_general_sanctions? User:Carolmooredc 23:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Temecula

Reviewed requirements for notable and not sure your remission is accurate. At the same time I admit my inclusion may have lacked supporting detail. I am happy to revise and resubmit unless it's going to just get auto-reverted again. In other words, my original intent was to include author in this article, but it's not worthwhile enough to start a wiki-edit war over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5C80:49:A879:5F20:C698:BC71 (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, I spent some time reviewing your talk page. Disregard previous. Enjoy your crusade. Not worth my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5C80:49:A879:5F20:C698:BC71 (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And I hope you didn't get the wrong impression. The various "warnings" you see above are spurious and they will disappear into the archives sooner or later. I think my userpage gives a more accurate view of my WP accomplishments (and crusade). Also, I encourage you to signup as a registered editor and become a Wikipedian. – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been told that you learn something new every day. I refuse to register, but have come to more fully appreciate wikieditors of your ilk. Carry on.

"The human race is intoxicated with narrow victories, for life is a string of them like pearls that hit the floor when the rope breaks, and roll away in perfection and anarchy." --Mark Helprin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5C80:49:A879:5F20:C698:BC71 (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Behaviour at ANI

I've seen enough. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I realise that you mean well but I think it would be best if you did not do things such as this in ANI threads where you are involved. Worse still was the recent prior thread where you actually closed a section despite your involvement, thus attracting an incredulous remark when the entirety was closed (see the close by Bbb23 here). Leave such things to admins and to those who have no vested interest, please. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Your template fetish I hope, now that an uninvolved Admin has echoed what many of your peers have repeatedly tried to inform you in various venues, that you will desist from further gratuitous templating, self-closing, and other pseudo-admin behavior. To the extent you wish to assume a leadership role on WP, I urge you to re-read and study key policies, which you have repeatedly misunderstood or misapplied recently. You are among peers here on WP. Onward and upward. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Specifico, you, MilesMoney, Carolmooredc, Srich etc all seem to have devised a unique set of protocols for discussion etc that differs from how things are generally done on Wikipedia. I've no idea if Srich has a "template fetish" but you certainly have a pointed inclination to comment repeatedly about any given ANI matter on the talk pages of numerous people, thus dispersing a thread. You also seem to have a tendency to get the wrong end of the stick, perhaps proving the adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You've done it with your recent comment on my talk page, with your complete misunderstanding of how general sanctions work and now, seemingly, with your ill-informed belief that I am an admin. Perhaps concentrate on your own issues, eh? - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC) If you think you could help me or other editors at ANI to understand how these Sanctions work, why not either explain or point everybody to a link for further study. I have not been around WP as long as you, so any help you could give to us junior types or less knowledgeable veterans would be helpful. I am pretty sure, having followed that thread on ANI that various editors have differing understandings as to the meaning of the proposal. Under those circumstances, a binary "support" "oppose" scheme is problematic. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC) You are deflecting. However, I'll try to answer your query, the asking of which rather begs the question of how you managed to oppose something that you did not understand anyway (!) Basically, instead of having to disrupt ANI every few days with another long-winded thread etc, any uninvolved admin can issue a sanctions warning for transgression of normal editing practices (or whatever the specific sanction wording may be - it varies in small details). In the event that the warned contributor repeats the problematic behaviour, the admin can go right ahead and block, topic ban, article ban, impose a one-revert rule etc as they feel appropriate. This can be appealed by the person who is sanctioned, although I cannot recall the last time I saw a successful appeal because admins are usually pretty careful before taking that sanctions step. The only people who are having trouble with this proposal are some of those who are involved and have had a history of repeated reportings at ANI: if you wish me to be blunt, it looks like they're running scared because of past behavioural problems. No-one need be scared: just edit as you are meant to do and no harm will come from it. As someone else said, a closing admin can see the consensus and work out who is opposing for valid reasons and who is opposing out of self-interest etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) BTW, Specifico, would this not be a possible example of a "template fetish"? - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I've got a better question: is there any sense in which you can accuse someone of having a fetish without a violation of WP:NPA? If not, you need to redact and run away. MilesMoney (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC) You are just dmeonstrating yet again that you do not read before jumping in, MM. If you check out the entire thread then you will see that it was Specifico who accused someone of having a fetish, not me. I've merely queried their use of the term. However, I don't think their use was a personal attack: there are some very thin-skinned people, quick to make such accusations as you have just done, but I think Specifico was just using a colourful phrase. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC) If I had to pick the most inappropriate response to a warning about personal attacks, it would be calling the accuser "thin-skinned", which is itself a personal attack. Are you going to redact that now? MilesMoney (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Re Bear

