User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 1

please read WP:EW

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

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

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

---

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

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

Please avoid edit-warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your recent edits

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

Edit warring at Paul Ryan

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

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

ANI discussion

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

Your recent edits

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

General Sanctions on Paul Ryan

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

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

Suggestions for Short (finance)

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Schiff

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

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

Which type of Austrian?

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

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

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

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

Short (finance) again

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

October 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warnings

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Hugo Spinelli#Offer. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Hugo Spinelli#My "mistakes". Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted or removed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing.

Your recent editing history at Freedom of Choice 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.
I have posted this warning before, but you're still editing the lede without debating it first. Please, use the talk page before making any controversial edits. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• All of those "warnings" seem to be complete nonsense. I don't see any sign of personal attacks, and, as for Freedom of Choice, I see that you have never edited the article at all. Hugo Spinelli is a highly disruptive editor, and these "warnings" seem to be a childish revenge attack. 79.123.83.147 (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Spinelli was referring to Freedom of choice. – S. Rich (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Austrian School: evaluate criticisms vs. their associated content

Have you had time to make this evaluation, if so, have you reviewed my proposed edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello I am moving this to the article talk page and will reply there. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Austerity and Austrian School walk into a bar with Krugman, help me square both sides of this circle.

PM's characterization of Krugman is not fact [3] and that it is outside our mandate as WP editors to judge or qualify the truth or accuracy of a statement such as Krugman's[4]. on one hand you suggesting the RS got it wrong and are making the assumption the PM based her comments on an article you found by Krugman. on the other hand, you are saying regardless of wp:truth, it is not our job to make such a determination. feel free to move this to both or either article page. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

PM appears to have fabricated the assertion that Krugman predicted bankruptcy. I have not been able to verify K said it, have you? The article is about Austerity, not the PM's political grandstanding by misrepresenting some economist/blogger. The CNBC report accurately reported what the PM said, but it is a factual assertion which appears to have been incorrect. Possibly a WP:BLP issue as well. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

appears to who? do we have any sources refuting the PM? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

no i havent qualified what the rs said and didnt you just say it is outside our mandate to do such? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I advise you to state your views on the talk pages of the two articles. These are not my personal issues. Others may also wish to participate, as they already have done on both article talk pages. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

ok, will do. it is you to which the PM's statement appears to be incorrect, right? please read wp:OR. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I appreciate your scrutiny. Thanks for making Wikipedia a reliable place. ☥NEO (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. SPECIFICO talk 01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you don't slander.

I am not edit-warring. I am following the sources. Uncited claims can be removed in good-faith. I reverted one of your sets of edits within a 24-hour period. That is far from edit-warring. --☥NEO (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No. The change from "over" to "approximately" is not an uncited claim. It is a more accurate statement that removes the unbounded and slightly promotional sense of "over." Once I reverted "over" the next step is Discuss. Please review WP:BRD then undo your reinstatement of "over" and then state your concerns on talk, per policy. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The real problem is what we are working with is not a true secondary source. The fight over accuracy stems from this: We are interpreting data subjectively and writing it in our own words. If the statement ever appears again and if the market recovers past $1 billion, I will be sure to cite a reliable article or news piece, and we will use their exact wording to refer to the value of the monetary base. Else, we will use the most prevalent terms that appear across all sources. --☥NEO (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That is absurd. You are going to scrutinize all sources minute by minute to determine what word to choose? This is not a "fight" and it has nothing to do with accuracy. "Over" is not accurate, as you well know. That is exactly why "approximately" is the robust operational approach. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Specifico

Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?

United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for the invitation, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to devote to this right now. Good luck with your project. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Bite

Another WP:ETN essay that I've seen in the last couple of days. – S. Rich (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

I am so sorry I keep clogging up your talk page. But I have one question. The WP article on the economics journal Review of Austrian Economics redirects to the WP article Ludwig von Mises Institute. This makes little sense, since the journal is published by George Mason University and has no formal affiliation with the Mises Institute. How does one alter these improper re-directions? Steeletrap (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) When clicking on the redirect, and landing on the target page, at the top of the target page there is a link that says "redirected from...." If you click that link, it will take you back to the redirect article. You can then edit the redirect as a normal article to send it somewhere else, or make it a standalone article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42, Do not post on my talk page. I do not believe that your conduct on WP is civil or constructive. SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two such reviews. GMU's and LvMI's. The LvMI article mentions publications, so the present redirect is correct. The GMU article does not mention publications, so a redirect to that page is not appropriate. While Gaijin42's helpful and collaborative advice on how to correct this is accurate, we actually need a disambigulation page. I shall go off my wikibreak and [try to] fix it a bit later this week. (Steeletrap & SPECIFICO, you are each welcome to have a go at it!) – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit to Progressive tax talk page

