Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:11, 29 May 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

Talkback bitcoin

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

positive note

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring

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

ANI

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

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

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

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

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

WP:Civil

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfrobinson (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for help cleaning up "Seduction community" page

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

Apologies

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

Help on LewRockwell.comm article

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

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

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

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

OR@AS

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

Prof. Hoppe's New Photo

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

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

Cleanup on Austrian Economics

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

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

Fringe Science posting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steeletrap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tough guy

You like tough guys, huh? Well, I like you too. ! – S. Rich (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There could be a WP reality show coming up on cable... SPECIFICO talk 22:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:COOL

WRT this edit: I certainly was not citing WP policy or guidance. My remark was directed to both of them in an even handed manner to hopefully achieve WP:COOL. Steeletrap had no business bringing up hurt feelings (for lack of a better term) about old perceived PA (based or baseless) and I have commented to that effect on Steeletrap's talk page. WP:WIAPA says making allegations of PA can be PA in and of itself if there is no evidence of PA. In Steeletrap's remark about Carol's PA, he was suggesting implicitly that her previous remark was PA, and then "clarified" that the complaint was about previous PA. Either way, the remark was improper. Carol needs to couch her language better and Steeletrap needs to see the remarks for what they are.

Moreover, as I read Steeletrap's reply to me, I am astounded by the suggestion that I am (hypothetically or whatever) "homophobic/transphobic because you think my posts should be less sensitive ("overly-sensitive" is often a stereotype of GBT men, but you would (rightuflly ) regard it is unfair and insulting for me to (baselessly) tag you with those charges of bigotry." Where this came from is a mystery! Steeletrap seems to be saying "There is a stereotype that GBT men are overly sensitive; you have made a remark that I am overly sensitive; therefore you think I am GBT because you have bought into the stereotype." (Well, tough guys, whether they are GBT or not, can be sensitive too!) No matter who's feelings are hurt, these people are not helping the discussion on article improvement with their remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Well some people are more sensitive than others and some people are more accustomed to disputes and contentious debate. But this is a community of strangers collaborating with one another so site norms appropriately set a strong standard for civility, avoiding personal remarks, and so forth. Thus when any editor makes an off-topic, sarcastic, or disparaging remark, that editor must know from site policy (if not from that editor's personal real-life experience,) that there is a risk of offending/intimidating/frightening other editors to a greater or lesser extent. If remarks are confined to content and the policies concerning content, with negligible use of first- or second-person subjects or objects in the prose, there's really very little chance of crossing the line to PA or harassment. I believe that it's easy to avoid for those who choose to do so. Moreover once another editor has remarked to another on the subject, there is really no excuse for the behavior to continue. Any gender-based remark is so out of bounds for a talk page that it is really poisons the tone in an inexcusable and irremediable way. In my opinion, that is the context and origin of Steeletrap's remark to you. In other circumstances he likely would not have had that reaction to your remark. But now that we know the air has been poisoned, not by you me or Steeletrap, we will not soon go back to normal collaboration. It's a damn shame, it hurts WP, but that's where we are this eve. Cheerio. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

oh my goodness srich. You are totally misrepresenting my comment! You called me overly sensitive. I disagreed, but tried to use the opportunity to help you imagine why I might have felt hurt by the accusations of bigotry made against SPECIFICO and myself. Here was my full remark:

Her personal attack of sexism based on SPECIFICO's comment about her posts being rageful (which is not the same as saying she is personally rageful), is akin to me making a personal attack on you as homophobic/transphobic because you think my posts should be less sensitive ("overly-sensitive" is often a stereotype of GBT men, but you would (rightuflly) regard it is unfair and insulting for me to (baselessly) tag you with those charges of bigotry; please hold Carol to that same standard.) for the full context, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:LewRockwell.com#Fringe_Science.2FAIDS_Denial; note that I bold in this excerpt for emphasis but did not use bolding in the original test)

The whole point was that the charge of homophobic/transphobic bias would -- like Carol's charge of sexism toward me and Miss/Mrs. Specifico -- have been utterly unjustified and a PA! It was clearly meant as an analogy to help explain to you why Carol's remarks were insulting; no fair reading of that text can imply that it was an insinuation that you were either of those things. Please apologize immediately for your misrepresentation of my comment and consider how other comments of yours toward me could also have been based on unintentional misrepresentations. Steeletrap (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note that user CarolmooreDC continue to focus on my personal character throughout what Srich would have me think is a "good faith" attempt to resolve dispute regarding the LewRockwell.com page. In response to an attempt to compromise by me, she responded: "I know you prefer throwing in some WP:OR, but at least we are finally talking about what the sources say (i.e., "which (on LRC) advocated AIDS Denial"), though I would have to double check them. Can we continue this at the talk page?" (bold mine, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Concerns_on_WP:Undue_regarding_AIDS_Denial_and_LewRockwell.com) Basically, she is saying that my personal preference/desire is to violate WP rules.

