Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPECIFICO (talk | contribs) at 20:50, 1 May 2013 (→Misplaced Pages:Civility). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Talkback bitcoin

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

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

I suggest you don't slander.

I am not edit-warring. I am following the sources. Uncited claims can be removed in good-faith. I reverted one of your sets of edits within a 24-hour period. That is far from edit-warring. --☥NEO (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No. The change from "over" to "approximately" is not an uncited claim. It is a more accurate statement that removes the unbounded and slightly promotional sense of "over." Once I reverted "over" the next step is Discuss. Please review WP:BRD then undo your reinstatement of "over" and then state your concerns on talk, per policy. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The real problem is what we are working with is not a true secondary source. The fight over accuracy stems from this: We are interpreting data subjectively and writing it in our own words. If the statement ever appears again and if the market recovers past $1 billion, I will be sure to cite a reliable article or news piece, and we will use their exact wording to refer to the value of the monetary base. Else, we will use the most prevalent terms that appear across all sources. --☥NEO (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That is absurd. You are going to scrutinize all sources minute by minute to determine what word to choose? This is not a "fight" and it has nothing to do with accuracy. "Over" is not accurate, as you well know. That is exactly why "approximately" is the robust operational approach. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Specifico

Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/Global_Economic_Map

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?

United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for the invitation, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to devote to this right now. Good luck with your project. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin

Sorry, that was my mistake. I should have checked the Talk Page first. I have reverted my edit. Cheers!  TOW  talk  20:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

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

Mises Institute

I am concerned that the pages of most( though not all) Mises Institute affiliate people, such as William L. Anderson, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella, Mark Thornton, Burton Blumert and Jesús Huerta de Soto, are only or overwhelmingly sourced by Mises Institute-affiliated publications (see: LewRockwell.com (the Mises chairman's website), the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.) That raises serious questions about notability. Moreover, (and I'm really not saying this to personally attack anybody, but just to make a factual point) it is telling that one person (DickClarkMises a former Mises Institute employee, who is currently working on a "Mises Wiki" project for the institute) says he has created or "substantially edited" the vast majority of pages for Mises Institute scholars. That certainly doesn't prove bias or bad intentions in and of itself, and he should certainly be given the benefit of the doubt regarding his aims, but I think it's difficult to maintain a NPOV when one is writing about one's colleagues and friends, so while his contributions shouldn't be negated, other (non-Mises affiliated) people should get involved. And at a more broad level, could you contact an editor to look at the Mises Institute pages to determine whether they are a Walled Garden and whether most of them should be merged into one (much more neutral) page? Steeletrap (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The heads-up on DickClarkMises is interesting. (I should've read the Kinsella AfD more carefully.) With his past employment in mind, I've posted a {{connected contributor}} template to the LvMI article and left a message on his talk page. (The next question, of posting the template on other pages, is one for discussion with Dick directly.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On Kinsella...

Saw your edits (obviously) - good clean-up, I think. We do generally allow one or two primary sources to verify non-controversial claims like where someone was born/grew up/went to school/etc. If there is a good (reasonably neutral) source with that sort of information, it might be worth including. No matter what you think of him or his gang*, the article is still a WP:BLP and we editors need to be conscious of that. Stalwart111 06:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*By the way, isn't "gang" a term normally reserved for governments with regard to fiat currency and the like? See, I'm reading and learning. Ha ha. Stalwart111 06:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with non-notable Misplaced Pages pages is that, if they exist, they (by definition) have to be sourced by primary or biased sources. Like Hoppe's "argumentation ethics" page, almost everything on the Kinsella page is sourced by Kinsella himself or his (mises institute) co-workers. Steeletrap (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Mises Institute Clean-Up

You previously expressed concern about many (most?) of the LvMI related articles, insofar as they appear to constitute a walled garden. Two articles I'm working on are Argumentation ethics and Lewrockwell.com (which were, prior to my edits, basically only all sourced by (overwhelmingly positive) OR or from Mises Institute fellows or publications). Could you take a look at those when you have a chance? Thanks! Steeletrap (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC) UPDATE - see also Stephan Kinsella. Steeletrap (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Will have a look. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto called it a cash system.

Just an FYI. He never called bitcoin anonymous either. --KyleLandas (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to improve. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

positive note

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring

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

ANI

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Civility

Hi SPECIFICO I have found your conduct with regards to the 3RR and PA issues to be quite uncivil and not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Nit-picking and throwing out warnings that almost attempt to intimidate a user is not acceptable (for example the ANI link above, warning that if a user doesn't admit their personal attack that you will pursue it). We are supposed to be a community, while we will all butt heads at some point, try to be a little more Civil. Mike (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mike. I don't know anything about you or what brought you to this page, however it is part of good civil conduct on WP to warn editors when they may have or may be anticipated to cross some line which would invoke administrative review. It's also common to urge another editor to self-correct whatever action has prompted the warning. My action was appropriate and civil and I feel that it is sometimes more effective to state a warning in words rather than post a warning template. A warning is not a threat and it is not intimidation. It is a courtesy which often obviates further disagreement or dispute. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)