Please do not modify or delete other users' comments on discussion pages, as you did here [5]. You are welcome to participate in discussions; but remember that, unlike articles, comments left on these pages should not be edited. Thank you.Mattnad (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know how that happened. I may have been confused and thought that I was editing an unsourced statement on the article page. At any rate, thanks for mentioning it and I see that the text has been reinserted back to as it should be. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:KyleLandas

Hi. I just ran into the edits of KyleLandas (talk · contribs) on David Chaum and I would like to know what is going on. Since you have experience with this user, maybe you could give me an update. Is the user just making newbie mistakes or is there something more to this? Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

LRC talk page remarks

I'm annoyed (damn annoyed!) that you made a comment on Talk:LewRockwell.com about carolmooredc's annoyance about change(s) that were made. It was an appropriate remark because she was talking about her feelings about the particular article edits. She was not referring to any editor personally. She was incorrect in responding on the article talk page about your personal remark, and should have known better. But then you repeated the annoying remarks. All in all, you were one who started the disruptive commentary. I have hatted that absurd little spat. – S. Rich (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no justification for first- or second- person remarks on the article talk pages. I've said that before, and it's incontrovertible. No editor's emotional reaction is relevant to the joint task of editing, so at best it's a distraction from the community focus on the article text and at worst it tends to support bad interactions among editors. It's not worth further discussion. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is worth further discussion here, because you are wrong. Even your comment here illustrates my point. E.g., you say there is no justification for 1st/2nd person remarks on the article talk pages, but your two comments to Carol were done just so. There is nothing in WP:TPYES or WP:TPNO that supports you in this regard. On the other hand, you were violating TPNO when you made the off-topic comment on the article talk page. If you get distracted by the fact that Carol says she is annoyed about the edits being made, then you should make comments on her talk page. Yes, we should focus on the article text, and completely avoid such comments. – S. Rich (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but Carol's got a long history of personal attacks and harassment and without commenting further on her behavior, I'll say that if editors confine themselves to third person statements about content, it's impossible to make personal attacks and harassment, explicit or implied. It is important not to make such attacks, but it is also important not to be intimidated by them when they occur. SPECIFICO talk 01:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Three points: One: I am referring to the fact that the article talk page is not to be used for comments about her behavior. There is no exception to this guideline for editors whom you may feel have a long history of anything. Two: The particular comments which you complain about were not disruptive. Three: WP:WIAPA applies and those remarks about her history, on that talk page, or here, are not well founded. – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Specifico

Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?

United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for the invitation, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to devote to this right now. Good luck with your project. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin

Sorry, that was my mistake. I should have checked the Talk Page first. I have reverted my edit. Cheers!  TOW  talk  20:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mises Institute

I am concerned that the pages of most( though not all) Mises Institute affiliate people, such as William L. Anderson, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella, Mark Thornton, Burton Blumert and Jesús Huerta de Soto, are only or overwhelmingly sourced by Mises Institute-affiliated publications (see: LewRockwell.com (the Mises chairman's website), the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.) That raises serious questions about notability. Moreover, (and I'm really not saying this to personally attack anybody, but just to make a factual point) it is telling that one person (DickClarkMises a former Mises Institute employee, who is currently working on a "Mises Wiki" project for the institute) says he has created or "substantially edited" the vast majority of pages for Mises Institute scholars. That certainly doesn't prove bias or bad intentions in and of itself, and he should certainly be given the benefit of the doubt regarding his aims, but I think it's difficult to maintain a NPOV when one is writing about one's colleagues and friends, so while his contributions shouldn't be negated, other (non-Mises affiliated) people should get involved. And at a more broad level, could you contact an editor to look at the Mises Institute pages to determine whether they are a Walled Garden and whether most of them should be merged into one (much more neutral) page? Steeletrap (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The heads-up on DickClarkMises is interesting. (I should've read the Kinsella AfD more carefully.) With his past employment in mind, I've posted a {{connected contributor}} template to the LvMI article and left a message on his talk page. (The next question, of posting the template on other pages, is one for discussion with Dick directly.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On Kinsella...

