Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:50, 23 June 2013

This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her 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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 31 days

ANI notice

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

Edit Warring on Hoppe

You have been denounced for edit warring. --Sageo (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sageo, your comment about edit warring (EW) is poorly stated. If you think EW is going on, please describe it. Be specific about what you describe. If other editors are commenting about EW, then let them do it by themselves. Do not add vague comments. Above all, WP:AGF. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I also learned from Steeletrap that Sageo has posted a EWN here: . I'll look at it and remark as necessary. Off-hand I think Sageo needs to learn more about the English WP before getting into these more contentious and tangled weeds. My comments to Sageo were directed towards obtaining more cordial cross-Atlantic WP relations. – S. Rich (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Sageo has "reported" us for "edit warring"; please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SPECIFICO_and_User:Steeletrap_reported_by_User:Sageo_.28Result:_.29. Best, Steele. Steeletrap (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Defamation on Hoppe talk page

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

Your talk page discussions with User: Steeletrap are making all sorts of defamatory allegations and speculations based on non WP:RS sources and cherry picked quotes which are against policy. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Making claims based on vague charges with no specific argument to back them up is meaningless. Steeletrap (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please revert Campaigning

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Misplaced Pages's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.

Please stop canvassing with the inaccurate title and change all titles to the accurate title which is "RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?" I did it on economics wikiproject. Thank you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, please stop making derogatory personal comments ("biased users") and false charges ("canvassing") on Misplaced Pages. If you are concerned with the conduct of user SPECIFICO, take it to the relevant authority, so they can correct your wildly erroneous interpretation of WP policy. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of your/my material from Hoppe talk page

Good evening, SPECIFICO. It is my great regret to inform you that, via independent research on the Hoppe talk page, I have learned that user Carolmooredc has unilaterally "cleansed" the talk page of much of our important research and remarks from earlier today, which is now "hidden" under a hatted section whose header baselessly alleges defamation. (All the stuff from Chronicles, as well as the discussion of the PFS' "traditionalist" speakers, plus Hoppe's remark about the time preferences of "negroids", and many other things, has been cleansed without (of course) any specific justification, apart from unsubstantiated charges of "libel" and "defamation".) I am too wiped out to gather the diffs right now, but I thought you should know what Carol has done. Steeletrap (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Update. Another user has "un-hatted" Carol's erroneous changes. Steeletrap (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

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

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Nbound (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What a beautiful image of that peacedove! It inspired me to review the basic DRN info, but I did not see that many specifics as to why Twitter was an issue. Still, as Twitter has been in the news, I took a look at the RSN to see what was the latest on Twitter as RS. Those little bits of info -- that security of Twitter should not be an issue & that the RSN had lots of discussion about Twitter -- were provided simply as an FYI to the DRN thread. Yes, you are quite right in saying that the question of Twitter security is not relevant to the discussion -- it basically repeated what I had said. – S. Rich (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case, the problem is that user:DA1 is not hearing my talk page explanation, so I was concerned that a general discussion of twitter would reinforce his misplaced focus on twitter in general as opposed to the content of the cited tweet. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. And note that I was trying to re-enforce that very fact. The RSN is generally supportive of Twitter as RS. The upgraded security protocol will "help" even more. But you didn't need to address me in your follow-on comment because you look like you have a beef with my comment. (Telling me to read the stuff, indeed. I started looking for the CNN story and was reviewing some of the 53 RSN threads while you were posting your comment.) Saying "Yes, I agree that Twitter is secure and often/usually RS, but the real problem is ..." would help keep that discussion on track. – S. Rich (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct, no such implication was intended. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI Notice

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

Email

Hi SPECIFICO. I deeply respect your contributions to this encyclopedia and have enjoyed our collaborations, on Doc. Hoppe, Argumentation ethics, and other matters. I therefore want to take you up on your offer of exchanging emails. How do I do this? Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Guten Tag Steeletrap. I think you just go the "preferences" link at the upper right of the WP page and look for the section captioned "email" SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Interaction

FYI, I posted a message to certain editors to look at WP:IBAN. As they are repeatedly commenting about each other, it may be appropriate to propose one. – S. Rich (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not following the reference. Please let me know if there's an incident or other page you would like me to know about. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought you might look at my edit history, so I kept it vague. Here are the diffs: & . My note to you is just a FYI. – S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged. I don't look at others' edit histories. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you like for me to stop having WikiTalk with you? (Four-way or otherwise?) If so, please advise. I am happy to comply – in return I'd like an IBAN that covers (the) other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why on earth would I want you to stop talking to me? I am not following this at all. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, abstruse. (But you're pretty smart!) To explain, I'd like Carol & Steele to stop their pissing contest. An IBAN between the two of them would be nice, but you and I are part of the contest, albiet mostly as spectators. Carol has responded to my IBAN suggestion that it be a 4-way. So I am calling her bluff. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I stepped out of the Hoppe article and really hadn't been paying attention. Carol is living in her own world and it seems to be remarkably independent of the rest of the universe. Steeletrap is learning the ropes so I don't think he's likely to get into much trouble going forward. Anyway I have no reason to talk to Carol but I do like to talk to you and Steeletrap when the occasion presents itself, so IBAN or whatever would not interest me. Thanks anyway. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