It is simply bizarre that Srich admonishes me to "be civil" in response to constantly charged/sarcastic language and regular personal attacks, even going so far as to warn me that I may be subject to "sanctions" for his (in my view, preposterous) view that I keep violating various WP rules. Yet his criticism of Carol is either extremely mild or nonexistent. I call that a double-standard. That double-standard -- along with misrepresentations like that quoted above -- is why you, Srich, and I (and I feel entitled to invoke you here since you first discussed me above) have a poor editorial relationship. Steeletrap (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are making a comment in response to a post I make, and if you use the pronoun "you" in the remark, it is fair for me to read it and assume that "you" referred to me. You could have used the third personal pronoun and said "personal attack on someone ... because someone thinks my posts ... ." As you mis-spoke in your analogy I accept your apology. And I apologize to SPECIFICO for the senseless clutter that is now clogging up this page. – S. Rich (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)01:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just shows what I know. I thought I got along OK with each of you. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying my remark above, I was addressing Steeletrap. You are getting along quite well with me. Indeed. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what in name you (Srich) are taking about. Of course the "you" referred to you. It was describing a hypothetical situation in which I accused "you" of homophobia/transophobia based solely on your saying I was "overly-sensitive." The explicitly point was that the accusation would have been unjustified, because, while GBT men are often called overly-sensitive on the basis of their orientation (as are women called angry on the basis of their gender), there would be no evidence for my hypothetical charge (as there was no evidence for Carol's charge) of bigotry. Please apologize for your misrepresentation of a clear-cut remark. Steeletrap (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

dispute resolution

you are mentioned here Darkstar1st (talk) 11:44, 8 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. The thread is "Austrian School". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Austrian economics page

Truly first-rate changes. Thank you for taking the time to improve this encyclopedia. I expect future posts (from you or others) will further clarify the divide between the Hayekians (typically moderate libertarians who publish in mainstream journals using standard methodologies but believe those methodologies require an extremely burden of proof and think deduction from common-sense principles has a place in economics) and the Rothbardians (anarchists who categorically reject the scientific method in favor of armchair ratiocination, and who are known mostly through political causes like Ron Paul for President). Steeletrap (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope that there are also reliable source discussions of the divergence of the Mises Institute and its Fellows from the actual economics of Mises. Mises' work was continued to some extent by Kirzner and Lachmann, but there is much reference today to Mises' name and writings that is not consistent with his work, not to mention the fact that many of those who cite him fail to consider that they're referring to work written in a 100-year-old historical and institutional context. I hope you will contribute to the article and not let yourself be intimidated or discouraged from editing there. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Too late on the intimidation, I'm afraid. Still, it was nice to learn that only admins can block or "sanction" me, and that petitions for such action have to be based in fact to work. (though blowing my top certainly played a huge role, my *freak out* moment last Saturday is partly attributable to a belief I was about to be blocked or "sanctioned" despite, as far as I can tell, violating no conduct-related policy ever.) Steeletrap (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I stayed out of the two Rockwell articles and the Hoppe article to avoid the harassment and personal attacks. SPECIFICO talk 01:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am psychologically resigned to the fact that "Argumentation Ethics" will eventually be "restored" to an extensive, uncritical OR presentation of Hoppe's belief that everyone who disagrees with his politics is irrational, paired with insinuations that the argument was well-received by mainstream philosophers. (but what would that matter for? They're all irrational anyway and therefore in no position to judge anything anyone -- musch less Hoppe -- says about politics.) Steeletrap (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

On a more substantive note, I dug up this piece by Robert Murphy describing a concerted effort by "Hayekian" style Austrian Economists at George Mason University, to step away from the "Austrian" moniker and rename themselves "coordinator problem" economists, ostensibly to distinguish them from the Austrians associated with LvMI and the Ron Paul for President political movement. http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2010/01/boettke-et-al-engage-in-product-differentiation.html I think that this adds some clarity to the divide, in terms of the fact that the academic Austrians at GMU were willing to explicitly change the name of their "school" to distinguish themselves from the LvMI types. Steeletrap (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know to what extent the split has been discussed in RS sources. There's the Lewrockwell.com article about the Rockwell, Mises.org, and Cato split. In general academic Austrian economists stay away from the Mises Inst. Yes, many whose work is squarely in the Austrian tradition, including myself, decline to identify ourselves as such. Ones work stands on its merits, and there is always the possibility for undue associations, positive or negative. Many academic Austrians interact with Cato, GMU, and other established centers of conservative/libertarian thought. Few interact with vMI. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

DigitalJournal as RS?