Saw your edits (obviously) - good clean-up, I think. We do generally allow one or two primary sources to verify non-controversial claims like where someone was born/grew up/went to school/etc. If there is a good (reasonably neutral) source with that sort of information, it might be worth including. No matter what you think of him or his gang*, the article is still a WP:BLP and we editors need to be conscious of that. Stalwart111 06:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*By the way, isn't "gang" a term normally reserved for governments with regard to fiat currency and the like? See, I'm reading and learning. Ha ha. Stalwart111 06:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with non-notable Wikipedia pages is that, if they exist, they (by definition) have to be sourced by primary or biased sources. Like Hoppe's "argumentation ethics" page, almost everything on the Kinsella page is sourced by Kinsella himself or his (mises institute) co-workers. Steeletrap (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Mises Institute Clean-Up

You previously expressed concern about many (most?) of the LvMI related articles, insofar as they appear to constitute a walled garden. Two articles I'm working on are Argumentation ethics and Lewrockwell.com (which were, prior to my edits, basically only all sourced by (overwhelmingly positive) OR or from Mises Institute fellows or publications). Could you take a look at those when you have a chance? Thanks! Steeletrap (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC) UPDATE - see also Stephan Kinsella. Steeletrap (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Will have a look. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto called it a cash system.

Just an FYI. He never called bitcoin anonymous either. --KyleLandas (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to improve. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback bitcoin

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

Why remove the mention of Spreadex on Bitcoin Deriratives and leave an IG Index article sourced in the same manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt06012011 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. What caught my attention was the assertion that it was "the first" which is not sourced or verifiable. Also IG is offering a specific well-defined instrument and is a known, established provider. However I would not object to deleting each of these products, the significance of which is not yet established, particularly in the absence of secondary source discussion of them. Thanks for the note. SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've sought assistance regarding your behavior on the Administrator's noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Olathe (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You ought to respond. A mea culpa would be nice. Offer Olathe a {{cheeseburger}} or some other WP:Wikilove. – S. Rich (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this "incident" in regards to your gun control edits? i.e., your removal of the absurd claims, from non-notable sources (e.g. anonymous libertarians who say they are Jewish, and "Ludwig Von Mises Institute" professors like Jeffrey Rogers Hummel), that gun control -- rather than the general depriving of the civil rights of Jews -- was a distinguishing feature of Nazi Germany) Libertarians appear to have hijacked this encyclopedia. In any case, you should remind them that to make their case that "gun control" (as opposed to the categorical disenfranchisement of Jews in Nazi Germany, which we all know about) led to the Holocaust, they'd have to demonstrate that Hitler's depriving "Aryan" Germans of their arms (which I'm quite certain he didn't do) is what caused the Holocaust. Steeletrap (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap: the best place to determine what the "incident" is about is to look at the ANI. (IOW, I don't think your question is rhetorical.) At that point you can comment as you see fit -- the subject being SPECIFICO's editing and talkpage behavior.) Also, if you want to discuss improvement to an article (which may be the source of the ANI) feel free to discuss on that talk page. But adding comments here, to a User talk page, does not assist in article improvement or cooperation between editors. Basically, your comments here are WP:SOAP. – S. Rich (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between my above comments and WP:Soap. They are a bit snarky and express a particular point of view (in the process of asking a question), but clearly don't fall under any of the five criteria listed on that page. I suggest you brush up on those five criteria. Steeletrap (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Steeltrap. I had been voicing a similar concern on Talk:Gun_control and shortly before your note above I made an edit which I hope begins to provide some perspective on the role of gun control in Nazi Germany see here: [6]. If you're knowledgeable about the issue, you could very likely make a positive contribution there. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I will check it out. My knowledge level is limited but I do have a keen eye for violation of NPOV, particularly on these libertarian pages. I also ask that you check out the Lew Rockwell page (particularly the talk page). I am concerned with those who are claiming that the newsletter section should be deleted or dramatically changed because it is not notable or because he clearly didn't write them. The evidence against those two claims (i.e. that the story is notable and that it is not at all clear that Rockwell didn't write them) is overwhelming, and, while I have of course diligently refrained from WP:PA, I am nonetheless having trouble keeping my cool with people who -- in the face of this overwhelming evidence -- continue to express another view. (particularly given the loaded language they are directing at me). Steeletrap (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

