Misplaced Pages

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ludwig von Mises may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Institute, 1988, p. 25.</ref> In his ] '']'', Mises adopted ] as a general conceptual foundation of the social sciences and set forth his methodological

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Competence

Hello SPECIFICO. I want to tell you that I appreciate your insistence on raising questions of WP;Competence when appropriate. I think "are you competent"? is a very important question; one which every editor must ask her/himself. I am so happy that you feel the same way. Steeletrap (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It is no coincidence that I posted this note of encouragement below an archetypal example of incompetence, or a preposterous misunderstanding of WP:3RR. I urge you to continue to call out incompetence when you see it. Steeletrap (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Ludwig von Mises Institute, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. The reason you gave for removal here is not valid. My edit summary referenced the talk page, which in turn references the RSNs. Either way, the citations are under dispute. Readers who are not following notice boards may wish to comment, and the SPS tags properly serve to alert them. Also, the tags put the article into Category:Accuracy disputes. Resolution of the dispute (on the talk page or RSN) is the only valid reasons for removing these templates. Please restore. – S. Rich (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich you have been told not to post on my talk page. Do not post anything other than required notices on my talk page. Your template appears to refer to something from several days which has already been addressed on the article talk page and elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to think that Rich's post was made for didactic purposes, as an example of incompetence, given the section he posted it in. Steeletrap (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, but isn't it a violation of WP:POINT? I'm not a wikilawyer, like him, but that's my take on it, anyhow. MilesMoney (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your notes. There was a time when I was more than happy, even eager, to get involved in such brawls, but it just ain't worth the hassle and now I just leave it to the admins to keep the kids in order. My rationale is that in the time it takes to write yet another reply on the talk page I can make at least half a dozen necessary tweaks elsewhere to improve this encyclopaedia. As I said on my last post at the talk page, I've seen consensus reached on far spinier issues, albeit usually following the removal, i.e., blocking, of the inevitable troublemaker that always turns up in such cases to sow discord among well-meaning editors. WP already has dispute resolution processes in place and not much will get solved by yet another editor, i.e., yours truly, getting involved. Hope you can all sort it out, and I wish I could use yer great Americanism regarding rain checks in this case, but I'm outta there. --Technopat (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent comments last week on ANI for User:Bink

Hi User:SPECIFICO; Your recent ANI on Binks has some other pages where he is edit warring, and where he continues warring. You may want to visit the Raging Bull page and The Departed page and see his Edit History for each of those pages. Also the Talk pages for each of them is currently active and you could look at them also.67.250.71.150 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at User talk:Srich32977. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. None of your text was changed. Adding the space before the paragraph produces a disrupted layout. This was explained in my earlier edit summary. Your text simply repeats what you said before, and I do not intend to comment further on it. – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ludwig von Mises Institute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know/think that Specifico has engaged in EW. The edits involve different parts of the article. BRD has been initiated on them. I'd like to see his replies. – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact, not a single one of these recent warnings from you or Bink is legitimate. Also, you're mistaken about BRD. MilesMoney (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, in view of this and many previous rounds of erroneous accusations against you, I recommend posting a warning on your page that accusations lacking WP:Competent reasoning will be deleted from your page. Steeletrap (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO knows the Misplaced Pages rules, & We can be sure there have been no fault from his site. I think one of the biggest Misplaced Pages problems is they do not have any strong policy against giving wrong warnings to Users talk pages. KhabarNegar 10:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Or making false accusations on the drama pages, for that matter. There's really no incentive to be honest. MilesMoney (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Careful with those edit conflicts! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Specifico, I've been wanting to exchange a few words with you for a while now. (I just got back from a 3 day trip for a funeral, so have been rather inactive lately.) You seem to be a pretty good editor, and your comments usually seem pretty well thought out, rational, and civil. But there's something that's been bugging me for a while, and it's been difficult to put my finger on it. I first noticed it at the SPI when you came down condemning it so quickly, and then lobbied so hard for it to be withdrawn, and I've continued to notice it as I've watched the various talkpage and noticeboard threads unfold. I think what's been bugging me is the partisan way in which you defend your friends and attack your "enemies". Every time someone makes a complaint about MilesMoney or Steeletrap, you're there defending them, excusing them, and pleading on their behalf. Yet every time someone makes a complaint about SRich or Binksternet, you're there piling on and condemning. While I totally support defending each other, I think it actually hurts your credibility when you are so partisan about it. As an outside observer looking in I've seen just as much or more disruption coming from your side of the proverbial aisle, and it makes me wonder if you are intentionally ignoring it, or if you are so involved personally that you are unintentionally blind to it. Please note, I'm not asking you to stop defending your friends, but I am asking you to consider the merits of not attacking your enemies. SRich and Binksternet are rational people and can be engaged in rational conversation if you and your friends would engage them. (If you can't see that—if you see them as irrational POV pushers or something—it might be a good idea to do a little introspection.) The way I see it, you are in a position where you could start making compromises, enforcing rational discussions, and even convincing people, if you chose to do that. It might not be quite as exciting as being an officer in this teacup-war, but it would gain you a lot more respect from your peers, would result in more stable and better-written articles, and would save the community a lot of time and headache. In the end, it's your choice, and nobody, least of all me, can force you to do it.

