Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:51, 1 May 2013

This is Steeletrap's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Welcome!

Hello, Steeletrap, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Stalwart111 09:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am a longtime lurker but a newtime (official) user. I will read through these and hope to contribute to the community! Steeletrap (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Request for Help...

First; no problem at all with you posting on my talk page. Feel free to do so any time. But I'm also happy for you to respond here - I'll keep an eye on this page too.

On Kinsella - there is often a general sense that consensus, once established, needs new evidence or for something to have changed for that consensus to change. Of course, consensus can change, but editors will often expect strong arguments to refute the claims/conclusions of a previous discussion.

On Hoppe - I think part of the problem is that the passage you added will likely be interpreted as original research, especially when you cite Hoppe's own book and ascribe it a meaning. Hoppe's book could be used as a source for quotes from Hoppe's book, but not as a source for interpretations of that quote. Using the other source was absolutely the right thing to do (though I'm sure you recognise the irony of first claiming Kinsella is not notable enough for an article here, then attempting to use him as a scholarly source of commentary about others in that field. Of course, notability and reliability are two very different things and one can be reliable but not notable. But anyway...). My suggestion would be to highlight the sources on the article talk page, suggest that the section be added and see what others have to say. "Controversial" things like that will often be reverted unless there is a strong pre-established consensus for inclusion.

On thesis - no, I wouldn't say it automatically gives you an unassailable bias but it is definitely something to be conscious of. It would likely get into WP:COI territory if your opinion was so strong that it impacted on your editing and resulted in you inserting your own research or opinion into articles. Misplaced Pages has a very different approach to such things than college/university studies so it pays to be careful. The important thing to remember is that we're building an encyclopaedia - there are going to be plenty of things here that you don't like or don't agree with. That is not reason enough to change them. This is a helpful essay in that regard.

Cheers, Stalwart111 22:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Stalwart is doing a much better job than I in giving advice. But the point about Hoppe is exactly what I'm trying to say. We can't take our own perceptions about passages in books and assert them as accepted opinion. You had mentioned (to Stalwart) that the remarks in Democracy "have widely been perceived to be anti-gay". Well, if you had added this remark to the Hoppe article, it would immediately be tagged as {{By whom}} or removed. I.e., who are these people who perceive the book as anti-gay? When you said (on the Hoppe talk page) there were no academic secondary sources, I launched into my HighBeam search. (I was too dumb to notice that the UNLV material was already in the article!) I'll comment further on the Hoppe talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I think you are getting worked up over this Hoppe stuff. I say this because of the rapid fire series of edits you've made on the talk page. You close by asking me to refer to the latest version of the article page. Please note I had posted a {{Inuse}} banner at the top of the talk page to try and avoid edit conflicts. When you made your edit (with the inuse banner up) I posted a {{edit conflict}} tag to show that I was referring to the previous comments. Also, WP:BRD says we should resolve the issues before launching back into editing an article. The idea is to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Well, rather than revert your article edits I think I'll tag them with some inline messages and/or section banners. The tags will attract other editors to chime in and/or make changes and/or revert your edits. Are we WP:COOL? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I violated wiki etiquette in any way. I wasn't (honestly) trying to get into an edit war; I was just trying to make necessary changes to the edit to reflect what I think it ought to be, so it could be evaluated with all of the requirements (e.g., secondary sources) met, and invited you to revert it. I was frustrated because I didn't feel like you addressed the points I was making (the UNLV thing was out of Left field), but will try to cool down and think about what I could've done better to communicate my points. Steeletrap (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No sweat. Have a

Srich32977 has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

while you contemplate. – S. Rich (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you post a {{Inuse}} banner at the top of the article page while you undertake the edits, even if you are doing a series of them. Then remove it when done -- with your last edit. If you forget, someone will do so on their own if they see the article idle for awhile. – S. Rich (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration

I thank you for continuing on the Hoppe edits. This is all a collaborative effort, even though we'd sometimes wish other editors would not push back on the WP:POLE. As you are a Masters candidate, I'm sure you can appreciate my remarks as being directed towards a better article. With this in mind, permit a few more words to the wise: 1. I noticed you mentioned "voting" with regard to the Kinsella deletion. WP does not work on voting (at least we try not to). 2. Don't ask if other editors have read such-and-such stuff, part of AGF is not asking that question because it implies that they have not. 3. Don't personalize the discussions in too blatant a fashion (like with your section heading). You want to attract other editors into the discussion and addressing me specifically may deter them. 4. Be sure to sign the talk page posts. If you don't, a bot may come along and do so for you and leave a note on your talk page. Many editors don't want to see bot edits on their watch lists, so they do the settings so that bot edits don't show up. That means they would miss the next posting on the discussion thread. (This is hardly a big deal for them or you, but your creditability as an editor will look better without bot signatures. 5. Most importantly, enjoy the process! Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, Steeletrap, I bet you've seen some of the recent edits. (Duh, you must have if you are reading this!) And I bet you are not especially happy with them. Please don't think that SPECIFICO, Stalwart, and I are ganging up on you. SPECIFICO I know from prior editing interchanges. While he can be strident at times, I respect him and think he's a straight-shooter. (And I'm not punning around by saying "straight".) Stalwart seems to be on the up-and-up as well. In any event we're all following the WP:FIVEPILLARS to the best of our abilities in our efforts to improve the article and the encyclopedia. I'm sure you want to follow them too. – S. Rich (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I try to be... As you know (Steele), I came to the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article after you drew my attention to it on my talk page and I can see why you had some concerns. Having had a look (and having had some initial discussion on the article talk page) I've started by cleaning it up a bit, removing some un-sourced stuff and focusing some of the text a bit more than it was. I've left the "homophobia" stuff in for now (though I have amended it quite a bit and have improved the sources, I think) but I have removed the "racist" stuff. I thought I should note it here because you raised it with me in particular but I'm happy to discuss it on the article talk page. Best bet would be to have a chat about some sources that discuss the idea (in some detail) and build a new section. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I"m starting to understand the rules a bit better. Whatever one's interpretation of the original passage (and I maintain it is crystal clear), wiki rules seem to indicate that one needs to cite credible secondary sources rather than original research. Given those rules, I think the new passage (which is confined to the quotation which prominent libertarian scholar Walter Block interprets/criticizes) is more appropriate for wikipedia. I'm sorry if I misconstrued the intention of the previous edits; I think that was a matter of me lacking familiarity with the wiki rules. Steeletrap (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty spot on. Nobody expects you to "know all the rules" on day 1. And when you add WP:CONSENSUS to the interpretation of those rules, I'd be surprised if anyone really knew them. But you're getting the hang of things pretty quickly. Most of all it comes down to being WP:BOLD and the fact that I would so heavily edit an article about a subject I'm not familiar with shows how well that idea works in practice. Just don't be offended if someone comes in afterward and amends it - that's the whole idea! Most of all, have fun! Stalwart111 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Other articles