positive note

too much noise in the article talk currently, but wanted to say that I think your most recent tweaks to the gun control article are fine. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you're here: Please do the right thing and strike through the identified PA so that we can proceed together on this. I am warning you I may decide to pursue this. FYI the edits were substantially the same ones that were summarily undone a day or two ago when I made them. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack. You said "Why would I care about Hitler's gun policies? Again, it's no more significant than his preference for mayo rather than the more conventional mustard on his sausage". This is an (I believe) an intentionally obtuse argument, as the use of gun control as a specifically implemented tool of the Holocaust is well documented. You may certainly argue that it was not crucial or important, and that we are putting undue weight on it, but that is a completely different argument than saying it is unrelated. report it if you must, but you are only wasting your time, mine, and that of those others who will become involved. Your comment, and my reply, are insignificant and unhelpful in the long run, and I suggest we move on. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I heard your denial the first several times. I cannot tolerate personal attacks and they are bad for the WP community. You have made yourself clear and unfortunately that is not OK. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, You have misrepresented the facts and history of the talk page and your personal attack on me in your comments on the ANI concerning your 3RR violation. Please correct the record there. SPECIFICO talk 04:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Per your recent reports on WP:AN3, please reacquaint yourself with what edit warring actually constitutes. In particular, reverting once is not edit warring, and a series of consecutive edits counts as only one revert. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I have reported myself at ANI per your accusation of PA. As this could be seen as a backhanded way of reporting you, I am notifying you. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you intend this to constitute notice that you will be discussing anything concerning me you will need to provide a link. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I don't think that notice requires a link, but here you go Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reporting_Self Gaijin42 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Per the suggestion of an admin, I have moved the discussion to the appropriate venue. Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting_self Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Bad link. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Very Concerned with Edits to Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul Newsletter Page

There is a controversy over Lew Rockwell's involvement and alleged authorship of racist newsletters written on behalf of Congressman Ron Paul. Here is the edit I made to Rockwell's wikipedia page (you should check my sourcing there if you doubt any of these claims):

Reports from The New York Times,[10] The Washington Post,[11] and The Economist[12] said Rockwell oversaw the production of "Ron Paul Political Report" newsletters written on behalf of Paul in the late 1980s and early to mid 1990s. The newsletters contained derogatory remarks about minority groups. For example, African Americans were described as "animals,"[13] 95% of whom are (asserts the newsletters) criminals;[14] homosexuals suffering from HIV were said to "enjoy the pity and attention that comes with being sick," with AIDS itself (and death and suffering generally) characterized as a predictable outcome of homosexual conduct.[15] Reason magazine said that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists – including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of the newsletters.[16] Rockwell acknowledged[17] his involvement in promoting and writing subscription letters for the Ron Paul newsletters, but denied the charge of ghostwriting the newsletters themselves, and he said the accusations were "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies."[18] Ron Paul himself repudiated the newsletters' content and said he was not involved in the daily operations of the newsletters or saw much of their content until years later.[10]

A user (Srich) has repeatedly challenged these edits and sought to revert them (in part or whole). The user has stated that he or she "feel[s] fairly comfortable with Rockwell's non-involvement with the controversial newsletter stuff," and that future edits should indicate that probable lack of involvement. His/her evidence for this claim is this piece by a Ron Paul-supporting journalist at a local Fox Affiliate "outing" (I use scare quotes because this was already reported) another author of one newsletter piece who was not Rockwell. The user has also (in my view) previously personally attacked me (Please see my talk page for the records of this, and the full discussion of the issue). Most bizarrely, he/she stands by the view that Rockwell was not involved in the newsletter despite the fact that he admits he was and that -- as I have repeatedly pointed out to him --physical copies of the newsletter variously list him as its sole "Editor" http://web.archive.org/web/20130121052119/http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/InvestmentLetterMay1988.pdf and as one of its contributing editors. http://web.archive.org/web/20130121052119/http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/InvestmentLetterMay1988.pdf