Hi, walter H Scott here - I am just returning the amendment to bear's article, using an offline reference from his biog - as you may know, 'watty' is short for walter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter H Scott (talk • contribs) 20:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Watty. But, sorry, we can't have name-dropping in articles. Bear's book is an autobiography, and as such comes under the restrictions of WP:SPS. You can enjoy your memories of the past adventures with Bear, but an encyclopedia article is not the place to mention them. Bear has my highest respect, especially after I saw an episode where he jumped into a icy bog to demonstrate how to get out. (Was he wearing a wet-suit?) Having experienced a few thrills & chills in my life, I was most impressed. – S. Rich (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Refactoriong on Mises Institute Talk

Please undo your refactoring of comments on Mises Institute talk. It's confusing, and there have been many comments after the original was posted last week. Thanks. Whatever information you wish to add with the refactoring can be explained in a post positioned in order at the bottom of the thread. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Mises RFC

Please add a wikilink to the article section in your statement of the RFC, as you did for the talk page sections. Also, please give notice of the RfC to the projects listed at the top of the talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your comment around 22:00 on the RFC. It begins @SPECIFICO. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think all of my comments are timestamped. You might be referring to a 2 paragraph comment, which was timestamped. (Can you give a diff?) If you see an edit that completely lacks a signature, feel free to add a {{unsigned}} template. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you do not seem to be getting any support for your views at RfC. I suggest you withdraw it and instead relate whatever questions you have to the actual content and sources, so that your concerns can be resolved. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Survey response is disappointing. After making 4 or 5 comments in the threaded discussion, I would have thought you could provide a definite opinion. Other editors have done exactly that – they seem to understand the issue (and they agree with me). Indeed, Steeletrap was so eager to agree that she removed portions of the "Off-topic" section, albeit pre-maturely. In any case, the default period on RfCs is 30 days, so others will have opportunity to opine. If they convince you one way or the other, please feel free to revise your Survey response. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

University of Law

Hi there!

Thanks for your message regarding the edit I made to the Law schoolpage. I work at The University of Law, and my main objective was to amend reference of 'College of Law' to 'University of Law', which has been the brand and trading name since March 2013. You can check out the University of Law's website to verify this.

When The College of Law was bought by a private equity company in 2012, it ceased to be a charity. As such, the statement on the Law school page 'For the UK charity providing legal education, see The College of Law' is factually incorrect. For more info, check out this press release.

Is it therefore possible to amend this page to reflect the proper brand name 'The University of Law' and the fact that it is no longer a charity? If you have any suggestions, feel free to contact me.

Many thanks Bryonybennett (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is declare your COI. At that point I will be happy to modify the {{connected contributor}} template on the Talk:University of Law. Please note that "paid editing" v. "paid advocacy" is a very hot topic on WP at present. Therefore, resolving the COI declaration issue should be done now. Next, you must recognize that changing factual information is fine, but adding "world's leading professional" (as you did here [29]) is completely unacceptable. (Please look at WP:BOOSTER and WP:UNIGUIDE.) As said, let's get the COI resolved, and then I'll be happy to work with you on the other changes. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Question on recent Libertarianism edits

You recently edited the Libertarianism article to "avoid redirects on piped links" and I was wondering if this is a common practice, something in the MoS, or just a personal preference of yours. I usually let the redirect do the work, so I'm just curious. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I went through the MoS and found these two policies that suggest we should use the redirects instead of piped links: WP:MOSLINK and WP:NOPIPE. I have edited the Libertarianism page accordingly. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I looked at the article and saw a WP:SEAOFBLUE. So I'd like to eliminate redundant, duplicate, overlapping links. There are so many, so I thought sorting them out would help and the only way I can figure to do this is determine which links are redundant because of the redirects. At the same time, take a look at WP:PIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. Am I making sense? – S. Rich (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Feel free to revert my changes if that helps your editing; I will not make a fuss.  ;) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a priority for me. (In fact, I have not gotten around to taking a look at what you did.) Carry on, and I'll come back to it later if I can take care of my other front burner concerns (off & on wiki). – S. Rich (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of racism material on LvMI