Thought I'd start a new section to respond to the various other articles you raised concerns about:

On Robert P. Murphy - I've removed the reference to "pro-white". The claim is certain true (about the station, and can be sourced) but does it really add anything to a biography of a living person other than to (without a lot of context) quasi-suggest the subject is a neo-nazi? He might have been featured as a "devil's advocate" style guest or simply as a guest on ecomonic issues not related to race. Unless there is strong evidence (and I mean very strong) that he is featured on that station for his views on race, I don't think the added "pro-white" comment is necessary. Anyone interested will be able to click through to the article about that radio station and work out what it's about. They will draw their own conclusions, but it's not our place to draw those sorts of conclusions for them (again, unless with very strong sources). I hope that all makes sense.

• I think yours is a a fair assessment and I agree with your removal of "pro-white." (To be fair to me, I didn't say that they were racists in this and any piece, although I am utterly convinced that the organization is a racist one.) Steeletrap (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• No worries. And yeah, I understood what you were saying. Stalwart111 07:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On Mises Institute people - I know you have a particular issue with Mises people (which is fine) but you need to be careful of bias (perceived or actual). The fact that four Mises scholars have appeared on a show like that doesn't mean that all Mises people are racist, or that even the show considers them consistently racist enough to feature them. These are libertarians, after all, who are advocates for free speech. They would likely defend organisations like that even if they disagreed with their philosophies on race. Yeah? So highlighting "facts" like that, while true, doesn't add much without secondary sources that go into detail about why. If we had articles like "Racist Mises scholars clog pro-white airwaves" or something, then it would be a different story. The other thing is that we're talking about 4 guests of a radio station that might have 20-30 guests a week (potentially, I don't know). I'm sure Mises scholars aren't the only people who have appeared as guests. Hell, they're probably not even the only libertarian economists who have appeared, given the likely target market. Just be careful about adding 2 and 2 and getting 145.

• The bigotry of (at least some) Mises Institute people is pretty well sourced. Mises Institute Chairman Lew Rockwell, for example, was listed as "editor" and reported by numerous credible third-party sources as the author of newsletter that called black people animals (who, as a group, are 95% criminals) and said that homosexuals suffering from AIDS "enjoy the pity and attention that comes with being sick"; Tom DiLorenzo openly identifies with the anti-"miscegenation" slavery-apologists at the League of the South; Gary North wants to stone gays to death; Hoppe refers to blacks as "negroids" and wants to "physically remove .... advocates of homosexuality" from society; and the Institute openly endorses "confederate ideology." I am not inclined to think that multiple appearance on a Neo-Nazi radio show (which has a very small guest list, at least according to their website) is benign (though I am happy to delete the "pro-white" qualifier and let readers judge for themselves), given this background. But in any case, the Misplaced Pages articles on the above-mentioned figures either gloss over or altogether ignore these issues. Though I should strive to make my edits more fair and in accordance with the rules, I think you'd agree that these claims -- if sourced by credible third parties (which they are) -- should be presented (in the right form) on the biographies of these thinkers. I will work hard to try to present these facts in as plain and even-handed a manner as possible. Steeletrap (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think what is "well sourced" are the claims and comments of various Mises people, rather than any responses to those claims, if that makes sense. They have said stuff and our personal interpretation (upon reading those things) is that collectively they represent a fringe view. But while their comments might be widely disseminated and thus well-sourced, responses to those comments seem few and far between and it's those comments we need (the secondary sources) to build our articles. If our articles ignore their views it may well be because the wider community has ignored their views and that few people have bothered to formally respond to them or comment on their opinions in a manner we could then cite as a reliable source. Having now spent some time looking through the various related articles, it would seem the whole "Mises related" section is a bit of a walled garden. Stalwart111 07:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On economists in general - The reality is that I could call myself a economist or an economics scholar, even if I don't have an economics degree. The question is how credible that claim is. The fact is that Gary North (and people like him, but him in particular) has written books on economics that have been published (from what I can tell) by mainstream publishers. He was accepted as a fellow of the Mises Institute - an institute for economists. If other economists consider him an economist (at least, of sorts) then he's an economist. Arguing about it (based on our own original research or opinions) would be fairly pointless.