As someone who is relatively new and unsavvy in all things Wiki (but who cares deeply about encyclopedic scrupulousness), I am at my wit's end and would like some help with the editing of articles related to the newsletter issue. Therefore I ask you to read up on the past edits by me and Srich on the Lew Rockwell wikipedia page and the Ron Paul Newsletter page. It might also help to appraise yourself of the contextual background of the conflict between the user and myself, as detailed on my talk page. No trouble if you're not up for such a task. But if not, I hope you can pass it on to a neutral editor who might be! Thanks! Steeletrap (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about Rockwell, but I will take a look. I urge you to post your concerns on the various WP talk pages soliciting additional uninvolved opinions, e.g. the Economics Project page, the OR and RS pages, etc. Let me know if you have trouble locating these. Also, while I don't think it applies in this case, please be careful to observe WP:CANVASS Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And will take note of the canvassing piece; that is not my intention (nor, I think, what I am doing) in this case but it's a good and helpful read. Steeletrap (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I have been disappointed to see various editors violate this from time to time. There's an interesting discussion going on recently at "Gun Control" I'm not sure whether that is in your area of expertise. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The talk page for Lew Rockwell is driving me bonkers. People are making insulting insinuations about me acting in bad faith for my edits substantiating Rockwell's involvement in (it was previously -- absurdly, given that he admits to being involved in the operation though denies writing them -- described as if it were a mere possibility) and the (massive) overwhelming amount of testimonial evidence for his authorship of the racist newsletters. Carol is discussing reverting all of my edits into a "NPOV version" while failing to provide any specific argument as to where the substance or tone of my edits violate NPOV. This is maddening since I've asked them to do this for almost a week. How should one deal with this sort of situation? Steeletrap (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:Civil

• What brought me to this page was your conduct on ANI and 3RR. I only revered your blanking of this discussion (which you have every right to do) so I could respond. A great example of what I am talking about is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ROG5728&oldid=552803468. You really need to settle down and stop trying to be a wiki lawyer. Your warnings are unfounded, please stop with your "courtesy" and take some of your own advice. If your uncivil conduct and wiki lawyering continues I will open a ANI discussion on this subject. Consider this a "courtesy" warning. Mike (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I have been involved in 4 admin cases recently. One editor was topic banned indefinitely. One was blocked for 3RR, then the same one was not blocked, and the 4th was not blocked. The Gun Control article is an extremely contentious and adversarial environment right now. I'm relatively new there and don't know the history of it. At any rate, you owe me nothing but if you wish to review my history of edits and talk page interactions on many articles over the past 6 months, I think you might be less disapproving. Thanks for the reply. BTW I rarely use sarcasm, particularly in a written communication where it is so easily misinterpreted. SPECIFICO talk 15:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I was blocked, but on a technicality or 3rr. I note that there is now strong consensus (including several uninvolved editors) that my edit was correct, and that he was not a self published source (although there is debate on notability/weight/fringe), and therefore your repeated adding of the sps tag was inappropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't say you're a bad person. You appealed your block and a second admin declined. Life goes on. You don't see me editing on Gun Control or anywhere else against consensus or against a BRD revert. Remember as it says on various WP guidance and policy pages, whether your edit was correct is not relevant to 3RR or EW. Also I don't recall repeadly adding a tag. Could you tell me which tag is "SPS tag" and where did I repeatedly add it? Could you have another editor in mind on that point? Thanks SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Praetorian was repeatedly re-adding the tag inappropriately. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I see you've now stated on talk that you are edit-warring on Gun Control. Interesting context for this thread. Thanks for the reply. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

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 Mrfrobinson (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for help cleaning up "Seduction community" page

Hi SPECIFICO. There are major problems with NPOV regarding articles regarding "The seduction community," pages I came across through one of the co-editors on the guns page. Basically, "the seduction community" consists of a pack of charlatans/hucksters who feed utterly untested, pseudo-scientific claims about "what women want" to sexually challenged men. The problem is that the claims of the "community" are uncritically reported as "social psychology" in its Wikipedia pieces. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Seduction_community for a broad list of these pieces. I have started editing/leaving notices on the talk page for Seduction Community, Pickup Artist and Roosh V (one of their gurus). Please check them out if you like as the bias running through these pages is truly unacceptable. Steeletrap (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Just to apologise for the shitty tone I took with you on my talk. Really, I have to wonder at letting myself be perturbed by Wikipedia activity. Feel free to post on my talk page again if there is a need to in future. LudicrousTripe (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Help on LewRockwell.comm article

