Revision as of 01:59, 25 August 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 5) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:37, 26 August 2014 edit undoNeotarf (talk | contribs)4,029 edits →The edit: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
If you feel I am in violation of personal attack policy, take it to an admin board. Your judgement and hypocrisy with regards to standards of personal commentary is suspect. -- ] ] 20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | If you feel I am in violation of personal attack policy, take it to an admin board. Your judgement and hypocrisy with regards to standards of personal commentary is suspect. -- ] ] 20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
:You have previously been told not to post on my talk page and blocked for your personal attacks here. Don't post here again. ]] 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | :You have previously been told not to post on my talk page and blocked for your personal attacks here. Don't post here again. ]] 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
== The edit == | |||
...is . —] (]) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:37, 26 August 2014
This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
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.
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.
GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article
Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, SPECIFICO. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hedge fund
I have partly reverted your deletion from Hedge fund#Etymology, as well as supplying better sources as you suggested. Please in future discuss proposed changes in the talk page before aggressively deleting text. There is a talk-page section on this already ("missing etymology/word origin of "hedge fund""). Wildfowl (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Jeepers, Wildfowl. I read your note on talk mentioning your text and inviting edits. The Investopedia-sourced text is incorrect and for that reason, I don't believe you will find RS which states what you cited to Investopedia. At any rate the text doesn't belong in the article. You made a bold edit, I reverted it, and stated a clear and policy based reason for my reversion. I suggest the next step, if you disagree, is to discuss this on talk. Please undo your last edit, which reinserted your preferred text, and lets abide by WP:BRD. I'll be glad to discuss this with you on talk. Let me be clear however. I removed the text because it is false and lacks RS verification. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am genuinely puzzled. I will glady delete it if you can explain what you think is false about it. Please note that I did not revert the sensitive/bold bit. As far as I can see, the citations I have given are reliable and support the validity of the statements. Please think more and be less aggressive. Wildfowl (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your comment is not civil. Your initial comment was somewhat accusatory and gave the impression you didn't consider my edit summary or reexamine your initial edit in light of it. I ignored the tone of your message and replied on the substance of your edit. It's not right to return here after I tried to accept your comments with courtesy, and suggest that I'm insufficiently thoughtful or overly aggressive. Unless you're prepared to interact in a polite and substantive manner, there is no point in continuing this thread. If you care to reconsider your remarks, you may so indicate and we can discuss this further. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I am genuinely puzzled. I will glady delete it if you can explain what you think is false about it. Please note that I did not revert the sensitive/bold bit. As far as I can see, the citations I have given are reliable and support the validity of the statements. Please think more and be less aggressive. Wildfowl (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism
I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
The Modest Barnstar | ||
Kudos for your intelligent monitoring of Hannibal Directive & Hadar Goldin.ShulMaven (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
Molyneux and Self Published Sources and References Vanity Page
I am quite concerned that the bulk of the comprises a marketing-vanity page for and by Molyneuex with many of the references from self published sources designed for personal aggrandizement. There is something quite seriously wrong with this entry and it needs to be revised in detail and reduced to the objective and factual. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.195.162 (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stefan Molyneux. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Srich shouldn't be templating you, and I've dropped a note on his talk page about it. However, he's right in that you probably shouldn't be reverting as you did on Stefan Molyneux. It's a trivial point, better to just 'let it go'. LK (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Block Notice
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Stefan Molyneux. 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 the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, 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. Mike V • Talk 04:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
VictorD7 editing your comment
Hello. I noticed that VictorD7 edited out your interpretation of WP policy which he considered to be a personal attack or insult. I do not think it was. Do you have grounds to complain to WP admins regarding VictorD7's editing of your comment? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I agree with you that my statement concerning tendentious editing was not a personal attack and that he had no business redacting it. Unlike in Civil Court, one does not need standing to file a complaint. If his behavior troubles you, decide whether it's worth your time and effort to gather diffs and file a well-reasoned complaint. One talk page violation more or less may be the tip of the iceberg, but consider whether it's a good use of your time to become further involved with him. That's my opinion. Thanks for the visit. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Do not edit my comments in any way.
If you feel I am in violation of personal attack policy, take it to an admin board. Your judgement and hypocrisy with regards to standards of personal commentary is suspect. -- Netoholic @ 20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- You have previously been told not to post on my talk page and blocked for your personal attacks here. Don't post here again. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The edit
...is this one. —Neotarf (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)