• On the economist issue: that seems fair enough! Consensus should, I think, be upheld if the situation is ambiguous (and the claim that he's not an economist is somewhat subjective). However, what do you think of mentioning the fact that North -- in a clear cut fashion in quotations like , as sourced by numerous credible third parties -- advocates stoning unruly children and homosexuals to death? It seems odd to leave that out in a biography of his thought. Steeletrap (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose my take would be that it's not a "biography of his thought" but rather a regurgitation of what reliable sources have said about the fellow. As above, in many cases, reliable sources may not have thought to spend enough time thinking about him to offer a considered critique of his philosophies. Stalwart111 07:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope that all makes sense. I'm in a bit of a rush but I'll add some more notes later maybe. Cheers, Stalwart111 01:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart, there's a bit of a problem here. Many articles cut the Mises Institute fellows a lot of slack, using primary sources, straightforward OR paraphrases of their blog posts, and repeating some of their self-serving characterizations of their own work. Then we get strict about OR, SYNTH and off-topic information that is added to the articles for the purpose of providing balance. There is a real problem with this because naive readers may come to WP, read some fringey stuff by one of the lesser Mises Institute fellows, and be seriously misled as to some serious academic, political or historical issue.

I'm surprised at your remarks above about Gary North. This is a guy who is almost entirely self-published, who has created elaborate marketing schemes to delude ignorant customers into thinking he's a notable authority worth paying for his written output, and who to my knowledge has not exhibited any rigor in discussing economic issues. Finally you're begging the question. Who says Mises Institute is an institute of and for economists? Almost nobody unaffiliated would say that. In fact it was formed out of a schism within the legitimate Austrian-oriented Cato Institute. I'm surprised you seem to be applying WP rules in an inconsistent way that enables North's and others' self-promotion at the expense of WP users. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree SPECIFICO. Also: wouldn't you say the fact that North wants to stone gays to death is relevant? Even if his work is strictly as an "economist" for LVMI, these extreme views are relevant, just as the extreme racial views of (for example) a Klansman who worked for LVMI as an "economist" would be relevant. (particularly because North's advocacy of capital punishment for "fornication", homosexuality, and so forth are material to his views on what the government should do, and therefore are material to his role as a political commentator.) Steeletrap (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that all sounds pretty spot-on. As I said above, the whole thing seems like a bit of a walled garden and the things you point to are symptomatic of that - each fringe theorist cross-promoting another, self-sustaining self-aggrandisement and claims that are only substantiated by others in the same niche group. You may well be entirely correct about Gary North, but a quick search for the term - "economist Gary North" - in GoogleBooks brings up a stack of results. So some people have accepted him as a source of economic commentary/thinking. We can have a personal opinion about whether or not they should have done so, but that doesn't change the fact that they have. Take Lisa Kudrow for example; acting's Gary North if you will. From what I can tell, she has no formal acting qualifications (she's a qualified biologist!). I, personally, think she's a terrible actor. So here we have a terrible actor with no formal acting qualifications so why can't I just say that she's "not an actor" on that basis? Well, the fact is that a whole bunch of (perhaps misguided) people have decided to give her acting roles and so we really have no choice but to refer to her as an actor. Maybe they bought into some promo spin from her agent? Maybe they just couldn't hire someone more talented/expensive? Maybe they genuinely believe she can act? ...can you see what I'm getting at? Stalwart111 04:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Stalwart. :) I'm not sure if I buy that analogy. The term "economist" strikes me as more clear-cut than actor. Like "political scientist", it usually implies both a formal credential (MS/Ph.D) and adherence to a certain methodology (broadly speaking, empiricism). North has neither. (he has no degrees -- graduate or undergraduate -- in econ, has never held a job as an "economist", and -- like all "Austrian" economics -- rejects the application of statistics, econometrics, empiricism, and the scientific method applied to economics, in favor of an "a priori", non-empirical approach to understanding human action.) Given this backdrop, and the contentious (to say the least) credibility of this guy on economics matters, maybe "economics writer" would be a more objective characterization? Steeletrap (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, yeah I get where you're coming from. From our own article, economist: "An economist is a professional in the social science discipline of economics. The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy." My take would be that North fits into that (very broad) description. And again, it doesn't really come down to our own interpretation of what an economist is anyway. My broad point with that analogy was that such descriptions aren't always based on formal qualifications. They can be based on what reliable sources say about someone. I might note that North isn't described as an "economist" in his article anyway - he is described as an, "economic historian and publisher who writes on topics including economics" which would seem to be fairly accurate. The article title includes (economist) after the name because while a better professional title might be (author), there is already a Gary North (disambig) who was/is a journalist. Could always change it to (historian and author) but would there be much point? Stalwart111 06:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart, I am at a loss to understand your thinking. I pointed out above that all of North's "books" are self-published. Your response is to rely on whatever algorithm is used by Google Books as a justification to override WP policy? I am an "Austrian School" economist trained before the Mises Institute launched its attempt to hijack of this important intellectual tradition. The Mises gang have gone steadily down hill and, aside from providing a useful online archive of reprints, are currently devoted almost exclusively to expanding their own franchise through various means. They are no different in this respect than the vitamin supplement schemes that claim to be based on obscure medical facts. By the way, if you look on the Mises web page, you'll see that they did literally construct a walled garden of red brick at their Alabama headquarters. Funny. What I can't understand is how you could compare Gary North, salesman of "textbooks" for homeschooling hillbillies, to Lisa Kudrow, whom I never heard of before your mention, but who apparently is a multiple winner of prestigious mainstream industry awards for her typical American TV and film acting efforts. What I think we should be focusing on here is to try to find a way to bring the Mises Fellows' articles up to WP standards so that they do not have to be deleted according to policy, not to defend them from full information and neutral balance. SPECIFICO talk 13:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you might have missed my point a bit. It doesn't matter what we think of him; it matters what sources have said about him. Just like it doesn't matter what we think of Kudrow (or anyone else). It doesn't matter if his books are self-published because we shouldn't be using them as sources anyway. As far as I'm concerned, that just makes it less likely for reputable sources to have read said books and to have adequately covered them or their author. And biographies of people not adequately covered by reliable sources should be deleted for failing WP:GNG. But if there's a reliable source that says he's a, "salesman of textbooks for homeschooling hillbillies", then that's what should be in our article. Stalwart111 15:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I understood that perfectly well before the first time you said it. If we were to remove all primary and OR sources, many of these articles would have no content whatsoever. I saw you trying to rescue them by leaving the bad sources intact and I am saying that while there may indeed be reason to do so, we should not then be so much more strict about eliminating similarly sourced balancing content. Meanwhile, you staunchly defended all of North's vitamin samples. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Rescue" which ones? "Staunchly defend" what? I've partially re-written one article and have added a note to another along exactly the lines you are talking about. You guys are the economists - I have no skin in this game. WP policy says we should limit our commentary on people to that which is available in reliable sources. I have the advantage of having no choice but to do so because I have no predefined opinion of any of these people or any predetermined idea of what these people are about. As I said in one of my first notes on the Hoppe article talk page - I might as well be writing about motorbikes or cheese. So which are the "bad sources" left "intact"? I'll make no fuss about you removing them. Stalwart111 22:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be most welcome. Currently intact: 1. All the self-published and Mises Institute published books (not the reprints) by Mises Fellows. All the WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and primary source quotes used, in the absence of WP:RS, to present their views. 2. Various unsourced references to Mises Institute Fellows as "economists" when they have no history of publication in peer-reviewed economics journals or other indiciae of academic standing. 3. Various secondary source citations which lead back to other Mises Fellows, blog posts, or books published by "Mises Institute" or "Mises Academy." 4. And numerous citations and discussions of the opinions of Murray Rothbard and others as if they were statements of economic theory, vetted critical research, or mainstream academic dissent. It would be a great service to examine the WP articles for the Mises Institute Fellows listed on its website and clean up those articles. I do appreciate your interest and would greatly welcome your service if you choose to pursue this kind of cleanup. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Those all seem like valid concerns and not dissimilar to those expressed by Steeletrap early on. I think we still diverge on number 2. which I see as being less about formal qualifications and more about what RS have said about them, but I think we can overcome that little difference. A large-scale clean-up is probably more than we three (four including S. Rich if he shares the view) can handle but I see no harm in doing what we can. Perhaps we should start using the WP:WikiProject Economics talk page rather than clogging up our poor friend's talk page?

