User talk:Srich32977/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia commons under the URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

LvMI edits

I re-added the WSJ article without (what I clearly demonstrated was) previous OR. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

And I've noted your change in my evidence. Frankly, I'm considering a proposal that all of us (Specifico, CMDC, you, and I) be banned from editing on AE subjects for 3–6 months, along with an IBAN. Regarding the AE's, I recommend that you not get so upset over their "fringe" status. If they are fringe, their impact on policy, etc., will be minimal. But since they do have influence, they should get a proper, balanced, well-RS'd description. Seeking to denigrate them on WP for being heterodox, fringe, cultish, etc., is not proper. Also, I do not think they gravitated towards Duke and his ilk. Rather, because they are against big government, Duke et al gravitated towards them. But that is a subject for another debate, not the ArbCom. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Srich, what is your source for the claim that the Misesians are mainstream? I have shown you sources where Misesian scholars concede they are regarded as a "cult" and "dogmatic and unscientific" by the mainstream. I have shown you pro-Rothbard RS which note that he was ostracized by the mainstream and was not published in mainstream journals. I have shown you an RS source from one of the world's foremost peer-reviewed econ journal's that says the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics is "heterodox." It baffles me, given this overwhelming evidence, that you think only bias could lead me to think LvMI is fringe. Steeletrap (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Where do I say the Miseans are mainstream? Perhaps its a typo-. – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't. But from my understanding, 'fringe' and 'out of the mainstream' are more or less synonyms. (Note that a dissenting position can obviously still be in the mainstream.) Go to your local university and ask the social science department if they'd consider a thesis advanced with no empirical evidence publishable. I'm guessing they'd think you're joking by even asking the question. Steeletrap (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Misesians are virtually nonexistent in academia. In terms of government, they have the Pauls as popular exponents, but no actual policy changes to point to. (This is in contrast to Hayek, whose ideas (in the words of Matt Yglesias) "undergird everything from carbon taxes to wireless spectrum auctions and thoroughly permeate policy throughout the Western world." If Rand Paul wins the presidency, he will do what Reagan (who fetishized the gold standard and the thought of Mises before he was President) did and ignore the Misesians, because everyone of his advisers who has studied economics will say they're crazy. Can you imagine the President commissioning a month-long study on economics, in which no MIT number-crunchers would be involved, and would only consist of Thomas DiLorenzo being placed in a private cubicle in the White House, rented a room at the Ramada, fed fine cuisine, and told to "make deductions" (no calculator required). Steeletrap (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC}

(edit conflict) Whew! I glad I didn't say they are mainstream. Still, some of the difficulty comes from the soft-nature of economics. E.g., we have rock-hard sciences (such as geology), the softer sciences (see Hard and soft science), exact science, pseudoscience, fringe science, protoscience, junk science, etc. And there are the humanities (which includes philosophy and law and political theory). The Miseans certainly are not promoting themselves as hard science or exact science. And for all its number crunching, mainstream economics is more in the soft science field. The Miseans are in the softest, squishiest, most inexact/non-exact part of that field. Indeed, they are economists only to the extent they talk about the economy. They promote the subjective theory of value; and this makes it difficult to be scientific, because how does one measure subjectivity? In any event, the debate (mainstream—not-mainstream, therefore fringe!) does not lend itself to easy black-and-white distinctions. – S. Rich (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Rich, you very much misunderstand the subjective theory of value. That particular Austrian (not Misesian) insight is widely incorporated into mainstream models which invoke ordinal (as opposed to cardinal) utility. I daresay the subjective theory of value is the majority position, and even if it isn't, it's certainly mainstream. Subjective value can be measured scientifically in terms of 'rank' and 'order' style preference aggregations. Steeletrap (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, philosophy is not a science. Nor is political theory, to the extent that it invokes ethics. I don't think the "soft" "hard" distinction means what you think it means. Steeletrap (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Srich, if you are interested in this topic, you'd really do well to read some published sources on it. It is not the case that social science, such as economics, aspires to be "hard science", but fails and is not done well. The social sciences have, for at least 150 years, grappled with the factors which differentiate them from from physical science and have made progress in defining what qualifies as scientific method in the social sciences, given those characteristic factors. "Subjective" in the sense of "subjective theory of value" does not refer to "subjective" as in dreams, hallucinations, and other ethereal phenomena. No economist of any ilk, Austrian, Monetarist, Marshallian, or any other, has ever had reason to "measure subjectivity". The "subjective theory of value" is accepted today, in one form or another, by virtually every economist in the world today. It has nothing to do with "Austrian" "Mises Institute" or "Mainstream". I think you have picked up a few ideas and buzzwords from whatever source and then added to them a lot of your personal rather idiosyncratic interpretation and rumination. Some of that is quite incorrect. If you're interested in this topic, why not have a look at respected references. I've mentioned them to you in the past and they'll repay your effort if you choose to study them.