3rr

On Murray Rothbard with 4th or 5th series of edits in less than 24 hours. Please revert last series.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be requesting that I re-insert the unsourced lists of influenced and influences, not supported by article text or infobox citations. You endorsed this action when I proposed it on the talk page here: . There is no edit war on this article. Please do continue to share your comments and concerns on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Pardon. The undiscussed reverts in the last one or two series. I know it was four, just don't want to figure out if it's five. Also, the idea is to source some of them. But I'm sure sources can be found with lists and those lists then put in. Also, feel free to comment on my 6/1/ edits thread or I'll assume after a few days you agree with my comments. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Obviously there was a third revert there you must be aware of and of course there is the ongoing pattern. Just seems right thing to do. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor copyedits

The changes here are not minor copyedits. WP:COPYEDIT has more information. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jesus Huerta de Soto WP:OR.2FSynth

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jesus Huerta de Soto WP:OR.2FSynth. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

A slightly less bold Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

In return for the Austria Award, I pronounce that you are eligible to display the

{{Journeyman_lv2_Ribbon}} . – S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Materialscientist

Please note that Materialscientist is one of the most stupendous prodigious splendiforious editors on WP. I'm not suggesting that you erred – purely a FYI. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There were large unexplained edits by one or 2 IPs which were only partially undone by materialscientist, so I went back to before the changes began. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Template messages

I regret that you have posted 3 template messages on that usertalk page. They are not well founded. I urge that both of you WP:IBAN each other. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Srich. On the contrary they were simple to the point and well-founded. I have done nothing to provoke the torrent of personal attack, harassment, misrepresentation and stalking by carolmooredc. She has hounded me off of at least two articles and is working on a third. There is very little communication from me directed her way but I see no reason to limit any further statements I may feel are required. If you're contemplating an involuntary sanction, I strongly suggest you not initiate that discussion. I will either walk away from WP entirely or I will respond with some much broader issues which I have chosen thus far not to raise. I prefer to do neither. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I see that she has acknowledged the legitimacy of those warnings and has taken my advice to strike through the PA on user:goethean at Gun Control. So looks like she agrees with me and you're standing alone on this. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I don't give a fuck as to what particular messages are legitimate, acknowledged, retracted, valid, hostile, elephantshit, bullshit, mouseshit, or flyshit. (Am I standing alone? Perhaps. Aber, "Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders." (Martin Luther.)) The broader issue is the fact that both of you have an animosity towards each other, whether justified or not. Both of you make remarks on article talk pages about the behavior of each other. Is there equality between the two of you as to who is more disruptive? I could hardly measure. But overall it (the disruptive behavior) is there because the shit is showing up on talk pages, etc.. Carol has posted noticeboard discussions which were not well founded, and you did well by refraining from commenting on them. She's made other remarks that other editors have disapproved of. And I have commented on her remarks. (Don't be picky-unie about what I'd seen and commented on.) At the same time, you are showing a thinskinned attitude about her comments. I'd hate to initiate a discussion on a noticeboard about the disruptive interaction between you two, because I have better things to do. Again, the only reasonable solution to this nonsense is to WP:IBAN between the two of you. – S. Rich (talk)

Go ahead and as I said to "carolmoore" yesterday, there's no need to flail away on talk pages. Just make the ANI if you wish. I have largely ignored that user and have generally commented only where policy is at stake or where she disrupts editing of important content. Her attack on goethean yesterday offended me, so I asked her to strike it. She did strike it. Your intervention was unwarranted. She should not be allowed to harass editors to such an extent that they depart articles or depart WP. She has a history of that behavior.

If you wish to initiate the process that will end with a full scrutiny of her history on WP, it's your right to do so. I have no interest in starting that discussion, but I will reiterate my recent statement: If you begin such a process, I may respond by walking away or I may decide to present a massive and decisive account of that user's conduct. I can't say which I will decide to do. It depends on how I feel that day, but once the conversation has begun, it may be wide-ranging. I do not make statements that cannot be substantiated, and I am careful not to speak without evidence. I've observed it sometimes takes a few rounds for you or "carolmoore" to understand it, but if you would like to start the process, that is your decision. Cheers, and maybe try to calm down. It's not like you to come out in public with angry cusswords and the like. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

AS changes by ...

I suggest you look at User talk:DemitreusFrontwest and related links. – S. Rich (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy Friday. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Kinsella

Hi mate! Not sure why it was still on my watchlist, but it was, and I noticed your edit. I have no problem with the content removal (as in, I have no opinion either way) but I thought I should query the {{cn}} tag. That line (I think I might have added part of it? Not sure, must go back and check) is just a summary of the stuff we then go on to list as stuff written by him. Do we really need a citation for "he writes books about law" when we then go on and list a whole bunch of his books about law? Just seems counter-productive and a bit contradictory. Otherwise, just change it to, "he has published the following books and articles about..." and then list them. It's just something to think about - I'm going to take the article off my watchlist anyway. Cheers, Stalwart111 05:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed it, Stalwart, but I reverted the edit. As you say, the list of legal publications is right there in the subsection. As well as two of Kinsella's 'libertarian' writings. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I did miss it, because I took it off my watchlist before leaving the note here. Others are free to argue it out but I thought I'd note it. Cheers! Stalwart111 06:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You are indeed a stalwart. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please be aware of possible Wikihounding

Per Misplaced Pages:Harass#Wikihounding which doesn’t have template and recommends WP:Dispute discussion before WP:ANI, I am bringing this here.

In the last 30 hours you have followed me to 4 articles and/or talk pages which were not on current noticeboards and where you have not edited before. There you mostly either reverted me or left a negative comment. (As it happened we agreed on Neoliberalism). Just too much of a coincidence.

See, , , .

Please be aware this appears to be wikihounding and stop following me to new discussions you may have noticed my participating in through my contributions list. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)