My suggestion is that we start with Hoppe (given we're there already) and with Argumentation ethics and it's section in Hoppe's article, perhaps by quoting responses from someone other than Rothbard or Block (which I already had concerns about given the closeness with which they all seemed to have worked). I've posted a note about my concerns with the immigration section of that article so we have a couple of jumping-off points. How about it? Stalwart111 01:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to do this! I have made a substantial edit to the (in my view, absurd) Argumentation Ethics Article reflecting that 1) it has received virtually no attention from mainstream philosophers and trained (read: real) logicians (despite purporting to be a value-free logical argument) and 2) that most of the responses -- all of those cited in the current article -- have come from Hoppe's COLLEAGUES at the Mises Institute. Before my edit, there was the absurdly misleading claim that "responses have varied" to argumentation ethics whereas "responses have varied" among people who are Hoppe's COLLEAGUES, FRIENDS, and fellow travelers (lol). Steeletrap (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Murphy hyperinflation & gold edits

Take a look at my recent changes. I give you this heads-up to illustrate how POV can infect articles. (Not that I'm accusing you of this.) Regarding the bet, someone had said Murphy was predicting "hyperinflation", when he actually only mentioned that Farber had warned about it. (He probably did so to bolster his own warning.) But the TAC article did not have Murphy making the hyper-inflation prediction. Still, someone sees him mentioning the term and then writes that Murphy is making the prediction. The POV slant (unintentional?) in that edit served to make Murphy look bad by exaggerating the prediction (not just double-digit, but hyper), and then worse when it failed to materialize. Also, the sentence contains the advice to "buy gold & silver", which I've removed because no one has criticized him for making that particular comment. (But see SPECIFICO's comment.) I point these flaws out to illustrate how a lack of discipline in these edits can creep in. – S. Rich (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Srich. I agree that explicating double-digit (10%) inflation is better than hyperinflation. To be clear, "hyperinflation" wasn't a paraphrase but an inference; perhaps it was a reasonable one, given Misplaced Pages's definition of hyperinflation as "a condition the general price level within an economy rapidly increases as the currency quickly loses real value", but it's much clearer and fairer to stick with double-digit inflation. Good change there. I disagree with you on the gold thing but SPECIFICO seems to be making my case for me. I have and will continue to be honest regarding my bias against the Mises Institute (I think they are cultish charlatans whose "economic" methodology is unscientific), but I don't think that this bias -- however strong -- necessarily precludes me from making substantive edits and improvements to LVMI-related pages (many (probably most) of which, for the record, have been made or substantially edited by an LVMI employee, -- similarly, that doesn't invalidate his edits, but it perhaps makes it a good thing that good-faith editors with strongly different views and deep knowledge of the Institute are devoted to improving its related pages). It's important to watch for bias and I hope you can continue to help me that- as well as more generally help acquaint me to wikipedia. I welcome continued collaboration with you. Steeletrap (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll you, SPECIFICO, and others work on this for a day or so because I'm off on a short WP:WB. – S. Rich (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Steeletrap! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Will review as requested.

