User talk:Steeletrap

Tu ne cede malis

		The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
		Presented to User Steeletrap. For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

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

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

A kitten for you!

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

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

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

And one for Caroldc

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

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

Happy Halloween Carol Moore!

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Article talk page comments

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

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

RP Newsletter edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 2014

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

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

DiLorenzo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Twain

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

Thank you, Thank you, THANK YOU

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

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

Srich

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

NOTICE of ANI

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

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

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

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

Topic ban

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

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