Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:02, 7 February 2014

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #2

This is Srich32977's talk page, where you can send him 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, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 2 months

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Notes to self

--S. Rich

Pass rate analysis -- saved here as a MFR

Categories in User Talk page and Reorganization of article

Thanks for pointing out issue with categories on my talk page, and for suggesting a fix. I have a question - are there any guidelines for reorganizing an existing article? I am working on the Institute for Justice page. The main issue is lack of good references. But I have also noticed that the article seems disorganized to me. Historical information is in several topics, information on activities is in several different topics, etc. As I find good references for information (and possibly add information), I would also like to move historical information into the History category, start a new Activities category with sub-sections for each activity type, etc. Should I just do it? Or should I put my plan on the Talk page for the article first? Or should I try to contact others who have edited the page? There doesn't seem to be a well established way to reorg existing information. Any advice appreciated, and thanks again. James Cage (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Be Bold, James, and Just Do It. I suggest you look at other articles for ideas and leads. One thing I'd remove is the listing of people. WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so the non-notable staff and attorneys should go. You can keep the key people in the infobox and retitle the people section as "Notable IJ personnel", using the two people who have WP articles. The connections with other institutions can be referenced via institution webpages - like the UofC LS page must have something about the program. The listing of cases IJ has worked on is problematic. Lots of organizations file "amicus briefs" with the Supreme Court. In the cases you mention, did IJ represent the parties? If so, you might provide linked case citations. But that might get you into no original research territory. Have fun. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! I followed your suggestions, and the result is basically a rewrite. IJ litigated 5 cases at the Supreme Court, as well as the Vera Coking/Donald Trump case. If you have a moment, take a look. This is my 3rd article, so I'm still learning. Thanks & happy holidays! James Cage (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

Hey SRich, I hope all is well with you. As you have been one of the regular editors participating in articles related to Austrian Economics, and I was hoping I could convince you to participate in a small experiment on dispute resolution. It's formatted as a simple question and answer, with a hint of RfC/U, aimed at getting participants to talk with one another, recognize potential problems, and with any luck, commit to fixing those problems. The page is at User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics and you are free to edit at your leisure. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. What is your time-line for the experiment? At present I'm engaged in some other on & off wiki projects. I'd like to defer on replying for a few days. – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no rush. Take all the time you need. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Libertarianism

Please don't add this source as a reference unless actually used to source a fact in the article, and also since it is a specialized encyclopedia it is not generally useful for articles that are not directly related to its focus, namely libertarianism. I have removed the source from a number of articles where it was not a relevant source, and where it was not used to support specific facts. Adding sources is of course helpful - but it can look like spamming or promotion of a specific book when added in this way across articles where it has only a tangential relation to the topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, WP:FURTHER is the MOS we follow. I will post justifications on the talk pages. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned this issue at Misplaced Pages:External_links/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_Libertarianism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:Further states that it is for references that " that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." In all of the cases where I have removed it the wikipedia article contains considerable more information than the corresponding entry in the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. It is simply not a relevant further reading.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply on the noticeboard. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Which talk page for Dark Money?

When you said see talk on dark money, which talk page was this? Hcobb (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Presently editing. – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Adjwilley/Austrian economics

Jeez! – . At least one editor thinks I posted a "perfectly legitimate query".
My response is less moderated – . – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Another comment related to Adjwilley's user talk page

Rather than torpedo the discussion set up by Adjwilley, I will post my reaction to Specifico's latest comment here:

The question is: "In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute? " Comment by User:SPECIFICO. "Carol should be topic-banned for at least six months..... 'blah - blah - blah'"

My reaction: What an outrageous posting! Just appalling!! Completely against the spirit in which Adjwilley set up this discussion. Proposing a topic ban has absolutely no fucking relevance or helpfulness as to how Carolmooredc herself might better resolve the dispute! This is just another example of how Specifico abuses the discussion process – he criticizes others when article talk page comments veer off-course, and posts the same fucking garbage himself on the article talk pages. (For more BS, see earlier comments by me WRT Specifico.) And then he has the gall to post this stuff.... – S. Rich (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, it will be refactored or moved to the talk page. (See my recent comments...) ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting that Specifico has modified (but not retracted) his remarks, I will hat this subsection. – S. Rich (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting further that Specifico continues to modify his remarks, I am un-hatting this subsection. His "should be topic-banned" statement now says she should "stay away ... for six months...." I also note that Specifico was "incredibly offended" by an "obscene photograph" she posted last summer. So what? Don't look at her userpage (or at this talk page for that matter) and you won't be offended. After all, the decision to look, read, and be offended is yours. At the same time, Specifico, why don't you supply the diffs – you're a fine one for making accusations, unsupported by evidence. Need an example? Look here: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 19#Murphy . – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion that might be of interest to you

See WP:ANI#User:Wran – continued disruption - your attempts to explain policy didn't make any difference. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hey S. Rich, you're a big shot in real life and on-wiki! Isn't it time to run for admin, so that Dougweller and I can leave some of the dirty work to you? Drmies (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea to me! Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, you guys are pulling my leg. I'm simply successful enough to enjoy my freedom and free time. (I'm not such a big shot.) Besides, I have some enemies who'd fight tooth & nail against a nomination. "Dirty work"? I feel like I'm being invited to join WWE RAW. Thank you both. Many thanks! – S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You and Sitush should run together. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Too much! Look at my talk page archives and see the stuff that editors have said about me. There is more at User talk:Adjwilley/Austrian economics & User:Adjwilley/Austrian economics. I think I'll make a Shermanesque statement and take that stupid userbox off my userpage. (Again, thanks. I am greatly encouraged by all of this.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You're a judge, ain't you? Can't you just lock your opponents, and all of Sitush's caste-warring friends, in the jailhouse while your RfAs are going on? Or, Writ Keeper, rename their accounts for the duration of the RfAs. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

NOT a judge. A "Judge Advocate" is a term of art for a military attorney. (Although, in civilian life, I have sat a volunteer judge pro tem. Which is no big deal. Lots of people do so.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to be a judge. Pity you have to go to school for it. Confusing terminology: next thing you're going to tell me that a justice of the peace does not enforce peace, or that the water board doesn't waterboard anyone. Have a great day, Austrian-style or otherwise, Drmies (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL (on waterboarding!) But you are judging. The facts are the edits we see, the law is WP guidelines & policy. A lawyer looks at the facts and seeks to spot and analyze the issues so that the correct law can be applied – or argued to the judge, who then decides. An admin is, as I see the role, another sort of judge. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

... and a case that may be of interest to you

"Thanks for the laugh", you said, and "A lawyer looks at the facts and seeks to spot and analyze the issues", you also showed some interest in infoboxes ;) - Look at this (shortened a bit, and by now I can laugh):

User A adds an infobox to his own article.

User B reverts it.

User A improves it and returns it.

User B reverts it.

User C restores it.

User B collapses it at the end of the article.

User D restores it uncollapsed in the normal position.

A lawyer arbitrator says one user needs to be banned. Guess who? (help, only if you need it) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No guesses. 1. There is no indication of BRD. 2. "His own article" – you mean A is a connected contributor? (More likely, you mean an article A created.) 3. No indication of 3RR/1RR posting. 4. No indication of other dispute resolution. 5, Don't know anything about the experience levels of A–E. 6. Maybe the article is under sanctions. 7. There are always anomalies. I prefer to work with "Just the facts, ma'am", so I won't guess. Thanks for an interesting puzzle. – S. Rich (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking, sure, no guesses ;) - 1) I also thought there was no BRD. - 2) "his own article" is (admittedly too) short for "an article he created", taking "created" in the literal sense of making the first edit in mainspace. - 3) There was no 3RR. - 4) There was other dispute resolution. - 5) All four editors are here for quite a long time, A 2009, B 2006 (and admin), C 2008, D 2003 (and yes, the one to be banned, puzzling indeed), no E. - 6) no sanctions - 7) no anomalies. - The facts are linked under help: we are talking about the Planyavsky case - you may remember, the first link in the all-too-long discussion pictured on the Johnbod page. Independent view without passion welcome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• and an article that may be of interest to you, but perhaps you saw it already on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)|

Some suggestions

Banning you from my page several months ago was a misstep (which, for the record, I officially *revoke*), because you are a good-faith peer from whom there is much to learn. But even if the ban was wrongheaded, it is nonetheless disturbing that you basically ignored it (and bans imposed by others, including carol and specifico) to comment whenever you please. Your criticisms, while sometimes useful, are over-the-top both in tone and quantity. And you tend to believe that your interpretation of policy *needs* to be heard, as forcefully as possible, at every given moment. This need to be heard comes at the cost of civility or even policy itself (e.g. the rule to respect other users' wishes regarding whether to stay off their talk pages).