Hi got your note. Will take a look. It might be a good idea to post a note on the Economics Project talk page for additional comments. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive

Hello Steeltrap. I notice that you occasionally remove contents from your talk page, which is fine, but if you wish to allow others to refer to the closed threads, consider archiving them instead, either manually or with the bot that is described in the help pages. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to do this for purposes of helping others more easily reference the history. I will take a look at how to do it later tonight and will archive the deletions by the end of the week. Anyone who wants to do it for me before then is welcome to archive anything I've previously deleted. Steeletrap (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I've given you the same auto-archiving tool as I use on my talk page. It will automatically start a new archive page and move things there once nothing has been added to a thread for 20 days. Once the first archive page is automatically created you can go back and add deleted threads to it if you wish. Stalwart111 00:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Stalwart! Incidentally, I plan on taking a break from editing for the next three days to read up on Wiki rules to get a better grasp of these and other rules. Steeletrap (talk)`~

Enjoy your break! Here is a template for you (if you wish): a {{wikibreak}} banner on your talk &/or userpage tells editors not to expect replies to messages, etc, during the break. – S. Rich (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the template. Though I'm planning to take an edit break, I intend on being on wiki the next few days and will be able to respond messages, but I'm sure it will come in handy in the future. Steeletrap (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I've always been a fan of learning on the job; being WP:BOLD. Maybe pick a a not-so-visible area that you have no interest in/understanding of. That makes it easier to get your head around rules like WP:V and WP:RS because you have no choice but to include only that which can be verified by reliable sources if you have no prior personal understanding of the subject (much like my approach to economics, to be honest). Anyway, I've started a first archive page for you with some of your old threads and the automatic archive will start with /Archive 2. Cheers, Stalwart111 01:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The New Editor's Barnstar
		Given our collective want to clog your talk page with all sorts of things, I thought it appropriate to further clog it with a small acknowledgement your efforts so far (here and in various articles). Good luck with future editing endeavours and have fun! Stalwart111 01:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well deserved. (And I had to LOL with Stewart's comment!) Here is yet another bit of helpful info: WP:Essays has all sorts of links to great info. – S. Rich (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

LRC

Please take a look at WP:AOBF. We simply have a disagreement about what should go into the article. Nothing more. The LRC article gets about 50 page-views daily. You and DickClarkMises have made the most edits to it. It has 38 page watchers. (My talk page has 64!) Besides, Libertarians are a tiny minority in the US. They, LRC, and LR himself are not worth getting worked up over. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood my comments. I was dropping out of the debate precisely because I didn't feel like I was able to assume good faith. This isn't logically equivalent to saying you are acting in bad faith; I never said this. Steeletrap (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. And I see how my including the AOBF link can be construed as implying that I was the one accused of BF. I was incorrect. In any event, as I see absolutely no suggestion of BF on your part, I encourage you continue to participate in the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you may have noticed that I've done a lot of editing on the Ron Paul newsletters article. (And more work is needed.) In this process, I see Ben Swann's piece as the last citation. Well, I commend you to & . In the first, we have the numbers: there are 9 (I will double check this!) "questionable" articles (my characterization trying to keep this sorta NPOV) out of 240 issues. And no verification that Rockwell was part of the questionable presentations. The second story mentions how various politicians (Obama, et al.) get smeared with the "racist" label as part of the political process. The commentator, Ben Swann, says it better than I can -- the process of seeking to term someone racist is a very base form of political discourse. I point these items out as an example of how editing WP can be challenging in a moral and intellectual fashion. As you were providing more and more evidence of LR's biases, I (really not knowing much about him) looked at this and became unsettled. Was it true? Well, one of the 5Ps came to my rescue -- Verify. In so doing, I dug through the Ron Paul newsletter stuff, cleaned it up, and finally found the Swann material. (Of course it was there all along.) In so doing I feel fairly comfortable with Rockwell's non-involvement with the controversial newsletter stuff. Well, my next step (after a good nights sleep) is to give another push on the WP:POLE. In so doing I hope to wrap up the newslettter story and clarify Rockwell's involvement. I invite you to re-assume GF and re-engage in the process. Your help in this process is wanted, needed, and appreciated. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No: your edits are a distortion of the issue that undermine the entires on these people. There is no unbiased way to exonerate Rockwell. You are appealing to one, non-notable, explicitly "movement" libertarian/Ron Paul/*supporting source from a local TV network and ignoring literally dozens of mainstream, credible, notable sources to the contrary. (Your biased source, by the way, does not say Rockwell didn't write the newsletters; it merely indicates that another person helped write them. Your being "fairly comfortable with Rockwell's non-involvement" is ridiculous given that your source gives no evidence against the claim, and given that a huge number of people -- deemed credible by mainstream sources -- to include Ron Paul's former chief of staff, say he wrote them, and the fact that he co-founded the company that published the newsletters and was listed as an "editor" on their mastheads.) Your edit also hides the fact that, as I have pointed out to you, Rockwell was listed as an editor of the newsletter on its masthead. And I am not getting involved, because I am not able to abide by wikipedia rules in my dealings with you at this point (assuming good faith). Steeletrap (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: didn't mean to type "Lew rockwell" here) Steeletrap (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC) And also note: there are far, far more than 9 "questionable" articles (unless you don't view anti-Semitic conspiracies and calling HIV-positive homosexuals as "murderers" and extreme anti-government paranoia as "controversial"). This is, again, a preposterous distortion that reiterates my conviction not to work on this article. Someone will do the research and come along and remove these distortions eventually. And by the way: I have read the rules closely enough to determine that assuming bad faith at this point is appropriate and compatible with them (this is particularly true given your previous ad hominem attacks on me). For you to ignore all of my mainstream sources and adopt uncritically a (Ron-Paul supporting) local newscaster's interpretation wholesale (which doesn't even assert Rockwell's non-involvement, but just insinuates the involvement of some other guy, and contradicts the Washington Post piece (and the words of a secretary at the newsletters company) in implying Paul's non-involvement) clearly indicates a bias on the subject. Steeletrap (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