People are now removing my edits which documented LRC's promotion AIDS Denial or fringe science of any kind (a recent edit characterized AIDS Denialist movies like "House of Numbers" as merely documentaries on HIV/AIDS and figures like Peter Duesberg as alleged Denialists by a couple rather than flagrant, well-known Denialists. I am afraid to "defy" the editor in question because of her previous charges of libel, but want to share with you the following links on LRC. (Got this collection from a FB page, but all sources verified. Evolution: -Outright Denial http://www.lewrockwell.com/chernikov/chernikov19.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan132.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi158.html

Health: -HIV doesn't cause AIDS http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye9.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/scheff3.1.1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/22/163-dissent-on-hivaids/

-Vitamins cure cancer http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi144.html

-Vitamins cure everything else http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi153.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi151.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi23.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi33.html Steeletrap (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OR@AS

i dont think the editor is going to revert, i will bring this up at the appropriate venue. do you have any suggestions of where we should resolve this debate? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Prof. Hoppe's New Photo

Hi SPECIFICO, please take a look at your talkpage on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am going to revert the photo because I asked only about using the photo on WP and not an unrestricted free use license. I don't want to bother Prof. Hoppe again about this. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup on Austrian Economics

If you're interested in helping me do this, and drawing the distinction between the two strains of Austrianism, this debate on Austrianism published by the Cato Institute is a good place to start. http://www.cato-unbound.org/issues/september-2012/theory-practice-austrian-school Steve Horwitz, who is a strident critic of the Mises Institute crew, is a paradigmatic example of the Hayekian Austrian. He 1) puts some stock in deductive reasoning (from common sense premises about human action, such as marginal utility maximization) as a source of economic truth but does not think this method is infallible/that even the common sense claims should go untested or always apply and 2) worries about empirical models for Hayekian, information coordinator esque reasons, but does not reject empiricism categorically or in principle and 3) publishes (unlike North, Hoppe, and most LvMI scholars) in mainstream journals using accepted methodologies. Steeletrap (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a huge task. First, the article misstates the "Austrian business cycle theory" and that section should be rewritten using secondary RS material. The Austrians who trained in Vienna after WW1 for the most part did not try to keep separate from academic economics but joined LSE, Princeton, Harvard and other such institutions. Their work there shows the approach of individualism, subjectivism, etc. but not theoretical isolationism, rejection of scientific method etc. Then we have the neo-Austrians who gathered at Cato and Mises Institute, and we have the academic Austrians at NYU, George Mason, and scattered other distinguished venues. Finally we have interested non-economists who cite or sometimes mis-cite various principles they associate with Austrian School thinking. There are also a number of academics from other fields who are referred to as Austrian economists but are rather social theorists, historians or philosophers of various kinds. I'll copy this to the AS article. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fringe Science posting

Which of the 768 active WikiProjects would your suggest? See: [7]. The Fringe noticeboard has 400+ watchers, which is a good number. In any event, I think the issue is narrow and well-defined enough to get a solution. (Perhaps even from Steeletrap.) I.e, are there independent reliable sources that discuss LRC as a fringe topic forum? – S. Rich (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is I disagree with your assumption that we need RS to say this. If the subject of WP article publishes claims that gravity isn't real or that the earth is flat, these claims can be labeled as fringe science without an RS saying this (WP gives license for this sort of common sense statement being made without citation: e.g., "paris is in france). Even if I didn't disagree I also think we have a source for the AIDS Denialist claim, in terms of Denying AIDS, a book published by Springer, a mainstream scientific publisher, and which repeatedly mentions the LRC connection to (in terms of publishing articles/holding conferences, etc) to AIDS Denialism. This was cited as an RS for the claim that LRC has offered a forum for AIDS Denial/fringe science, without objection, until the recent edits in the past few weeks by yourself and Carol. Steeletrap (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 16:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe groups associated with any of the content areas or even with publishing, editing, etc. Who knows, but there doesn't seem to be anyone home on the board right now. SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We must have RS. WP:V is one of the 5 Pillars. The book mentioned does not present Bialey in a "serious and prominent way" so it is most problematic. (Simply mentioning the fact that LRC was used is not a prominent presentation.)