You are clearly an intelligent person who is passionate about the principles of the community. Moreover, you are relatively adept at weeding out your biases in your contributions to articles, and I have often accepted your criticisms of in that regard. However, your 'alpha male' persona tends to facilitate a heavy-handedness that disrespects the boundaries of other users. That is why, for the record, I would hesitate to support you for admin (despite the fact that you have many qualities ideal for that post). I fear investing you with all that power would magnify your 'dark side' and disregard for the perspectives of other users. (Please note that by "disregard" I don't mean disrespectfulness or personal attacks. What I mean is heavy-handedness, overconfidence, and rigidness.) Steeletrap (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I endorse this statement, Ms. Steele, and I admire your nurturing instinct. I hope you will not take that as a misogynist remark but as a token of my recognition for your God-given character.

@Srich, I believe that with some restraint and the discipline which you clearly must have deployed on the front lines in Iraq, you can step back from the battleground behavior which is out of place here on WP. This Project needs more editors who have your time and dedication to improvement. Your clean-up efforts on references and formatting are invaluable. But, I would certainly take a step back and dial down the energy level on advising/mentoring others and on any actions in which others might feel that you are appropriating undue authority to yourself. The Admin thing will come in due time if you work on your skills and interactions rather than focusing on any sort of campaigning or base-building for your candidacy. I hope you will consider a mid-course correction and that you will continue to devote your efforts so tirelessly, but a bit more selflessly, to WP. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The comments and suggestions are appreciated. A few replies: I appreciate the revocation – it seems that the talkpage comments I posted had come to be accepted without objection. I recognize I can be brusk – sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes not. If there are diffs that explain where I've been wrong – in any manner – on policy, I'd be happy to see them. Moving on, you might note above that 3 experienced editors/admins recently invited be to apply for adminship. (They want me to lend a hand in the dirty work, so perhaps they see that bruskness is an asset on occasions.) And I've received off-wiki endorsements from a few other experienced admins. I've been reluctant because the application process can be less than enjoyable. (See: User:Giggy/Passing RfA for fun and profit! and other commentary for background.) Well, with the different on & off wiki endorsements, I think I can achieve the status. But I do not want (past) enemies opposing me because of old friction. I won't ask for endorsements from you or other editors in the AE struggle, but I do ask that you defer on opposition. In any event, I can promise that WP:INVOLVED will be followed in all cases – if I receive the position. In the long term, I expect to edit until I hit 100,000 edits and then retire. So please let me do me include some admin work in my next 39,000 edits. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, with all respect and best wishes, I think you may have misunderstood my writing above. I see you as a viable Admin if you are able to purge your demons and develop a more community-centered stance, with more engagement and listening to other editors here. That would be a challenge, but I think you may well be able to pull it off. Given your current style and record to date, I think it would be very problematic for you to take on and be empowered with the Admin's role. In fact it could be downright harmful to WP. I'm sure it would all come out in the RfA process, but frankly it would be better not to pursue premature escalation and to develop a more impersonal and impartial style and record for an extended demonstration that you've got what it takes. A good start might be to join Steeletrap and myself in setting forth the pledge and new discussions that have been mooted at Adjwilley's AE talk page. Sorry if I wasn't clear the first time. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Rich, I wish your response would focus on my substantive suggestions to improve our WP interactions. I understand that the admin thing caught your interest, but it is peripheral at best to the original post. Steeletrap (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that Steeletrap is much more able than I to express herself succinctly. Srich, I interact with you because I am trying to improve various articles on WP. My point was simply that the same behavior which makes you unsuitable to be an Admin is the behavior which disrupts the editing of those articles. However I believe that if you focus on changing that behavior and help improve the articles, you may also develop into a fine Admin candidate, possibly before 2014 runs its course. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

An interesting dilemma may be developing. The group (or individuals) takes "the negative pledge". I RfA. Does the negative pledge "no statements about contributors" thereby preclude pledgers from making negative comments about me in the RfA process? – S. Rich (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, think of the Admin slot as a kind of Knighthood. Did Sir Elton John lobby the Court? Or maybe Sainthood. Just pursue righteousness and the recognition may follow. You again appear to be considering which strategies might effectively help you navigate WP for your personal goals, but that is exactly the behavior that has made your editing ineffective (aside from routine repair work) and that will also undermine your Admin ambitions. The RfA is one place where WP most definitely does delve into the history of nominees' personal attitudes, actions and abilities, and rightly so. SPECIFICO talk 03:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It is true that RfAs result in a review of editing history, etc. But the decision to add commentary in an RfA lies with the individuals. I would think "the pledge" would have the effect of prohibiting one editor from denigrating another, including that forum. You know, perhaps I should have gone for the job back in July. You might have even nominated me back then. (You can do so now if you like. Simply say I am a wise one and that more Deputy Sheriffs in the admin world are needed.) I certainly understand that friction between us since July may have changed your mind. But I do not think my interactions outside of our AE circle has changed significantly. What is interesting, personally, is that the 3 administrators in the section above want me to apply, if only so that I can take over some of the dirty work. (With that in mind, my sometimes brusk demeanor and commentary may be the virtue that they think is valuable.) And, there are other admins who have done some off-wiki recruiting of me. If you and the other AE "members" will take the pledge, you will free me to go on to other taskings and areas of interest. – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The reason for us to agree not to make comments about each other is so that we can stick to comments about content disputes and therefore make some progress. This has nothing to do with remaining silent if you try to run for admin. That's just not going to happen. MilesMoney (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, I do not think you would refrain from making negative comments about me in an AfD. But I would be pleasantly surprised if you did refrain. So whenever the AfD occurs, you would be free to participate as you wish. IMO, if you do take the negative pledge, you'd have to be concerned about what other pledgees thought about making negative comments outside of the AE discussion forums; e.g., whether on talk pages, user talk pages, notice boards, or AfD discussions. Moreover, once I enter the AfD process, I think my participation in the AE forums/contentions will diminish. – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I would not be doing you any kindness to soften what I'm about to say: Your're not wise, Wiki-wise. In fact, you are frequently wrong about policy and its application, and when others point out your errors you become hostile and defensive. You don't listen very well and you appear to be preoccupied with strategies for your personal advancement rather than article improvement. The AE page discussions' sole purpose is to improve the content and conformity of the articles according to site policy. The RfA page discussions is to discuss everything which might be relevant to your performance in a role which requires various skills you have not yet demonstrated here. It would be not only our option, but our obligation, to discuss all of your personal qualities, qualifications, and behavior there. My advice to you is to consult with the on-wiki or secret admirers you cite, have them review your talk and article contributions, and get some frank feedback as to how you can improve your profile before any prospective RfA. SPECIFICO talk 04:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, while there's much we disagree about, this isn't any of it. I have to admit that you're spot on here. For myself, I wouldn't waste time commenting about Rich, I'd just post some of the links I've collected. They would speak for themselves, saying pretty much what you just did.

Rich, to be quite frank, my take on these admins recruiting you is that they're using you. A classic trick in corporate politics is to promote an incompetent so that they remain loyal to you. See, on the one hand, their incompetence means that they depend upon you to defend them from complaints about their incompetence. On the other, it prevents them from doing their jobs so well as to make you look bad, much less striking off on their own. Even better, you get to look like an even-tempered peacekeeper as you defend your crony. For extra credit, you promote the incompetent at the expense of a potential rival, who is then forced to report to the incompetent. Priceless.

It's cruel, but this sort of thing happens all the time in the real world, and I'm afraid it's happening to you right now. I'm genuinely sorry. MilesMoney (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, please provide diffs where you think I've been wrong on policy or when others have correctly pointed out my errors. That way I might learn. But you intend to hold off on posting the diffs until I submit my AfD, you'd be doing the community a disservice. That is, it is better to "disqualify" me now before the community spends time & energy analyzing my history. Specifico, if the negative pledge does not extend across the board, beyond the AE discussion forum set up by Adjwilley, then it cannot mean much. MilesMoney, please feel free to assist Specifico in the assemblage of the diffs. IOW, post the links you've collected either here or on the ANI. (That is, if you have collected them.) And, MM, you might follow your own advice and not waste time commenting about me. Finally, MM, I will pitch my tent with the admins who have publicly and privately endorsed me. They have passed through the AfD gauntlet; I do not perceive any effort to trick me; and I'm a big boy and can handle myself. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, to whet your whistle, just go back and read all my messages here which you've summarily called cowpies, then hatted or dismissed. I'm not going to provide you the index of those and others except in a context which offers a constructive end for you or for the Project. What are some of the greatest hits? Well, of course I could post some piecemeal, but let's not get the cart before the donkey. No need to fuel your resentment.