. Please don't say I am distorting things; if my edits are incorrect, point out what is wrong and/or make helpful changes. I mentioned "9" because that is what Swann says, and I said I'd double check the numbers. It doesn't help to say Swann is biased without looking at what he says. (Doing so is part of our evaluation of him as a WP:RS.) More work on the newsletter article is needed to put the Swann material and Kirchick material together -- particularly WRT the James Powell info. (Editing should not be a battle between the local news reporter vs. the fairly new (2 years out of college) news reporter. Either way we've gotta watch out for WP:JDLI.) I believe Rockwell was listed on the newsletter masthead as editor in chief on one issue, but that needs WP:V. Again, I'm sorry you think my earlier comments to you were ad hominem -- I did not attack you as a person. (I thought I was appealing to the Masters Thesis candidate to be self-critical.) You say "There is no unbiased way to exonerate Rockwell." Well, perhaps the opposite holds true, e.g., "There is no unbiased way to condemn Rockwell." Again, I'm . – S. Rich (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Speculating about one's motives on the basis of no evidence to impute bad faith -- which is what you did, in saying that I am motivated to reject the notablity (and push for deletion) of certain Mises Institute certain pages by a self-interested desire to maintain the relevance of my Master's thesis relating to fringe American political movements (as opposed to good-faith editorial concern) -- is, in my view, clearly a personal attack. Superficially friendly rhetorical concessions don't change the fact that you made such an attack. (People can judge for themselves by looking here, at the first comment under April 2013.) Also, it's a distortion to say that the newsletter subject is a matter of "Swann" vs "Kirchick." It's actualy "Swann" vs dozens of mainstream articles in the media (from the Economist, reason, New York Times, and Washington Post) which say the articles were extremely racist, went on for years and years, and featured significant editorial involvement -- and probable authorship -- by Rockwell. You know this. Steeletrap (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

. I suggest you print out our discussions, talk page comments for the various articles you've edited, and the/your actual edits. Present the material to your thesis advisor and ask for his/her opinion as to my speculations. And ask your advisor to question you. (Also, if I find evidence that Rockwell (not Powell) wrote the offensive RP newsletter stuff, I shall certainly post it in the WP articles.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This issue is only briefly mentioned (in a footnote) in my thesis, which does not say Rockwell "wrote the newsletters" (I have never made this argument) but that 1) he was a "contributing editor" to the newsletters who 2) set up with Ron Paul the company which published them and 3) that a copious number of credible sources (close to him/Paul0 have pinned him as their probable author. but I did ask her whether what is effectively an opinion piece by Ron Paul supporter Swann, with no new reporting other than an "outing" of a guy whom we only know wrote one article in one newsletter, (though (contra Swann) this was already reported by Kirchick) would be deemed a credible source, in a claim that conflicts with reporting by The New Republic/The New York Times/Washington Post/The Economist/Reason, and she (obviously) said no. She also approves of my connection of the newsletters to Rockwell's professed "paleolibertarian" ideology of the time (when he published articles sympathetic to former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's bid for governor; condemned Martin Luther King Jr.; and engaged (with Murray Rothbard) in a broad-scale appeal to racists. All of these claims are meticulously sourced, and will be evaluated by scholars with scrupulously standards of academic review. Steeletrap (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way: here is just a sampling of the Ron Paul newsletters Kirchick has unearthed. The newsletters cited here -- and there are many, many more -- cover several years and far more editions than the "9" cited by Swann. Also note the "authorship" section's indication that Rockwell is characterized as "contributing editor" or "editor" of the newsletter. (odd title for someone just involved in "writing prescription letters, eh?) Given this formal title, it is frankly bizarre for you to come over here and -- ignoring all of my hard work in detailing numerous sources and eye-witnesses from the NYT, WP, Economist, Reason, the New Republic, and more sources, who say Rockwell was definitely heavily involved with and probably wrote the newsletters -- say that you are "fairly comfortable" that Rockwell was not involved with the newsletter. Given your personal attacks on me, and the fact that you base this extraordinary claim on an opinion piece by a Ron Paul supporting local news reporter. (you cite his long-winded opinions about accusations of racism against politicians, which has nothing to do with the truth of the newsletter authorship story.) http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive# Steeletrap (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at that page. Unfortunately, the links on it do not produce the actual newsletters. (At least the half-dozen that I've clicked so far.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is six years old, which is why the links are dead. I think it's pretty outlandish to assume that the excerpts are just lies. (Your source Swann doesn't even allege this). Update: I'm sure you're relieved to know that web archive has a version of the piece (which cites dozens of Newsletters over a period of severla years) from which the P.D.F. can be accessed. http://web.archive.org/liveweb/http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive# Here is one indicating Rockwell is the sole editor of the newsletter: http://web.archive.org/web/20130121052119/http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/InvestmentLetterMay1988.pdf. Here is an earlier one referring to him as a contributing editor http://web.archive.org/web/20130121051947/http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/masthead.pdf Steeletrap (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeez, where did I say the article contained lies? I'd simply like to WP:V what was said in the newsletter articles. V is a core principle of WP! If we don't verify, we don't automatically assume anything. But dead links don't help and none of the links on that page connected. The archived links you've just provided do help. Thanks you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