But here is a compromise: Bialey is not mentioned as a contributor on the LRC page. What you do is add short descriptions to all of the contributors that correspond with the biographical descriptions in their WP articles. (For example, "Kevin Zeese – political activist.") Bialy is not listed on the LRC page as a contributor -- the source which gives us a listing of "columnists". So you may end up with a definitional problem -- e.g., who are contributors vs. who are columnists. But you can use the Denying AIDS book as the RS. At that point the issue becomes "who should be listed? Columnists and/or contirbutors? I recommend adding a short descript to all of them in one fell swoop -- that'll help deter allegations that cherry-picking is going on. – S. Rich (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Rockwell or his website but how can you two attract additional editors to the fringe board discussion to resolve the issue about sourcing and cherry picking? SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comments there. It's a WP:OR issue which is where an experienced editor would have brought it. Also, if you want a compromise, mine includes a WP:OR sentence about all Gene Callahan's hsitory of science/critiques of science. Will be adding something from WP:RS about that soon but it also should be a response to any WP:OR alleging LRC is filled with fringe science. One good WP:OR deserves another. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think SPECIFICO had suggested the fringe board so that Steeletrap would have a forum which other editors could comment at. And perhaps it is a good place to post because editors interested in the topic could comment on the WP:ONEWAY guidance. I do not think an ORN would work because we had not reached a point where OR on fringe was/is in the LRC article. Rather, Steeletrap is expressing concern about the fact that LRC had posted fringe stuff and s/he wants to point this out. But please notice that the use of LRC as a "forum" for fringe stuff had been discussed a few years earlier. – S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll let the fringe group figure that out - they seem pretty confused so far. I did notice that some of that stuff was discussed before, and it looked like there wasn't a consensus as much as a failure to come to one so people just left it; til others came along later and just deleted some stuff, probably for WP:BLP reasons. Some of which still stand. But enough discussing on personal talk pages the specifics, where it may be missed by __ number of watchers (link error message right now) of Talk: LewRockwell.com (and Lew Rockwell) who may eventually want to jump in. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap

Please take a look at WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Steeletrap has cited you as the inspiration for going to (another) noticeboard. And he has deleted my advice to him.hrt about this from his talkpage. To make things worse, Carol has posted a RS warning on his/her page. Perhaps you can modify the advice s/he believes you have given. – S. Rich (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Well there has to be some forum to put these issues to rest. I don't know all the venues. Steeletrap knows even less than I. Do you have any idea as to how to find more editors or editors with experience relevant to whatever y'all are disputing? I can't make head nor tail of this. Among other things, off topic... what difference does it make if Rockwell's website is an open forum for all kinds of ideas? I don't get the problem on either side. I get the sense Rockwell is a shrewd promoter and a good businessman and his activities don't really relate to my interest here. But that's off-topic. I hope you can help Steeletrap find a forum or a community for resolution of this issue? By the way, I just took a look at the link you provided above. I think it's clear that was not what I suggested he do and I have not seen him do it. It's a matter of finding any independent opinion, not a jury-rigged opinion, and my suggestion to him has been to read the policy on canvassing and then to post in as many related Projects as he could identify. Maybe you can help find more input on whatever is under dispute in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 21:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not an issue of informing people that a discussion is on-going in a particular forum, it is posting the issue itself in different forums. (I'm afraid Steeletrap misread your suggestion!) Still, I had proposed a compromise on the article talk page. Steeletrap should respond there. But we've gone from usertalk pageS, to the article talk page, to the editor assistance page, to the ANI, to the Finge NB, and now to the NPOV page. And s/he has argued that the forum shopping guidance does not apply. Still, this is disruptive! And I'm not having much success in either limiting the forum to one proper area or in narrowing the discussion to the issues of concern. Frustrating. – S. Rich (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I don't see how it can be resolved without knowledgeable third parties entering the discussion. So maybe it will never be resolved. I don't see the problem really. The website appears to be a forum for all kinds of topics and ideas. Some of them are fringe. That doesn't mean they're wrong. There must be some way to give a sense of Rockwell's scope of publication. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The whole debate is over whether we can characterize LRC as promoting fringe science for its (RS-documented) promoting of AIDS Denial and its further promotion of Evolution-Denial and other similar ideas. I really do not see why this has to get personal. I don't think anyone is acting in bad faith (though again, the charged reactions -- and sometimes personal insults -- I get to my good-faith arguments make it hard to maintain that view). Steeletrap (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifico: If you read my postings you'd see I've said I've already started a big list of LRC articles mentioned by other WP:RS for content section. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carol. With rare exceptions, I do not read your postings. I've already stated my reaction to the tone of those I have read. For that reason I am very reluctant to participate in discussions or to edit pages in which you're involved, lest I be further victimized by what I feel are your personal attacks and harassment. Please don't post further on my talk page. SPECIFICO talk 22:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)