From your writing above, however, here's one to chew on. You write: "Specifico, if the negative pledge does not extend across the board, beyond the AE discussion forum set up by Adjwilley, then it cannot mean much." Much of this thread is devoted by me and others to explaining that your statement misses the point. I think it's explained clearly enough for a litigator/warrior to understand, so it feels to me like willful obstinacy. Finally, consider whether it's a Freudian Slip (no I won't be cute and wikilink it) that you repeatedly call the RfA your "AfD". It doesn't have to feel like a Swan Song (again, no wikilink) and it doesn't have to be a battle. But "to everything there is a season" -- (but again: no wikilink) and a reason. Food for thought. Adios amigo. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, here is another suggestion I can offer without getting into the larger litany of issues: You wrote to User:MilesMoney "MilesMoney, please feel free to assist Specifico in the assemblage of the diffs..." @Srich: In context, many readers would take that as a command, sarcastically delivered. In fact, its tone is identical to some of the posts for which I have criticized MilesMoney and which, to his credit, he's greatly moderated and reduced over the past few months. So, please consider reviewing Miles' development as an editor on WP. While none of us is perfect or even as good as we'd like, Miles does offer you proof of concept which shows that you, too can improve your behavior in this respect. Finally, this thread was not directed toward your contemplated Admin candidacy and how to wiggle and jiggle the ropes. This thread was begun in the hope you could become a more productive contributor to WP and expand your scope of work beyond the helpful housekeeping and patrolling activities on which you've racked up thousands of edits. Edit count is important to the Project, but it takes much broader interpersonal skills to collaborate on complex and controversial content. If you can Kick it up a notch! in constructive interpersonal communications next year, you'll have a great shot at reaching your Admin goal before you hit 100,000. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, you've repeatedly made comments about my not knowing, applying policy (or guidelines). On this page (above) you said:

• "bone up on relevant policy" (x2)
• "Once again, you're writing English words and citing WP policies without regard to their meanings, or, in the case of the policies, even whether they exist."
• "...I suggest you read the WP policy regarding forum shopping and wikilawyering"
• "...I urge you to re-read and study key policies, which you have repeatedly misunderstood or misapplied recently."
• "By the interpretation of policy you propose here... Take this to the appropriate Noticeboard if you believe that this is the meaning of WP policy ..."
• "You apparently have no trouble convincing yourself of these convoluted interpretations of policy,..."
• "I am repeatedly surprised by your displays of basic lapses in your familiarity with WP policies and conventions."

Knowing about policies and guidelines is key to any administrator. With this in mind, I'd like to see exactly how I have erred. You have mentioned that diffs exist, so I invite you to post specific examples.

So here is a user subpage for you (and others) to work with: User:Srich32977/SPECIFICO's listing of policy errors by S. Rich. It contains a table where diffs, analysis, etc. can be added. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: in this remark you did not address MM's behavior or possible sanctions. No matter what, I hardly expected MM to support my candidacy. There is no reason for me to restrict myself before I have admin privileges. (Afterwards is an entirely different matter.) MM has been a disruptive editor from the get-go, and, you in many ways, such as with the off-topic remark you made, have encouraged that behavior. Moreover, as you have supported MM, don't you have a conflict of interest? Even if you did, you would be free to comment on the proposed sanction. (BTW, I await your posting of policy error diffs on the subpage I started.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

PS: Specifico and MM, I promise to keep the table available when it comes time to comment on my application for admin. I will welcome comments from you both. (In fact, produce a WP:TLDR version of the table!) Same holds true for you, Steeletrap. And thanks for the heads-up on AfD/RfA. – S. Rich (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The obvious implication here is that, if you succeed in getting rid of me, I won't be around to post those damaging, embarrassing diffs which show that you're unsuited for the role of admin. You have a COI. MilesMoney (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

MM, you are working against your own self-interest. When I am an admin, my monitoring or commenting on your behavior will diminish. (And I certainly would not take admin action with regard to you.) Also, I realize you are busy now defending against the possible BLP ban. But a such a ban would not restrict you from posting the damaging, embarrassing diffs. Please have at it. If you like, I'll post a subpage with the same table for your usage. – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Austrian economics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 December 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for bolding

Sorry for that. It seemed like a simple format error. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I was simply downplaying the expression of my opinion. The diff I provided actually speaks for itself. – S. Rich (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

6 January

Well, since there won't be anything exciting on TV that afternoon, I suppose I'll be getting ready for spring training to prevent the repetition of certain unfortunate event. Hint: I'm practicing kicking field goals, to see if I can get at least one out of four. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc

As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I don't recall making much or any commentary on the topic. But I wish you well in your effort to expand the discussion with editors who have all sorts of views. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You !voted in the previous RFC, which is why I notified you here. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. I just don't recall. But thanks for checking, the headsup, and the note re my earlier involvement. – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability, group awards, and Tuskegee Airmen

S.Rich: I have begun changing the language of the Tuskegee Airmen articles that I have worked on to state that the Congressional Medal of Honor was given to the group as a whole. If it is known if the person in question was in attendance at the public ceremony where the medal was presented, I include that information. But I make it clear that the award is not being given to the person per se but to the group en toto. Hopefully, that will avoid any confusion about whether that award establishes notability or not. I am working to establish notability on other grounds. Cheers. Stevenmg (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that the enabling statute named various individuals, and such mention is worthy in their articles. (I have not cross-checked the statute with any articles.) As UCR has material on the TA, I see your interest – so I'm here to help, both with individual articles and with the overall project. – S. Rich (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Re the MilesMoney ANI

@SPECIFICO: WRT your question here, I don't think I shall answer. One, to do so on that thread would needlessly distract (and disrupt) from the subject at hand. Two, if editors, including yourself, wish to open an ANI regarding other users, they can do do. Then diffs pertaining to that other editor can be laid out. (As it is, the MM thread already has too much distraction.) In such cases, I will comment when I think I have some small helpful points to add. Please let me know when or if you open an ANI regarding persons of interest. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC) BTW, thank you for the complement on the correction.03:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, in light of the comments of many other editors on the circumstances of that ANI and the behavior of other editors, and because your behavior continues to raise the appearance of a conflict of incentives, I thought it would be helpful for you to make a complete statement there. But no matter, entirely your choice of course. SPECIFICO talk 04:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A complete statement? About MilesMoney? About other editors as well?! I dare not. (Such commentary – on that ANI – could be disruptive.) Moreover, my behavior in that thread or elsewhere is a topic of another discussion. You are welcome to post diffs about my behavior wherever you like. I've provided a draft table for the policy issues that you think I've violated. Shall I post one for my uncivil remarks too? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed by your response. On the ANI thread, many of your fellow editors have commented or recommended sanctions on other editors, in addition to or instead of, MilesMoney. Your comment singles out MilesMoney, against whom you have a history of ill regard, and fails to address the others. This has the unfortunate appearance that you are focused solely on MilesMoney rather than the promotion of good behavior and the Five Pillars on WP. In my opinion, the place for such comments would have been the ANI, where others have already contributed their larger concerns for WP. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You should not be disappointed so easily and perhaps it stems from prejudice against me. Numerous editors have commented about MM alone, and some of them have had on-going or occasional interaction with MM. Are you disappointed by their responses? How about the editors without prior interaction with MM? Are you posting comments on any other user talk pages suggesting that they don't promote good behavior or the 5Ps? The efforts to argue the merits of particular edits (as opposed to pointing out the diffs) or the merits and demerits of other editors only disrupts the discussion, which is about MM and the alternatives to promote decent behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, it was you who sidetracked this to your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Your commentary about my behavior or anyone else's behavior is best placed on user talk pages. Not on the ANI. So you are correct, I did "sidetrack" an inappropriate thread. – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Time to chill, soldier. Merry Xmas. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Milton Friedman

Actually, the original comment about the Federal Reserve was mine, I was just signing it properly. That was the only change made to the actual comment.

Your change results in a deletion of the entire comment instead of reverting back to an incorrect signature. Disestablishmentarianism 07:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixoplic (talk • contribs)

@Mixoplic: your username is Mixoplic. Your user signature looks like User:Mixoplic. When you add a non-Wiki markup word, like Disestablishmentarianism, it looks like vandalism. For more information, see WP:USERNAME and WP:SIGNATURES. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Please check your understanding of 'fringe'

Your failure to understand what the term 'fringe' or 'fringe theory' means, as evidenced by your attempts to differentiate "heterodox" (the politically correct term for 'fringe') theory from fringe, systematically undermines your attempts to contribute to the AE articles.