From my understanding of "verify" in the Misplaced Pages piece, it's pretty clear that a claim's mention in a credible secondary source such as the New Republic, bereft of challenge or correction, constitutes verification. Therefore, the web archive was superfluous. Steeletrap (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what you say is true. Moreover, editing WP is a collaborative process. That means we can challenge and correct the material we read -- and these are additional steps in the verification process. AGF allows us to make changes to other editor's contributions and we don't get upset when our edits are corrected or improved upon. – S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess I get upset that my positions are misconstrued, and it's difficult to assume good faith from someone who previously personally attacked and (without evidence) imputed bad faith motives to me. By the way: in regards to the " nine newsletters" claim from the Ron Paul supporting local news anchor, here are some more racist or homophobic newsletters. (there is a bit of overlap with the previous link as some old newsletters are cited to contextualize remarks, but the vast vast majority are newsletters not published in Kirchick's first edition.) Clearly, this stuff went on for several years in several dozen newsletters. Note also the claim by "Ron Paul" (I use scare quotes because the evidence indicates it was almost certainly a ghostwriter) one of the newsletters that "“The editor, my old friend Lew Rockwell, was my chief of staff in the House, and he’s worked with me for 12 years on this newsletter.” Steeletrap (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Ron Paul. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The banner invites other editors to opine. If they think it is impossible to discuss, they won't say anything. But once the balance/undue banner is in place, the proper process is to keep it there until consensus is achieved. PS: While the banner is not a "maintenance template" the point of achieving consensus, which the banner draws attention to, still applies. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not my reading of the rules. As I understand it, your edit is in opposition to WP:Con, and it therefore must be deleted unless some positive evidence is cited for it -- and you cite none. (Am I mistaken in my judgment here? If so, how/according to which rules?). I do agree that there is no productivity in getting into an edit war. I won't do that. But I ask you to respond to my comments in the talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll see that I've changed the RP banner and replied on the talk page. If there was consensus about the material in the main article, that consensus is OBE (Overcome By Events) with the creation of the new article. Please don't react to negatively to my efforts. Adding banners and tags to articles serves to alert other editors about concerns. Indeed, there are indexing protocols that compile the tags and editors go through the indexes to find and correct problems. I try to make my contributions helpful and within the rules. For the most part I've been successful in this effort. Please give me credit for knowing something about building this encyclopedia. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why should I react positively to your edit if I disagreed with it? I did not, notice, accuse you of vandalism or bad faith. Steeletrap (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, react negatively if you wish. The decision is up to you. I just wish you'd be more neutral. Something like "It looks like S.Rich has been editing for a while...perhaps he knows a bit more about this stuff than I do." If you react negatively on a regular basis, you'll burn out. – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Tacitly affirming your authority, due to your greater experience and editorial savvy, would be in opposition to WP:Bold (that sort of attitude would undercut the ability of Misplaced Pages to grow, instead giving air to a sort of habitual acquiescence to authority). I thought your change was wrong-headed based on the merits (you didn't provide evidence for a change that was in opposition to WP: Con). That and only that is why I made the criticism. Steeletrap (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't let my "authority" determine how BOLD you edit! My advice is about psychological reactions -- what happens in your gut when you see something I've done. My edits might be wrong, but I pray that they are not wrong-headed. For example, I tagged the RP article section for balance -- the better tag was UNDUE. Was I wrong? Yes, and I taught myself something. Was I wrong-headed? I hope not. – S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Rather than asking editors "which WP policies" pertain, I suggest doing a bit of/the research on your own. I do so by typing

Thanks. I was asking for the basis of your change to the article, however (since none was provided). So it wasn't as if I was asking: "What does x policy say" but rather: "What is the basis of your change"? Since, given that you didn't provide a reason, I would need to know that before we can have a discussion about whether it was proper or improper. Steeletrap (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to this talk page comment: . As you can see on the talk page, I was asking for clarification (from Carolmooredc) as to what she felt was the blog (as per her edit summary). And I referred to the policy for blogs. To explain further, in general, sometimes editors make a variety of changes and the ES only mentions some of the rationale. We use the summaries, the edits themselves, and the talk pages to figure out what is going on. When you say "what is the policy?" it looks like you don't know what the policy is re blogs -- that is why I was advising you on a method to research the policy yourself. (Very few editors will look up the policy for the other editor in order to post it on the talk page.) As for the changes -- I think you are mistaken. I did not change the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of PA

When you accuse others of PA, you are violating AGF. Specifically, here, you bring up the accusation on another user's talk page. As long as your opinion was on your talk page and was between us, I had no complaint. But bringing it up on any other page is not proper. I ask that you "put up or shut up" in this regard. (Please see WP:WIAPA and note PA includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence...." ) So, please make a complaint about my comment(s) on the ANI or say nothing at all. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In these edits: , you are saying Carolmooredc was conducting a PA because she referred to the usage of references. This is not the case at all because she is referring to the editing that is going on and not you as a person. This edit: applies as well. She is referring to the style of writing in the article, nothing more. You are quite correct, you are being "to sensitive about" these remarks. And your reaction, of accusing others of PA, seems to be an unfortunate result of that sensitivity. I ask that you stop assuming that remarks are directed to you personally, as you have in these 3 examples. There are a whole slew of essays on {{Civility}} right here. You've got to take a bit more time to read them, consider them, and put them to use. Thanks so very much. – S. Rich (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