This is mistaken for two reasons. 1) The Volokh Conspiracy is a mainstream (albeit libertarian leaning) legal blog with multiple authors, not a SPS 2) LewRockwell.com has been deemed an RS by the community, which means we can't cherry-pick authors, and have to consider its articles RS unless proven otherwise. Steeletrap (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you Boldly added the material. I Reverted. You re-Reverted, which is not part of the BRD process. Still, I have opened a Discussion on the talk page. Please defend the submission on the talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Srich, how come you apply that "BRD" process so selectively? I know you're watching Mises Institute and Rothbard but I haven't seen you advising two- and three-time reverters there. Hard to understand, but remember that with General Sanctions coming soon there will be plenty of eyes on those pages. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

RSN Noticeboard

I made this posting (1) in relation to the Volokh Conspiracy source, and thought you might be interested in commenting. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your use of Straw Man Arguments

Srich, I didn't want to embarrass you by telling you this on the RSN page, but your boast that you use Straw Man Arguments clearly confirms the fact that you don't understand some of the basic principles of logic and reasoning which you try to apply to various RS threads. Please read that link about straw man, with which you invalidated your own position. Also please look at the WP pages on other forms of fallacy, which I've previously indicated to you. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Note from 144.82.219.143

Hello. I was not sure where to put this exactly but you wrote me a message suggesting that I write back to you here with constructive criticism or advice etc (not your words exactly, sorry). All I wanted to suggest was on the 'Property and Freedom Society' page it may be nice to add something about this guy's experience (Jared Taylor) under the 'Annual Conferences' section since it may provide the same view as all the attendees (120 of them) which it indeed does. It is a primary source and I think more 'reliable' than Mower's (point 6 I think under 'Allegations of racism') although reliability is wholly subjective so I am not sure how this can be argued either way. Thank you ever so much for taking the time to improve this article. Ooh, one more thing: could you possibly think about putting the quote on Richard Lynn 'Lynn has described black people as "more psychopathic than whites"' in some context, or possibly removing it as heavily biased, as he only stated this in terms of a study he conducted and did not mean it as a stand alone comment. Thanks! Soph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.219.143 (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Demos RS question

Rich, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the relevant question here whether Demos is a reliable source, and not the educational attainment of those whom its editorial team chooses to publish? (by the way: "Correct me if I'm wrong" isn't a rhetorical statement, but meant to be taken literally; if I am wrong, please show me the relevant policy that allows for scrutiny of journalists who publish for accepted RS)? Steeletrap (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Short answer, publishing in one RS does not automatically qualify the author as RS for everything & anything. Longer answer is on HHH talkpage. – S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing of the BLP thread

WP:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures says the way to challenge a closure is to contact the editor who did it and discuss. Well, I was not an involved editor in the BLP thread and it had been opened while another thread on the same source was open. Even so, the proper place for commenting on BLP issues is on the RSN thread – BLP issues can be raised as yet another rationale for removing the blog. Editors who might ask me (here) to reopen the BLP thread will receive a polite "no". Such a reopening would only re-create the third thread, which is two threads too many. (BTW, posting requests on one thread that another thread be reopened does not assist in resolving either thread.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You were involved on the article and it was entirely inappropriate for you to close down that discussion while it was still active. Please add me to the list of editors who have asked you to reopen that discussion and were rejected. I've also brought the issue up on WP:ANI. MilesMoney (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

MM, you can certainly see that you are the first and only editor to come here to discuss re-opening that discussion, but I cannot think of a good reason to do so. Multiple threads is just WP:Asking the other parent and simply disrupts consensus building. The particular topic of the discussion were not "closed down" in any sense because there are open and continuing discussions on the other two threads. In fact I wish I had "closed down" that other thread (instead of commenting on it). So I will decline your request. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Given that you are heavily involved with the LVMI article, I think it might have been inappropriate for you to close that discussion. Since it has been re-opened, please leave it open. I don't think there's a need for anything else to be done here, but please take note that inappropriate closures of threads could lead to discretionary sanctions being issued in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. I consider this a sufficient response.

I will be keeping an eye on Rich's tendency to take the place of uninvolved admins and will not hesitate to report him. If he keeps it up, then I believe something stronger than a warning will become necessary. MilesMoney (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate the qualification "might have been" (truly). The effort was to deter them from WP:Asking the other parent. Alas, since the thread was "re-opened" the next comment makes three statements: 1. The thread should be closed. 2. With a clear ruling that there was no BLP. And 3. Editors are forum shopping. (Indeed.) Well, Mark, you now have 3 threads to resolve. I wish my effort had been successful in simplifying the task. You may end up envying Sisyphus before all is done. – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Call to block MilesMoney