Note the Misplaced Pages definition of fringe theory: "an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. It can include work done to the appropriate level of scholarship in a field of study but only supported by a minority of practitioners, to more dubious work." I also recommend you consult an online dictionary. Steeletrap (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not fail to understand fringe. You mention the WP article about fringe theory; but WP:FRINGE is another matter. The non-WP definition, as you quote, can include "work done to the appropriate level of scholarship...". When there is an appropriate level of scholarship, the theory falls outside of WP:FRINGE. But it seems that editors are adding their personal evaluation when they say "fringe" because they want to use the "more dubious work" end of the spectrum (and therefore, by implication, within WP:FRINGE]]. Read on ... "Dismissing a theory based solely, or in part, on a fringe characterization may deviate from the spirit of the scientific approach and may limit new advances and insights." If you believe the Austrians or others are "fringe" in the WP guideline sense of the word, bring up those concerns on the WP:FTN, and do so with evidence. Otherwise the use of "fringe" in talk page discussions is simply a deviation from the spirit of the scientific approach. Moreover, much of the debate we see simply involves political and/or economic philosophy. One could say "the theory of total state control, which we see exercised by Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four), is clearly fringe because it is outside of the mainstream view, and therefore has no place in Misplaced Pages". No. We do not do that. We allow for and encourage articles about all aspects of philosophy and science. Thank you for your comment and suggestions. And please feel free to respond. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's nice to hear you endorse "the spirit of the scientific approach", but the defining characteristic of this branch of economics is that it rejects the scientific approach. This is precisely what makes it fringe. Our job is to keep fringe views out of general articles and identify views as fringe when they show up in such places as biographies. MilesMoney (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you think this is nice to read the rest of the introductory paragraph to the fringe science article. But it seems that many areas of study do not accept or use the scientific approach. History, art, politics, literature, (more or less) among them. And certainly those fields have many academics who work "outside the mainstream." And I can see how well science is developed and applied as I read various articles mentioned in Outline of economics, Index of economics articles, and JEL classification codes. But I just can't find that Science of economics article or where economics is mentioned in scientific method. I wonder – if science is not well grounded or laid out as a "defining characteristic" in any economics article, then perhaps every economics article should be excluded from Misplaced Pages. What do you think? – S. Rich (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I won't use the c-word that upsets you so terribly, Srich, but I really think that you're ill equipped to be editing these articles except in your Helpful Housekeeping mode. That last post is way off the edge, and to think that you would insinuate such ruminations into any aspect of WP is apalling. 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

I'm tempted to rant about humanities and sciences, including soft sciences. I'll spare you, because I'm not convinced I can explain it clearly enough that you'd understand. Still, if you wanted to do some independent research, you might benefit from it. If anything, it might be helpful if you did this before making too many more edits on the subject. MilesMoney (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"C-word"? Not being used, I couldn't become upset. And I doubt I'd get upset even if the actual word was used. But I'll speculate: canard? carrot? combat? cunt? cedar? confused? conjugate? counterconditioning? Well, I guess I'm not a very good ruminator. Still, Specifico, you needn't be too appalled. You actually know I am quite competent. – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney: Actually, Miles, feel free to rant on this usertalk page. I might hat the rant, but I won't remove it. I'm guessing you'd say something like "soft social sciences are bullshit because they dress up their analysis with untestable hypothesis .... yet present it as true science." (But this is just a rough paraphrase of what I think you might say. I do not want to presume or put words in your mouth.) Still, I don't know what you mean by "the subject". Do you mean economics as (or is) a science? Well, if that is the case and if the Austrians are saying "We don't think science (what is mistakenly described as empirical evidence) applies to economics", then what's the beef about the Austrians? Like I said, English majors admit the humanities are not "science" subjects, but that does not make their subject "fringe" simply because it does not involve science. For that matter, no soft science (or protoscience topic) should be dismissed as "fringe". It only sounds like "I don't like it, therefore it's fringe." Or "In my opinion (e.g., we don't have RS) it is fringe, therefore we must keep it out of WP." – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, the field of English is in the humanities. While it's in no way anti-scientific, it's also not a science. It has relationships with some branches of science, such as linguistics, but is still a distinct field. Economics, on the other hand, is not in the humanities; it's a social science. It's not a hard science, like physics, because it has to deal with us soft, squishy humans, but it's as much a science as sociology or psychology.

It's not unusual for legitimate sciences, especially soft ones, to nonetheless harbor factions that are unscientific. For example, psychology has the Freudians, whose beliefs were never empirically supported and have since been empirically refuted, yet have not been abandoned. In economics, the Misean Austrians are actually worse than the Freudians because their anti-scientific views are explicit. They're proud of not caring about the evidence, and this makes them fringe within the field. Ironically, Misean views are common among libertarians and other conservatives, much as other fringe beliefs -- such as climate change denialism and evolution denialism -- are. MilesMoney (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, this is the nicest comment you've made in my recollection (limited as it is). Sincerely, I agree with you in many respects. The Freudians once had the explanation about dreams, ego, id, etc. and we still use Freudian terminology every day. And I think the Miseans, as you contend, take pride in their "not caring" about data (as compared to evidence) – they are simply being honest. But that does not make them fringe – any more than the humanities proponents who "don't care" about "scientific evidence". (Jeez, permit me to comment without much precision in this thread. It's getting late. The humanities crowd use scientific analysis in many aspects, but they don't describe their disciplines as science. If the Austrians say they don't care about the "data", then let them stew in their own pots spurning the data.) Where do we (you, I, and others) differ? The conservatives have their motives and this tends (compels) to skew their views as to climate change because they see government regulations as unnecessary or 'obstructions' to prosperity. (Who is correct depends on POV.) In the long run we will see if one side or the other is correct. Moving on, denial of evolution is a silly debate because it is strictly a religion bug-a-bear. I don't think libertarians give a shit one way or the other. (They are, I believe, concerned when a government agency promotes a view in this area. So?......) In any event, our task in Misplaced Pages is to strive to present the material to readers in a non-POV-pushing manner. (And when you see me pushing POV in these areas (as opposed to presenting), please let me know.) Thanks for your comments. – S. Rich (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that economics is a science, so any faction that doesn't want to be scientific doesn't get to call itself economics. Consider Intelligent Design, which claims to be part of biology but rejects the scientific method. Ultimately, it's up to the mainstream of the field to decide what counts as fringe. MilesMoney (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the analogy between the creationists and Austrians is a poor one. The creationists dress up their argument with sciencey terminology. The embrace the cloak of science and become Category:Pseudoscience. The Wikipedian way to approach their nonsense is illustrated in Intelligent design – the result is a featured article no less. If we could write up the Austrians to such a standard, we'd really accomplish something. Even better would be a writeup of Economics as a science. I agree that economics studies goods and services, their production and distribution. But why are there so many schools of economics, so many economic systems, so much debate about economic measurement, etc? (Is Marxian economics part of mainstream economics? Is it science? Is it fringe?) Good hard science knows how to get to the Moon, about the chemistry of rocket fuel, what happens to humans biologically in space, etc. Science observes, classifies data, uses logic, conducts experiments, forms hypothesis, makes predictions, achieves confirmation, and expresses findings mathematically. At present, though, I think econ is more in the protoscience realm because of the difficulties it has when trying to do these things. And it seems the Austrians are even more proto than the mainstream because they focus more on human behavior when they look at methodological individualism, subjective theory of value, etc. Are they right? Are the mainstreamers right? Frankly, I'm skeptical of all of them. But I think the debates will advance by expanding our knowledge of the subjects and the articles which discuss them. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you have 2 problems, the combination of which is insurmountable: 1. You don't know what you're talking about. 2. You have no clue that you don't know what you're talking about. You may be knowledgeable or expert in some fields of knowledge, but like hundreds of millions of other delightful human beings on our planet, you are utterly ignorant on some subjects. Such is the human condition.

If you wish to participate in good faith, go to the library and research the extensive literature on the methodology and application of social science and economics. It will take time and effort. It is not light reading and you'll need to branch out into all the real-world issues that gave rise to the methodological and operationsl framework of economic science. Read a history of economic thought such as Schumpeter or Blaug have written. Follow all their references. See whether you're able to assimilate what they present. It's not OK for you to turn this collaborative WP enterprise into a dance around the maypole of your ignorance. That's really not what WP is about. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's my recognition of the value of expertise that encourages me to put up with your patronizing attitude. You're insufferable, but you're right and I've learned more about Austrian economics from reading your comments than from all of my education in the field. So when you point at reliable sources showing that the Miseans are fringe, I don't just blow them off like Rich does. MilesMoney (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

With such remarks in mind, I might post this on my userpage:

This user is a mediocre+ Editor.

– S. Rich (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tip on policy

You (and this applies to User:Binksternet and User:carolmooredc as well) appear to completely misunderstand WP:Academic. Cursory mention in half a dozen RS does not come close to establishing notability; you have to demonstrate that an individual has substantively influenced mainstream dialogue. I suggest that instead of a swift and cursory Googling session (which in the case of Bink, often leads to pretty egregious errors, e.g. citing an undergraduate's paper as an RS), you both read sources to see what they say about a scholar's influence. As to how to test whether a scholar meets WP:Academic notability standards, User:Randykitty puts this better than I could on the Thornton AfD page. Steeletrap (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC) To illustrate the point: By your and bink's standard, virtually all academics would have Misplaced Pages entries (including me, which is absurd at this stage of my career), because everyone with a (non-professional) graduate degree has to publish in journals. Steeletrap (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

If you have a chance, please take a look at the subsection part of my response. I'm interested, either way, in your input re: non-notable, genealogy based articles.