One (more) very positive comment: In this edit , a mere 10 days ago, you said you looked forward to a continued collaboration with me. That remark was most heartening, and I should have done a better job of letting you know. Please, I do want collaboration between all editors, not just you and I. Thanks why I've posted the messages above. I look for ways to collaborate with other editors (although not so successfully at times). I hope we can renew that spirit of collaboration. Thanks again. – S. Rich (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Srich. Here is the WP:PA you made (the specific PA part is bolded, while the rest is just surrounding context): "You really are injecting your own ideas into articles. While this edit is a few days old, it provides an example: . Why do I say this? Because you are describing the other people as Hoppe's friends. No reliable source supports this particular edit. None of the various respondents to the theory are described as friends. This is improper editing. By adding "friends" you imply that they are prejudiced in Hoppe's favor. Please take a critical look at yourself and your edits. Your Master's thesis is focused on what you perceive to be a group/institute which you consider non-notable. Beyond the improper editing, I fear this attitude is motivating you to bad-mouth the various people you are writing about in WP. The motivation for doing this is subtle, but I speculate that you are doing so to preserve the work you are doing on your thesis. After all, if Misplaced Pages "finds" these people to be notable, that finding undercuts your thesis." That's a personal attack (as WP defines it) because it imputes a bad faith motive on the basis of no evidence. (The situation is the same with Carol. It'd be like me saying that I suspect she is motivated to clear Lew Rockwell's name at the expense of sound editing because she is an anarchist libertarian.) I think it's a pretty clear cut situation, but if you reject the characterization, I am happy to go to some "higher" authority. (though I would be concerned only with verifying my claim that you made a PA, as opposed to imposing broader "disciplinary" measure against you) But I'm pretty sure this issue can be settled by your conceding that you made a negative " about personal behavior that lack evidence" (which is a PA according to WP rules), which is obviously what you did in the above-mentioned comment. Steeletrap (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, you are incorrect to say that I said she made a PA by use of the word hyperventilating. I only said that use of such a normatively-charged term in regards to edits others have made "borders" on PA (I have never heard "hyperventilate" used in metaphorical sense to describe text; use of that word implies a hyperventilating subject), and qualified that by saying that your previously PA against me may have made me overly sensitiv). I did say she made a PA when she imputed bad faith onto me on the basis of no evidence, by saying I use references as "weapons" and that my edits constitute a personal attack on Rockwell (that is to say, accusing me of writing a personal attack). That's because (like your previous remarks) WP:PA rules indicate that such a statement is a PA. Steeletrap (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Gun control

Hello Steeltrap. I left a note for you concerning an RfC you may not have seen at Gun Control Talk. SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steeltrap. I know that you are still getting up to speed on various policies and procedures here. This link gives some guidance concerning RFCs, in case you have not read it previously. WP:RFC. After you review the text of the RfC you may wish to record your view in bold, as you will see that others have done on the page. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey SPECIFICO. I have read through the piece and left the following comment.Strongly Support. This section conflates "gun control" (that is to say, a broad-based, non-discriminatory attempt by govs to limit or regulate private gun ownership) with persecutions of particular "enemies of the state" (Jews or dissidents) by genocidal regimes, that included violations of the gun rights of certain minority groups. This characterization is as misleading as referring to the seizure of private property from Jews as (to support Nazi causes and Aryan families) an example of economic redistributionism. The section also utterly fails to provide evidence of any causal between gun control and authoritarian governments; it just asserts the connection bereft of any empirical support. It needs to go. If you (SPECIFICO)are willing, I'd very much appreciate your checking out my comment and letting me know what (if any) formatting errors I made. This could be an important opportunity for learning from a more experienced editor! Steeletrap (talk) 16:04, 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) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I only ask that you please explicate the full context. Steeletrap (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikihint re talk page remark revisions and time-stamps

Say, when you make changes to your comments, you might add 5 tildes ~~~~~ to the end of the revised comment (after your signature). This will add a new time-date stamp to the comment. For quick revisions, it is not a big deal. But if you make changes after another editor has responded, the added time-stamp will clarify as to what edit was made when. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC) It'll look like this: 20:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint. I can see how that might be informative in discussions. I will take that into account in future edits. Steeletrap (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Here is another hint: with this edit: you removed the BLP template. I have no problem with the removal, but the edit summary was a bit inaccurate. The BLP issues had had extensive discussion. Accordingly, a better ES would say "Looks like BLP issues are resolved - removing template." (Or words to that effect.) Again, a minor issue as the particular edit summary will fade away as the edit history grows longer. – S. Rich (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)21:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not my recollection. My recollection is that originally you had a legitimate (specific) gripe (this was weeks ago, when I was first learning Misplaced Pages rules like NO OR) but following its resolution, you then refused to take them down despite having no argument for keeping them up. It was a similar situation in this regard to your edits on the Ron Paul newsletters and LewRockwell.com pages. Steeletrap (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO posted the BLP template here: and Stalwart moved it here: . I had no involvement with template placement. In any event, a lot of times templates are posted just so that someone will come by and fix the problem. For example, an article might be a resume in style, but the templating editor has no interest in cleaning it up. Rather than WP:DIY, they will post {{like resume}} and leave it at that. There is no need to open a discussion. But the template also converts automatically to a category which other editors can patrol and select for editing. Other times templates specifically call for discussion. If some time passes, and no discussion is opened up, it is proper to remove the template (assuming the particular issue is resolved. WP:TC has more info. (Also, you might note I've changed the term "banner" to "template" in my earlier remarks. In looking for guidance, I determined that "banner" has a particular meaning that does not apply in this case. I continue to climb on the learning curve, which makes WP such an interesting project.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It would seem my recollection was wrong on the Hoppe page (I was probably confusing your edits there with yours on the other pages we've disagreed over). Thanks for the clarification. Steeletrap (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Question on past editing

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I only now realized that you are registered as a new member just since April 16. Your use of appropriate and proper Misplaced Pages terminology, policy wikilinks, formatting, etc from your very first edit and your editing style suggest you are very experienced in editing Misplaced Pages, which is one reason I have been frustrated by your edits and talk page comments. Because the libertarian issue and libertarian articles in general has had problems with banned users using new names - see WP:Sock puppets - I hope you don't mind if I ask if you have done extensive editing as an AnonIP or have changed user names? Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Never. I emphatically deny having ever made such a change on an account other than this one. I became mildly obsessed with LvMI people a few months ago, in research I am conducting for a thesis regarding fringe political movements unique to the United States (as libertarianism in the von Mises Institute sense basically is). This has led me to set up an account trying to clean up what I perceive to be an unencyclopedic political bias that runs through all of these libertarian articles. I find your accusation -- which (since I've never "sockpuppetted") by definition lacks any evidence -- to be a highly insulting personal attack. I am (sort of) adept in Misplaced Pages because I took time to read the rules (though, as others can attest, I made a lot of mistakes at the beginning, and continue to do so). Steeletrap (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)