More specifically, Digital Journal is a wiki. Cheerps. – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Violations of rules

You are are deleting a common assertion, referenced with an interview where Hoppe spoke about his own studies (place, teacher, year), it isn't referencing about any controversial issue or about a claiming against Habermas -that is the spirit of be alert with primary sources in WP:BLP (check Misplaced Pages:Libel). Primary source is allow when it isn't use for support interpretations of facts, if it is subsidiary, and if it is used carefully. You are extending the meanings of rules, probably by confusion, so please check Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system. Primary sources aren't forbidden, just have a limited place. --Sageo (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you. I'm explaning what I consider is a mistake in editions, not a personal attack. It isn't necessary to victimize in the debate. --Sageo (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For all the reasons I cited, including BRD and BLP, I will now ask you for the last time to undo your recent edits. I will pursue remedies against you if you continue to refuse. You may find and cite valid sources, but you may not continue to insert the claim that Hoppe studied with Habermas when we have no evidence that is true. Primary sources may be used as to the subject's own views but not as to the actions of other people or facts concerning others, such as Habermas. This is your final warning. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol alredy give a source in discussion. --Sageo (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Any source belongs in the article not the talk page. Put your citation in for Habermas or remove Habermas' name from the article. SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Misplaced Pages needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nothing in the preceding edit contained a personal attack. This remark , which makes is not in keeping with WP:WIAPA. If you must post such admonitions, please do so on the user's talk page. Statements like this do not further the discussion of improving the article. I will be removing the statement shortly. – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)17:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

17:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC) There was no such implication. Any such inference resides solely in your consciousness. Please undo whatever police action you referenced here. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack. You have no right to remove it. You are one editor among equals here, neither a magistrate nor an admin. Please restore whatever you removed without authority. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

When you are admonishing another editor about making personal statements on an article talk page, you are going off-topic. Moreover, the statements she made were not PA. The statement you posted was removed IAW (in accordance with) WP:TPNO (which addresses the specific remark that you made about Carolmooredc's comment) and WP:TPO (which addresses the propriety of removing off-topic posts). These article talk pages have enough bickering going on without interpreting comments as PA. – S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't repeat yourself to me. I suggest you consider whether you're in denial of the reasonable reactions editors have to your micro-interference in various interactions on many articles and talk pages. Please undo whatever police action you reference above. A quick check of various article talk pages shows me similar concise admonishments either from you or on threads in which you were present, but did not feel compelled to intervene in the manner you have just done in the present instance. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If you like, I'll remove this entire thread. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just undo whatever refactoring you did on the article talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please post your remark about personal statements on Carolmooredc's talk page. I won't mind. But then you or I can remove this entire thread and everyone will feel Happy Happy Joy Joy. – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't touch this thread; you have no right to modify my talk page. Now, please read the policy you violated on the article talk page and restore my comments]. SPECIFICO talk 19:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I ceased to worry about these things when I realized Rich did not have the power to ban me. Having a couple weekly "warnings" from Rich is just something one has to grow acclimated to. Steeletrap (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Like shoe shines and nail trims? SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the latter. Steeletrap (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaming the system

In talk page there are the explanations of why your deltions are wrong. Please check Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system. You aren't doing well for a consensus, it seems your ideological hostility to some schoolar stream is playing a role in the discussion. You could been making a fault. --Sageo (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you have said that you have difficulty with English, I am going to explain this to you one final time: You and I disagree, right? Yes. Now according to the guidance at WP:BRD it is not OK for you to put something back after we have discovered that we disagree about it. You say "there are explanations ..." but that is your opinion only, and I disagree. So it is not OK for you to just repeat your own opinion and then put the words back in the article. Otherwise every editor would just write his or her opinion and then "edit war" against other editors who have a different opinion.

Now that we know we disagree, you should not keep putting your words back in the article. Repeating the reason why you think your opinion is the correct opinion does not make it OK. There needs to be consensus. So, please remove those words from your last edit and respond to my statements on the talk page of the article. Specifically, I am saying that you will need to find secondary WP:RS sources that support your text that Hoppe is a philosopher, an economist, or whatever. If you exceed 3RR you may be blocked from editing WP. I hope this was clear to you. Please do not accuse me of ideological hostility or any other views. You have no knowledge of my opinions or beliefs. Your inference that I am hostile to a Hoppe is incorrect. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Modification needed on EW ANI

The material you have posted on the EW ANI:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

really doesn't give us "DIFF"s. The links just go to the particular sections, and they don't say which edits were made. Please look at WP:DIFF for more information on how to post them. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I do see where you provided DIFFs elsewhere in the ANI, so I apologize for thinking that you did not know how to do it. Just that DIFFs should be posted throughout the ANI when it asks for diffs. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for interrupting you (and this goes for Srich32977 and SPECIFICO), but I think you should both perhaps stop this, let's just call it teasing, and do whatever helps you relax. And no, it does not matter who is correct. Lectonar (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite correct. I figured you would not hesitate to let me know if I needed to correct my ANI notice. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Misplaced Pages has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you!

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)