(For instance, I learned in the last couple of months that small residential farming villages where the only sources I could find were PinCode (postal code in India) web pages, are considered notable.) Thanks!!! CaroleHenson (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Disruptive" talk page comment?

Hey @SPECIFICO: why do you accuse me of disruptive editing in this comment? Steeletrap from the get-go talked about Presley editing her own article. Look at WP:COISELF and you might see how COI comments in the AfD are pertinent. "Strawman" argument? Are you saying my mention of COI is strawman, or my description of it as old is strawman? I'm not "denying" COI, so you are mischaracterizing my argument. I merely said the COI issue doesn't mean shit because it is long past and can be (or is) resolved by subsequent edits. Moreover, editors can write WP:ABOUTSELF so long as they follow guidelines. Why don't you do the right thing, Specifico, and strike your unwarranted and offensive comment? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Note, Presley created her own article. Steeletrap (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But my comments here are about how Specifico is bad-mouthing me. – S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Because you are misrepresenting my statements, your words constitute a Personal Attack. You'd be well advised to strike yourself. Noted, with no further action for now. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about you, Specifico. I refer to your comments, in which you say my contribution is disruptive. NO misrepresentation of your comments took place. (Describe such misrepresentation if you can.) Address the issue of COI as an argument for COI. I don't think you have anything. – S. Rich (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Laffs

Srich, with all your WP:LINKs I hope you enjoy the chuckle from your visit to Sitush's page. Having seen you deny it so many times, I'd guessed you had on at least one occasion read the page. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

veering of SPI on Steeletrap

I presented what I considered a cogent and coherent case with several diffs and a lot of data. Rschen asked for more evidence, which I provided. Steeletrap has been interesting in how he handles this -- I suppose he figures if the water got muddy enough that the case would die. Alas -- I think the data is more than ample for a real examination. A close at this point, IMO, is a disservice to the data and diffs presented. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Of all the editors involved, you are focusing on the evidence better than the others. But as I stated, I don't think they are socks, based on my interactions and observations. While I don't think meatpuppet recruiting has taken place, the 2005 Arbcom decision referenced in WP:MEAT might apply. I say "might" because this is an area in which I have no experience. My recent posting on the SPI page was more of an effort to get people focused on evidence rather than the expanding (and muddying) commentary. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

citation bot's number to issue bug

Hi, Srich32977. This is just a heads-up about the number to issue bug of citation bot, which I filed in response to your edit to Fahrenheit 451 back on 14 November 2013. I had intended to inform you of the issue at the time but it slipped my mind. Sorry for that. The "number" parameter in cite templates should not be changed to "issue". That's the crux of the matter. Please prevent the bot from making these changes in the future. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Jason. I'm guessing your holiday shopping is over and you're now making progress on the WP to-do list. And I see an interesting {{Diff}} template in your message. It may be helpful to me in the future. So I think it will be an even better gift than the 451 bot bug fix. Have a great holiday. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

CIR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WP:CIR. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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.
Please stop. The irony is unbearable.
SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Competence? In this edit you revert a change made 11 months ago. And when I posted the change, I fixed a clarified needed tag. More importantly, I opened a talk page thread. A dozen other editors made changes to the essay in a score of edits. Seems none of them thought my change was not in the spirit of the essay. And what about the 98 editors who are watching the page? But you, Specifico, missed that. Rather, you have the gall to say "Please use talk." Well, if talk was so important where did you open a thread? It wasn't until Steeletrap made the proposal that you spoke up. And then you simply criticize other comments without suggesting any improvement. Next you revert the edit, well before any consensus is made, and add an edit summary about a non-existent "consensus". Indeed. Did you learn this tactic from a cohort? Given that certain editors are prone to cite "competence" in their discussions (when the citation clearly does not apply) it seems promoting "intellectual" competence (or is it intelligence?) is an effort to backdoor some ummpf into otherwise lousy justifications for their "I have a BM degree, I'm more competent than you." arguments. Can't bear the irony? No one is forcing you to sign on or go through my edit history. – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What's this about your BM? The fact is that you were EW and then Mr. Binks followed your example. It's not good form to change the essay in a way which might suggest to future editors that you were trying to avoid being tested by the standard you changed. That's why you should not have re-inserted your preferred version. Now, please consider restoring the revert so and discussion will go forward. SPECIFICO talk 05:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That was interesting

I find it intensely interesting that Miles, suspected to be a sock of StillStanding-247, has just been busted using an open proxy server. Think we can interest a CU into looking at that? Roccodrift (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea if CU would be helpful. Frankly, I don't wish to be engaged in such a pursuit. Miles had said s/he was in North York in the past, which I accepted at face value. And this is one/another reason I do not think Miles and Steeletrap are socks. SPI is an area in which I know less than nothing. You'll have to ask others if a CU is worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Srich -- Look! -- You seem to be the go-to guy when it's time to mount another PA or stalk and harass young Miles. Why do you suppose editors see you as a likely recruit for that brand of mischief? So unfair. Food for thought. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

PA? On who? Miles? But your use of "or" can be read in the disjunctive implying PA on someone else? Either way, give me some diffs Specifico. Better yet, take them to the ANI. ("Hey, LOOK everybody! S.Rich has posted a listing of Miles' diffs. Rich is conducting a WP:NPA#WHATIS!!") Stalk Miles? Miles' spends over 80% of his/her time on the talk pages. It's not difficult to find Miles' comments, and my ANI listing only covered the last 50 edits. Why don't you come out on the ANI and say on the ANI that Miles' behavior is commendable? But as Collect pointed out, Miles posted 29 times on the Rasmussen page alone. (Updates: 30 times + a "snarky" personal remark on the BLPN.) Harass poor Miles? I really think the attention is relished. Drama Queen comes to mind. Another? That word can be read different ways. "Another" as in a new set of observations unrelated to an ongoing discussion, or "another" as in adding to the diffs, observations, complaints, remarks already going on. Either way the diffs of Miles' postings amply illustrate the need for action. – S. Rich (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, "action" here is just a euphemism for "execution". You have voted over and over again in favor of getting rid of me. You have cluttered ANI with out-of-context quotes and diffs intended only to poison the well. Whenever the discussion loses its focus on removing me, you're there to put it back on track. There is no question here about what your goals are. You are WP:STALKING me. MilesMoney (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

At first, it looked like Miles was being force-fed some military-style mentoring, but when Miles had enough of the wet-nurse treatment, things changed forever. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that Rich tried to force-mentor me when I started, but turned against me when I developed a mind of my own. Now the student has become the master. MilesMoney (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

This is unacceptable. Do not repeat your performance or I will report you. MilesMoney (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits to ANI

Hello Srich, I have just suppressed a number of edits to ANI based on an action you took, and I wanted to explain more clearly to you that our harassment policy forbids publishing personal or identifying information about other editors unless they have voluntarily provided it. This provision includes re-posting information you find through slip-ups of the other editor. If you see someone make a mistake and then correct it, you should assume that the mistake was unintentional and therefore it does not give you leave to re-publish. In fact, under pretty much no circumstances should you be re-publishing what you feel is another editors IP or physical location without that person's explicit permission. I understand that you seem to have socking concerns, but if your evidence includes information on the person's IP or location, the case will need to be dealt with privately, by contacting either the Checkuser team (most easily reached at functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) or the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) with whatever information you feel is relevant. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter: No problem. The diff you refer to was probably a mistake, but was voluntary in that sense. Early on in the editor's history, they said/complained that their ISP had caused them problems and specified their location. Also, I do not think the editor is a sock, and have said so. The info which was mistakenly posted actually serves to confirm the non-sock status. In any event, I certainly accept, and will heed, your admonition. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a mistake. Your edit comment insisted that I wasn't allowed to edit your words, which turns out to be false in this case. You knowingly restored information that violates my privacy. I am not satisfied. MilesMoney (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, the mistake I refer to is your post on the ANI when logged off. Early on you had told the community about your ISP and where you are located, so no private info was posted. I apologize for restoring the IP number to my edit. – S. Rich (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In light of the fact that Srich's ongoing animosity toward MilesMoney is an extension of Srich's aggressive editing and denigration of Miles at various Austrian Economics articles, I urge any Admins who sees this to consider what sanction should be levied against Srich for this despicable violation of WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Rich, your excuses are dishonest. I live in one of the largest cities in North America, so my privacy is not impaired by mentioning the city. My IP, on the other hand, could be used to uniquely trace me, and has already been suggested as a way to get me blocked from Misplaced Pages. You knew why I removed the IP from your response, yet you edit-warred to put it back! I am not satisfied with your excuses. I support Specifico's suggestion that your actions be taken seriously. MilesMoney (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, Misplaced Pages cannot be broken, and Flutternutter has taken steps to fix the mistakes -- yours and mine. Flutternutter also suppressed the welcome message I posted on that IP user talk page. She did so at my request. I'm sorry you are not satisfied. What would satisfy you? Another apology?? Here: MilesMoney, I was wrong when I repeated the IP address you had posted after your listing of talk page, usertalk page, ANI comments, and BLPN comments. – S. Rich (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit comment makes it clear that it wasn't a mistake, it was intentional. Backtracking now adds a lie on top of your original attempt to WP:OUT me. MilesMoney (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I think most readers will, like me, be insulted and disgusted at your obstinate insistance that your personal attack on Miles was a "mistake." SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