Intolerable. – S. Rich (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm very disappointed by this. I agree with you that some of the older stuff violated policy. But he was a noob, and has made major strides. (one of the users calling for Miles' head, User:Carolmooredc, actually basically created a her own Wikipedia page for herself (an anon IP allegedly originally created it, but she added virtually all of the material) when she was a noob; it's really unfair to focus on policy violations of noobs who can't reasonably be expected to understand policy.) With Miles having learned the ropes and made major progress, why not focus your energy on improving the LvMI pages right now? Steeletrap (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I did not create that wikipedia article: carol moore. (As I commented here in the AfD which other editors verified.) It was created by an Anonymous IP. I did edit out all the stuff about my leadership of this and my followers who that, however... Anyway, please do not circulate inaccurate info. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 04:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I clarified above. Whether or not an "anon IP" originally made it, you "created" the page in all but a technical sense, since you added all the content. I go off of the substantive meaning of terms. Steeletrap (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC) CarolMooreDC's edits – whether or not you have referenced them accurately – have nothing to do with MM's behavior. (Moreover, as Specifico is fond of saying, that is a strawman argument.) In any event, MM's behavior continues to speak for itself. Steele, you would do well to strikeout the comments (all of them) about Carol creating or editing an article about herself. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I disagree. They are factual assertions demonstrating a double-standard by a user. She by her own admission engaged in misconduct by a noob (authoring her own a page that, by her own admission, was full of OR and POV edits), yet says Miles should be banned for the same thing. I think we should accord tolerance to noobs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) Srich, really on all counts, SRich. I have jpgs of several versions. What I did was remove the absurd commentary and add references to the five or six factoids that were correct. That's called editing, not authoring. But I certainly wasn't pulling all the disrutive numbers MilesMoney was pulling from his first week - and still don't. It took me two and a half years before I even took anyone to a noticeboard. If I had I would have been sanctioned early on too. User:Carolmooredc 04:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I'm just going off of your own words Carol. You previously stated you added OR and biased commentary to your own page. Let's not dwell on this; the point is to indicate a double-standard in your argument, and call for a more charitable treatment of Miles, not to call you out. (I was terrible as a noob!) Steeletrap (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Please reed more carefully. I just wrote that I removed OR and biased commentary and ref'd the factoids that were left. Geeez.... User:Carolmooredc 04:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC) @Steele, I took the liberty of adding delete and underline tags to your original comment after you refactored it. Simply deleting parts of comments after they have been responded to is bad form. You may revert me if you wish, but this is the proper way of doing it, just so you know. (see WP:Refactor) ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Can you please explain to me, in clear, calm language, why it is "intolerable" to discuss the past edits -- and remarks regarding those edits -- of other users? Steeletrap (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a former platoon sergeant, so clear, calm language may have a different meaning to you than it does to me. But I will explain. The remarks above may have started off with questions as to why I might post a history (or whatever) of MM's edits, but commenting about what other editors did early in their history is another matter. And I don't care to have it posted on this talk page! So back to the focus of my ANI comments – it is clear that MM has displayed a continuing attitude of confrontation. It continues now. MM's various comments are not in keeping with even the minimal standards of civility. (Yes, hyperbole, but my statement serves to underscore my point.) I and several other experienced contributors have had enough. And so I am confident that MM does not have much more future on WP. On the other hand, Steeletrap, I've often seen excellent edits from you. Recently you have made edits which truly promote NPOV and BALANCE. (And I feel that you've done so even though you'd like the material to stay.) So I urge you to cut your ties with MM – not doing cannot help your enjoyment of editing WP. – S. Rich (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I just disagree with you on Miles. Personal attacks are normalized on much of the Internet, and he was subject to quite a few himself, so it's not hard to imagine that he wasn't privy to the WP:PA policy. I do agree that some of his earlier remarks violated policy, but again, he was new (that many of us make mistakes when we're new was the point I was making to Carol earlier). And the general editing pattern for him over the past couple months has been one of progress. Steeletrap (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

NPA is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS and we aspire to rise above "normalized" Internet behavior. MilesMoney had many reminders over the months and many chances to straighten up and fly right. But did not. My "cherrypicked" table of 80 diffs could have continued on for 2 more weeks to today. I did not include the diffs that dealt with me, personally, except in a very few circumstances. Progress? Hardly. Even now MM's comments now are WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MilesMoney is WP:NOTHERE. – S. Rich (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	There has been a recent spike at the administrator's noticeboards to skip the whole 'evidence' phase and move straight into death by mob rule. That list of edits on here is absolutely great and exactly what we need to do when we want to sanction editors. That must've taken a lot of work you compile. v/r - TP 13:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)