On a slightly related note, I was reading over the ANI thread under the Proposal, general sanctions heading, and it seems like you're trying too hard there. You have four "level one" bolded "vote"-like comments ("Oppose", "Comment", "Observation", and "REQUEST FOR INFORMATION") and you've bolded a bunch of "level two" indented replies ("@Sitush", "As a libertarian", "@Zad68", "THANKS CAROL") and you are the most frequent user of {{od}}, using it in several places where it wasn't needed (example). In a voting-like thread at ANI, I see this as being somewhere between a mild attempt to give extra weight to your own viewpoint, and WP:SHOUTING, neither of which is viewed favorably. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish you would pay some mind to Adjwilley's wise words, SPECIFICO. He shares them most likely because he doesn't want to see you blocked which is the direction this dispute seems to be heading toward.

In my limited time as an active Editor here, I've spent a fair amount of time reading over cases at AN and AN/I and when cases involving the same few people keep being brought there again and again, there comes a time when the regulars there get tired of hearing complaints and settling disputes which never seem to get resolved. The more often you show up on noticeboards, the more likely it is that the situation will boomerang back on you. It ceases being a matter of who is "right" and who is "wrong" and instead becomes an issue of who is being "disruptive" and, on the other hand, who is a productive Editor who can work well with others.

Do not bait others with provocative comments which are intended to inflict injury and belittle other Editors instead of resolving conflicts. This fighting has been going on since the summer and appears like it will continue indefinitely until some or all parties get blocked from editing. You are still at a point where you can get past this if you (and others) can get over this back-biting and filing of complaints against each other. That's a lose-lose situation and I'd rather have you around Misplaced Pages, contributing your perspective, for a long time. </soapbox> Liz 20:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed that I haven't gotten any response here or seen any noticeable change in your behavior. I was just reading Liz's post above, and I agree with everything she says. This isn't a very good example, it's just your latest post which I stumbled upon a few minutes ago and had to read a few times to figure out what you were talking about. From an outsider's perspective, it looks like you are trying desperately to get in the last word - as if you're saying "We can get back on topic if you are admitting that you're wrong about this completely unrelated point". Please...try not to make things personal. It's possible to talk about the substance without the jabs. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I think that opening yet another section just muddies the waters even more. Can we not trust a closing admin to work out what has been said? - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree. I don't mean any ill will toward you SPECIFICO and I'm sure your intentions are pure, but creating new sections/proposals and posting as frequently as you have in the ANI thread is working against your purpose. Adjwilley gave you some good advice, above. With all due respect, please consider adjusting your approach. - MrX 00:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Template

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Ludwig von Mises Institute, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. The BRD on this issue was opened today and has had a few comments. The law student issue has not been discussed. It is disruptive for you to follow MilesMoney and remove tags here based on your unilateral decision that there is consensus after 17 hours of discussion. (Personal attack removed) – S. Rich (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse. I have removed your personal attack here and I ask you not to disrupt the editing of the Hoppe article. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@Srich You have been told not to post on this talk page. I have removed your violation without reading it. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Property and Freedom Society

SPECIFICO, I will do all I can to locate, and quote where possible, reliable sources so the Property and Freedom Society page can be accurately presented. Thanks for all your time and effort, I have today looked at most of your wokr and it is by in large exemplary. Keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.29.220 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. In the future, please add your comments on article or user talk pages at the bottom of the page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

RSN Noticeboard

I made this posting (1) in relation to the Volokh Conspiracy source, and thought you might be interested in commenting. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably wrong again

You see, this sort of thing is something to which you seem prone. You spread a discussion across a wide range of talk pages, probably with good intentions but effectively dispersing the commentary and running the risk of being accused of badgering. I have no horse in this race but I'm not the only one who has previously mentioned this tendency. I really do think that you need to reconsider your approach. Once in a while would attract no great attention but this appears to be a habit and as such it becomes a potential problem. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Happy Halloween! These are freshly picked from my strawberry patch. Steeletrap (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Nice to feel the woman's kinder, gentler touch amid all these editor-gladiators. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Any time, dear. Steeletrap (talk) 18:27, 2 November 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. WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Steeletrap and User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Srich32977 (Result: ) Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mises quiz stuff

I think that the pair of you need to stop now and discuss. Let's not have another bout of specious fiddling around. Agree some wording on the talk page and then apply it. - Sitush (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop? There's no problem. Srich cited a policy with the concern that I used the word "claim" so I substituted a wording which is suggested in the policy while still making it clear that it was vMI's statement as to the substance of the quiz. You are projecting and this post really serves no purpose. There's just no behavior which needs your attention here. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)