To think that only a week ago, Srich was promoting himself for Admin of WP! What a spectacle. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, Miles, "mistake" refers to the mistake you made when you posted the comment via your IP address. (I thought I had made that clear above.) I am not saying I made a mistake. My actions were, as you say, intentional. But I've stricken the plurality in my comment above to make clear that I am simply referring to your IP revelation as your mistake. There is no lying at all. In any event the "mistake" you made – posting your IP – has been suppressed, whitewashed, covered up. And I've apologized for the "wrong" I inflicted upon you. You can continue to lick your wounds in public, or you can accept the apology I've offered. It's up to you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make a mistake: I was logged in. Misplaced Pages is buggy. Regardless, it was wrong for you to repeat that IP in your response and more wrong to revert it back when I sanitized it. Neither of these were accidental; they were bad judgment, so bad that they violate WP:OUTING. An apology that blames me for things outside of my control is not an apology. An apology that treats your intentional behavior as accidental is not an apology. I am quick to accept genuine apologies, but this does not qualify. MilesMoney (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of the log-in snafu. Perhaps you can report it somewhere in WP and have the techs fix the bug. If this is a frequent problem for you, try using the preview button. What else would you like me to say? – S. Rich (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We're done. And there's no particular reason to defend yourself here, as I stated that the matter was settled. MilesMoney (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean it

When I say you guys do not deserve any respect at all, you carry on like kids, this is what you get. Next step is AE, and this goes for all the people I know watching this page. Grow up, learn to discuss, or I will file an AE on all of you quite happily. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Whew! I'm glad my name is not in that section you archived. And my earlier December comment (in the other section you closed) was an effort to herd the cats. Perhaps your more forceful archiving will work. Here's hoping!! – S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

While I thought "more forceful" would be helpful, I think you are going over the top with the policing. IMO, the tone and flurry of remarks is counter-productive. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

MM ANI

BLP applies to talk pages

WP:BLP applies to any Misplaced Pages page. Adding redlinked names of real people in that list, even as a talk page suggestion, is improper. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but do not understand how you are applying it. Please state that basis of your standpoint. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Adding redlinked names (or non-linked names) of real persons and saying they are pornstars violates BLP policy, pure & simple. If they are pornstars, we need WP:RS to verify it. This includes the talkpages, noticeboards, and our own user pages & sandboxes. (Also see WP:WTAF.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your fear, in this matter. I'm in the process (as in right now) of adding a reference for each name. A simple Google search brings up several for each that confirms that a person with that name/stage name is a pornographic actor. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not a matter of fear. It's Misplaced Pages policy. If you want to draft a list and workup references, you ought to do so off-wiki. But list of names of real people must have RS. And on the subject of porn, the RS is even more important. Also, IMDb is not considered RS. Regarding the names, I'll give one example: C. Nguyen is a real estate agent in Michigan. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

IMDb is acceptable for basic info like since its fact checked by paid staff before its made live. But I'll use IAFD.com if it makes you feel better. By the way, the fact that there is another person on the planet with the same name as a porn actor is irrelevant. You're making far, far too many assumptions to make a valid case for censoring a Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a good essay about IMDb: Misplaced Pages:Citing IMDb. I have no opinion re IAFD. Overall, though, WTAF is the better course of action. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Good" or not, its editorial opinion, hence why its an Essay. The same goes for WP:WTAF. If you're going to quote BLP, please leave the Essays out of it. In the meantime I'll cite this policy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, essays are not policy. They do reflect good advice. But more importantly, please do note what the not censored policy says: "Content that is judged to violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Misplaced Pages policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Misplaced Pages's main servers are hosted, will also be removed." I've got no objection to articles about porn or porn stars. Nor do I object to porn itself. I will object to adding non-notable and unsourced names to the pornstar galaxy. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and you can't (or won't) cite what the nature of the violation is regarding BLP. Furthermore, just because someone does not have an article on Misplaced Pages that does not automatically make them non-notable. It just means they don't have an article. As for sources, IAFD.com has nearly all of them listed. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A person's association with porn is created by listing a name on a page where the subject is porn. If the person is a notable porn star, then fine. The WP:REDLINK guideline encourages us to write the article first. That way, because the article about the noted porn star is supported by RS, we do not violate BLP. But the BLP problem arises when we put names in a list without RS. This is not a question of censorship. BLP requires us to follow a higher standard. Instead of infringing on BLP, the solution is simple. Develop the lists and potential articles off-wiki. Then add the developed, sourced article to WP and add the bluelink name to the list. – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No, no, NO! A person's association with porn relies entirely on their having acted in a pornographic movie or video, PERIOD. What happens in the real world takes precedence. If there's an RS that confirms their involvement in the Adult Industry, then they can be mentioned. Notability, which is separate from the fact the person "is" or "is not" involved in porn, determines if they get an article in the main space. You don't get to misunderstand or blur the distinction between policies to push your POV. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you are aware of the BLPN notice. In that case, please state your case on the noticeboard. I am not pushing any POV. I am against the censorship of porn, and I am against BLP violations. So, no more posts from you that fail to assume good faith on my part on this page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This problem has arisen repeatedly in various talk threads with you Srich. It's a fine line and nobody can tell whether you're good-faith unable to understand policy or whether you're tendentiously pushing a false application of policy. In this case it's unclear which one it might be. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In this case SRich32977 is absolutely correct about BLP policy and its application to redlinked names of people who may or may not be porn stars. Having one's name falsely associated with pornographic productions can do real harm to a living person, and thus the redlinks must stay out until consensus can be achieved to keep them. alanyst 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's always hard to understand what Srich is asserting, because he does not quote policy with specific reference to the matter at hand, but why does the redlink or blacklink status enter into the BLP issue? One may be verifiably a porn actor without being wiki-notable or having an article here. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What immediately undermines Rich's argument is that nobody is making a list of the real names of people and then saying they're porn actors. Rather, it's a list of "professional" names; the pseudonyms used by performers precisely because they don't want the stigma to affect their family and friends. Each name is like Long Dong Silver, not Daniel Arthur Mead. Combined with the fact that the names are extracted from reliable porn-industry sources, the idea that BLP is being violated becomes laughable.

The other issue is Rich's behavior here, which shows poor communication skills, little grasp of policy, and a willingness to join up with ideological allies (Wolf) to tag-team editors who are just trying to be helpful. Shameful. MilesMoney (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The vitriol directed toward SRich by you and SPECIFICO is over the top and serves only to perpetuate the ongoing disruptive feud, so please knock it off. If the names really are stage names for which there is little real risk of mis-identification with a real, living, and totally different person, then it should be possible to gain consensus for the links' inclusion. But BLP requires caution about such things, and SRich was perfectly justified in removing the redlinks on grounds of BLP in case mis-identification was a real risk; and the burden is properly on those wishing to include them to make a persuasive argument that the merits of having those names in the list outweigh the likelihood of unintended harm. alanyst 23:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Caution is fine, tag-teaming an editor who's just trying to improve the encyclopedia is not. It's this sort of hostility that damages the project by scaring off reasonable people who just don't want to deal with the constant aggression. As for my "vitriol", I believe you're missing some of the context. Scroll up and open the hat. MilesMoney (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If Specifico or MilesMoney really think that I have misquoted, misconstrued, misapplied, or mis-anything with regard to the BLPN I initiated, I invite them to post on that thread. They should explain why and how I am wrong. They should also explain why and how the other contributors to that thread, that article talkpage, and other forums are incorrect. – S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I note that both have posted. Thank you. Now we shall see how the BLPN plays out. 23:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Alanyst: - Hi. No vitriol from me, just pointing out that it obstructs discussion and collegial resolution of various issues when Srich refuses to explain how his interpretations of policy support the arguments he so tenaciously presents. Since you recognize that, per Scalhotrod's statements of fact, it should be easy to resolve this, it is puzzling to find you in the position of defending his behavior after his arguments have been debunked. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Austrian economics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Fecklessness

United States Army Rangers

Hello:

You left an OR tag on United States Army Rangers. Please leave a note on the talk page specifying what you are referring to so editors can address it. If it is simply a general observation summarizing the section tags about lack of references, please just briefly note that. Thanks for your time and interest. Airborne84 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Airborne84: I'll be going back myself to look at the dates established. Please note the recent changes. (Perhaps OR was not the right tag, but it simply came to mind at the moment.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifico's comment on Miles' talk page

Rather than clutter MilesMoney's talkpage with more commentary, I'll make two observations here: 1. Whether or not I have an interest in RfA doesn't matter much to that discussion. Miles got himself banned for his own contentious behavior. 2. This edit is interesting. – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)20:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in that message of mine to indicate that I have any knowledge as to Miles intention, nor to which editors he might communicate his concerns about you, nor what the recipients of such communication might do in the event of such hypothetical communication. Your mention of my name in the context of what appears to be your paranoid fantasy is a personal attack and in the spirit of friendship, I advise you to think carefully about whether you wish to reiterate it now that I have removed such attack from this page. Happy New Year. Please reflect. I have no idea why you'd go to MilesMoney's talk page with insults and disparagement of @EllenCT: but I think it's unlikely your dwindling chances at Adminship have improved in 2014. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that your survival instinct is strong enough to control what I can only imagine was an overwhelming reflex to repeat your personal attack on me. Good work. Keep it up. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the surmise you posted might unfortunately indeed be seen by outside observers as being a specific statement of intent. And I would note that CANVASSing for the purposes of influencing an RfA is likely to be viewed unfavourably by anyone closing such a putative RfA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifico, how is posting your diff in any way a personal attack? Amazing. And, what "insults and disparagement of EllenCT" are you talking about? There is nothing like that on User_talk:MilesMoney! Or perhaps you are referring to User talk:TParis#Please un-ban MilesMoney? Either way, diffs and a specific explanation would substantiate your accusation. – S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Bullying Women Editors on Misplaced Pages

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Respect Barnstar

Just wanted to remind you that there are still those of us who understand and respect you. You have done more for this project than any of your adversaries tenfold. I think this all turned into one complete mess, with an editor causing trouble. I think it is time to move passed any of the ANIs and ArbComs... You've won nearly every debate on the talk pages, where it counts and this website is better for what you've done. And, having written way more than the traditional wikilover, I'll leave you with one final piece of advice from Sun Tzu- "To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." PrairieKid (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Of the various (and deservedly few) messages of support sent my way, yours is the most touching. I shall endeavor to continue to earn your respect. PraireKid, you have my heartfelt thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Let me add that I've been a teenager for several decades now. ;-) 05:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

RSN comments

Specifico, for the third time you have said the RSN is not the appropriate place for the Brad DeLong blog material. But you have not commented on the material itself on the RSN, the article talk page or on the BLPN. You vaguely mention notability, but have not nom'd the article for AfD on that basis. You've said the RSN is the wrong place, but other editors seem to disagree with you because they are discussing the issue. (Editors are certainly free to ignore discussion board.) If you are going to contribute, why don't you actually do so? Or you might request an admin closure of the thread. But once you add your 2₵, you should just leave the comment stand for what it is worth. E.g., exactly 2¢. Saying the same thing 3 times gives a value of 6¢. – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC) I do see that you expanded your comments as I was writing this. But your comment is not helpful in the least. The editors have cited and quoted the appropriate material! 02:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. As I recall, I was just replying to your unhelpful comment. Just because Ms. Steeletrap affirms that we have RS does not mean that she acknowledges any valid reason to doubt that. I'd have thought that was obvious, but when a post of yours indicated that some editors might not see it that way, I thought it best to elucidate. The problem with these cowpie Noticeboard threads is that once an editor posts them, they sprout weeds and attract all kinds of off-topic or unfocused comments. We've had several of these recently in the Austrian-related articles. It would in my opinion be much better to let talk page discussion develop until we know whether a particular Noticeboard posting would be appropriate and helpful. In some cases, an RfC on the talk page might be the better road. On one recent premature Noticeboard thread, regarding Thornton I believe, there was never a clearly stated RS issue and OP had actually removed, not added, content. The thread is all over the lot, it's still open, and it appears to have been pointless. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

History of Macro FA

Do you really think the FA should be withdrawn? If you plan on making substantive changes that would interfere with the FA nomination, I'll withdraw it. So far you've just said that the lede could use some more detail. Is there much more to change? I realize the discussion with Ellen might create problems in the future as well, but she effectively left the discussion and I tried to accommodate her input. Sorry for venting my frustration. Before both FA noms I've tried to solicit feedback from the WP:Economics project, and no one says much until I've gone ahead and made the nomination.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll look at the article some more in the next couple of days. I did some editing on it to demonstrate my good faith and confidence in the article. But I'd like to see more basic changes. It starts off saying "Macroeconomic theory has its origins in the study of business cycles and monetary theory." My recommendation: Be more basic. "Macroeconomic theory, the study of ....., has its origins in...." Then say "'Classical" theories' macroeconomic theory, which said ..... where popular in ..... JMK expanded upon/attacked those theories and ....." (The problem is we don't have the ground work for why JMK did the attack. I'm trying to look at the article from the perspective of a reader with no prior knowledge about the subject. (Not a hard thing for me to do.) And those first sentences jump out at me. But give me a bit more time, if you wish, and I'll give more hints on what I think needs doing. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Austrian economics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Early Morning Love

Hey Srich32977. Regarding your tagging of the above article under CSD A9, please note that that criterion is only for articles on musical recordings where there is no existing article on the artist – that is, since there is an article on the Supremes, CSD A9 is patently inapplicable. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Got it. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hour of code

Thanks for noticing that the content of Hour of Code was already covered at Code.org. You have to refine more your choice of criteria for speedy deletion, though; A10 is not adequate for this article. See the part that goes like this?: "This deletion rationale should only be used rarely. In the vast majority of duplicate articles, the title used is a plausible misspelling or alternate name for the main article, and a redirect should be created instead. This criterion should only be used if its title could be speedy deleted as a redirect."

As the title is a likely redirect, the proper course of action is WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, leaving a note at Talk:Code.org noting the blakning. Diego (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Would have to agree with Diego in this case, so I declined the speedy. Regards, decltype (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Abdülkerim Bardakcı

I think this football player's page claims to meet WP:NFOOTY and so certainly does not qualify for WP:CSD#A7. If you think the page should be deleted, please use WP:AFD. Thank you, —Kusma (t·c) 11:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

@Diego Moya:  :@Decltype:  :@Kusma: As part of my WP education and experience I started reviewing new pages. And yesterday was this is the first time I've used the New pages feed. (It really is a neat tool!) I appreciate all of you taking the time to drop me these notes. – S. Rich (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm 01:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

RSN

Please show me where I made a personal remark on RSN. I presume you're not referring to my note to the editor who disparaged me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You presume incorrectly. Don't you get it? You were making a personal remark to Carol and I was making a personal remark to you. If you are disinvited from making comments on editor talk pages, you can {{Tiny ping}} them on your talk page. That's a good place, a superior place, the only place to say "don't make personal remarks". Adding your personal admonition about making personal remarks does not comport with talk page guidelines. You do not have a special privilege to make such remarks on RSNs (or on article talk pages) any more than I do. (Which is why I admonished myself.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds funky. I suggest, particularly on a board which already did have considerable incivility in the thread, you not thread too fine a needle with your remarks. It makes a strange kind of sense when you explain it but I doubt that I'm the only one who had no clue what you were trying to say. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you now say you "had no clue". I presume you now have a clue. Such being the case, hopefully, you won't add such personal remarks to the RSNs or article talk pages. But there is, perhaps, another aspect of WP about which you have no clue. Saying Andrew was making uncivil remarks by using the term "infantile" is the example I have in mind. Was his use of the term poorly worded? Perhaps. But you've seen and read worse. But complaining about such a minor transgression, especially when the transgression was mis-described as a metaphor, isn't worth the effort. – S. Rich (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're trying to say here or why, but I will not be reading this thread any further. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I only recently became aware that someone created a Misplaced Pages page on me. I was unaware of the conflict of interest policy and thought that I could add some updates and a picture or two. I now understand the policy and I simply will not edit the page. The one change that I would like to have made is a more recent (2013) photo of me in my 'retirement' uniform. I uploaded it to the Misplaced Pages commons under the URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Brigadier_General_Ronald_S.Mangum.pdf.

Thanks for letting me know about the policy - I previously contributed information to the SOCKOR page and the 85th Division page, but I sill simply stay off of the page about me.

Rmangum410Rmangum410 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, sir, you gave me a nice coin after a JCET and before we both retired – so your article is on my watchlist. The real problem with the pages is verification. What are the published reliable sources that we can use to support the info used? If you've got stuff that's pertinent to 'your' article, post it on the article talk page and ask to have it incorporated into the article. I or someone else will see it and respond. Same thing applies to SOCKOR and 85th. The Army Institute of Heraldry is a good reliable source that Misplaced Pages will accept. Re the image, the photo you mention doesn't show as an image. Feel free to ping me on-wiki or off with any questions or concerns. V/R. – S. Rich (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Re Richard Keech

Rich,

Please delete the entire article on my Dad. As it stands, it is an abomination, a travesty. Please just remove it and any reference to my Dad in any other article. Imagine if you had a Dad who gave up the remainder of his life to save a daughter and grandson ... no matter what the world thought. He is not merely a murderer. He is a savior.

(Steven Richard Keech (Son of Richard Keech) 18:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semperfi1919 (talk • contribs)

Steve, I have posted some remarks on the article talk page. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Richard Keech for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Keech is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Richard Keech until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Kusma (t·c) 19:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added Murder of Nicholas Candy to the deletion discussion. I made up my mind (a bit late) that the two articles should be discussed together. Could you take another look at the AfD? Thank you, —Kusma (t·c) 20:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have looked. My thoughts were that Richard's article would go first (without being merged) and then the murder article would go. As Steven seems 'content' to see the articles go, I don't think much controversy shall arise. Reading between the lines, the story of Richard was one of courage and determination, that went south with the murder late in his life. The irony of our criminal justice system is that people such as Richard rarely commit the crime again when family or friends are involved. But they get treated with the same "throw away the key" mentality that is applied to criminals who are genuinely evil people. I hope Steve can bring his energies to memorialize his dad to more fruitful and applicable websites. Perhaps he could write a book. – S. Rich (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

R. Mangum

I thought that the name sounded familiar. It's nice to know that someone still is watching my 'six,' virtually at least. I am surprised that the amount of information on the page - goes to show what the Internet will produce. Everything currently on the page is accurate - I am a stickler for accuracy and integrity - but until someone writes my biography - probably posthumously - I don't know where to find documented sources. Of course there is LinkedIn and Who's Who, but those are self created sources.

If you still have your coin, we should meet so that I can 'challenge' you. My normal email is rmangum410@aol.com. Rmangum410 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I still got it. See you at the Pritzker sometime perhaps. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

LewRockwell.com blog

The reason it's not RS for Hoppe, but is for Rothbard, is because Hoppe is a living person. See WP:SPS. Please strike those particular diffs, or at least provide my explanation. (WP:SPS covers Hoppe but not Rothbard.) Steeletrap (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Also, for HPR, please clarify in the summary that I removed it from the article because it's an undergraduate publication, whose pieces are both written and edited by undergraduates. (you made a fuss about an LRC article being written by a law student, so it's odd that this would draw your ire). The RSN on this is about evenly split, so it's hardly an indefensibly biased position. Steeletrap (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: HPR, the publication is presented by the Harvard Institute of Politics – not LRC's freewheeling blog. A vast difference, IMO. You are certainly welcome to make the comparison in the Arbcom discussion. Same holds true for Rothbard v. Hoppe. (E.g., make comments as you see fit.) I'm not sure about your concern re SPS. The restrictions about comments apply areas in which the blogger is not an expert. The restrictions about people apply to the dead too (when the blogger is not an expert), and are especially stringent about the quick. Thanks for your comment. My little red notification tag is lighting up so I suspect I'm getting more input about my evidence. I'll look at it and reply further. – S. Rich (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't get what's so complicated. I deleted LRC's blog from (and only from) the Hoppe article, because he's a living person. Using blogs to source facts about living people is categorically banned per WP:SPS. HPR was removed because it's an undergraduate journal. Undergraduate-edited poly sci/econ journals are not considered RS for those subjects (as opposed to college newspapers, which sometimes are considered RS for news).

Even if you disagree with my rationales, you are obliged to accurately present them. You not only failed to do that in the table, but on several occasions created fake rationales for my edits, which I never advanced. Steeletrap (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If you will specify, I shall address. But not until you and Specifico give a full listing and no sooner than tomorrow morning. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you misrepresented the arguments I made for various edits. I have pointed out that, in four of the 13 rows of your "article edits" table, you blatantly misrepresentat of my rationales for the edits you reference therein. You need to cross your misrepresentations and provide the actual rationales I gave for my edits. I discuss those rationales above, and they can also be found on the diffs you cite as well as the talk pages of the contested articles. Steeletrap (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Srich, the collegial gesture of coming to your talk page to point out the misrepresentations in your "evidence" gives you the opportunity to self-correct so that you do not go on the record at the end of the evidence phase with what appear to be battleground, wikilawyering, or outright bad faith submissions to the Committee. There's plenty of time in the Workshop period for editors to debunk and expose the flaws, but contrary to what you might think I do not believe that anybody wants to see things play out that way, to your detriment. It seems far preferable for you to clean up your work and move on with the process. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: The history surrounding that particular LR.com blog is complicated by two talk page threads and different revisions. I note that it remained in the article until January 15, at which point Clubintheclub removed it, followed by Specifico restoring it. But then you remove it. Followed by a restoration. My beef is about the rationale for removing and keeping it per the edit summaries. Frankly, it is not an acceptable source because the mention of MR is incidental ("and like the late Murray Rothbard (who, unlike Ron, was not a man of faith)"), whereas the blog itself involves BLPs and the two Reed articles that have nothing to do with MR. Insisting on adding this particular blog item is WP:QUESTIONABLE because it involves third parties (living & dead). The blog is simply LR's rumination about what must be MR's polemical questioning of those supporting evolution "dogma". Now if there is primary source material from MR that supports these doubts, then that material might be added.

Back to my beef – flatly stating that the blog is or is not RS does not constitute proper analysis of the blog. Insisting on adding it in order to imply that MR was anti-evolution in some sense is not an encyclopedic treatment of the blog or proper development of the article. If you were consistent in your analysis of the LRC blog, I'd have no beef. But, IMO, your distaste for the Mises crowd overcomes your better judgment. In any event, I shall continue to ruminate on your concerns. And I shall make needed corrections and clarifications. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I re-added the WSJ article without (what I clearly demonstrated was) previous OR. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=594321608 for WSJ.

Looking at the ban-happy history of past Arbcoms, I'm basically resigned to the fact that I'm very likely going to be banned. Don't care much, since this is a compulsive habit rather than a passion, and I know my contributions here (supported as they are by RS) will overwhelmingly be preserved even if I'm gone. But you should know that I've never been against adding positive RS to these articles. There just weren't many of them, which isn't surprising since they're fringe. Steeletrap (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresntation of "evidence" at Arbcom

Srich, I'm surprised to see that you would post a number of diffs and associated comments which misrepresent the events they purport to document. Just to give one example: When you persisted in posting on my talk page despite having been told not to do so, I took the civil and appropriate response of deleting your post without reading it. I see that you've listed that diff on the Arbcom evidence page with no indication of the context which would enable a reader to interpret my action or yours.

I suggest that you remove that and any other out of context or misleading diffs from your evidence posting. It would be best for all concerned, I think. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to explain why you did not read my posting on your talk page. E.g., supply all the context you feel is appropriate. (Any other concerns? I shall address, as appropriate.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You and I know why I did not read it. You are acting in disrespect of Arbcom and of WP process when you knowingly mislead others by misrepresenting these facts and circumstances. The community has a right to expect each of us to speak the truth in these proceedings. SPECIFICO talk 04:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's time for you to read it. You will then learn why I posted it. – S. Rich (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Misleading description of HPR

Srich, do you understand why it's misleading to present HPR only as "the official publication of HIP?" Given the scholarly reputation of HIP, it is easy to infer from this that it is a prestigious peer-reviewed journal, when in fact it is not peer-reviewed at all. Please note HIP's description of HPR as "a quarterly, nonpartisan political journal and dynamic online platform produced entirely by undergraduates. We welcome all Harvard College students regardless of concentration, experience, or political leaning." Steeletrap (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not making any representation that HPR is a peer reviewed publication. (Nor am I saying that it or HIP has any prestige.) Time magazine is simply a magazine, and we don't know if the writers have journalism degrees. It certainly isn't peer reviewed. So what? The point is that inferences which readers take from the mere title of the publication are the responsibility of the readers. (It is our responsibility as editors to use and present the sources in an objective and even-handed manner.) Even so, a publication does not have to be peer reviewed to make it RS. As I have mentioned several times, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Read it. The intro to that section advises us to look at the author, publication, and the work itself. Block's book wasn't some scholarly work that underwent scholarly review. It is a book that gained some popularity and influence. So it is worthwhile and informative to say "Hey, readers, undergrads at Harvard read and reviewed the book" and "Hey, readers, that Stossel guy on TV likes the book." Steele, IMO you misconstrue Mises.org as WP:FRINGE and you want to denigrate the people associated with Mises.org and sweep under the rug material that is positive. You also misconstrue my remarks and improperly characterize them as "misleading" and "distorting". – S. Rich (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)