As long as I'm here, I'll add a personal note. Because of "real world responsibilities" which have arisen, I doubt I'll be able to post or discuss much at the Arbcom. So, very likely we're at the end of this brief encounter working together on WP. It's clear to me that, whatever the current mess, it's not due to you or me or Steeletrap, each of us working to improve the encyclopedia. What WP cannot manage is battleground behavior such as CMDC and Miles bring to the fore. Nobody has the time, interest, or ability to sort out the free-for-alls that result from the kind of personal bad blood that results from "discussing contributors not content" -- once editors begin personalizing their remarks, the system fails. After we worked so well together improving various articles, things really went down hill after we were joined by Carol and Miles. I recently read Steeletrap's post saying that she expects to be gone from the scene here after this Arbitration, and I may be gone as well. Given how critical you've been of Carol's various attacks and hostile behaviors in the past I wonder about the future environment for you on these articles. I haven't read all the threads at Arbcom or articles lately, but I have the casual impression that you accuse me and Steeletrap while ignoring Carol -- who presumably will emerge with no evidence having been presented to document her various behaviors. "Be careful what you wish for." Best of success and good health to you, Srich. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap: WRT your earlier second paragraph, I wouldn't stay up at night worrying (or hoping) about Paul winning the presidency. WRT STV, I understand the theory. Law school teaches contracts, and a contract needs a meeting of the minds. The law does not get into the subjective motivations behind the decisions to enter into a contract, but it does look to determine, objectively, if the meeting of minds exists. Case-by-case and contract-by-contract we can analyze the terms and apply the law and ignore the subjective aspects. But I think analysis of aggregated economic activity is more difficult and inexact. I certainly understand that STV is important in mainstream economic thought, and I bring it up because the Miseans like it. I see that Mises is one of the refs in the STV article. Perhaps harmony between the Miseans & mainstreamers can be achieved by providing refs on STV from the mainstreamers. (Looks like Specifico has commented here too. I'll take a look and continue these comments a bit later.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: & @SPECIFICO:: This is the first of two replies. I'm sorry that my reference to STV was so subtle. (E.g., you didn't see how easy it is to mis-state what STV is about.) So I ask you to consider – if economics is a science and if STV is important to economics, where is the evidence, the data, the science that pertains to STV? Moreover, if the scientific method is not being applied to STV, while it remains an important and accepted theory, what good is it? ("It" being STV and scientific method as applied to economics.) Or, put another way, if one un-empirically tested theory is generally accepted, why shouldn't other un-empirically tested (Misesan) theories be accepted? But there the article sits, important to the Austrians (SPECIFICO) & mainstreamers (Steeletrap) neglected by both of you. Same as with value (economics). Untouched. You could have taken your energies and expertise and applied your time on these basic articles, and built them (and many others) into good articles. Instead, you were more interested in disparaging LvMI & the Mises.org crowd. What good did it do you or the project? You wasted your time on poorly founded allegations of fringe and cult and right-wing and neo-confederate etc. How sad. Okay, that's enough for now. I'm going off for some exercise. I'll continue with part two later. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Part duck. This concerns your approach to the Arbcom. User:Situshi warned long ago that this was coming and said "start assembling your diffs." But we have no diffs from either of you. Steeletrap, I offered guidance about what the issues that the Arbcom is going to decide, but you are ignoring it. SPECIFICO, here you are making more complaints about Carol's battleground behavior, but you offer no evidence. (Sanctions from the Arbcom or an RFC/U or an editor review for her might be helpful, but that won't happen if no one suggests it.) Instead you have commented on various article talk pages about her personally, which is a transgression itself. Also, here you are commenting about MilesMoney. What was tragic was your (both of yours) involvement in encouraging and supporting MM both on-wiki and off. Again, how sad. Finally, I'll comment and object again about your denigration of me. You repeatedly made comments about how I misapplied or misinterpreted or misused or misquoted policy and guidance, but you never once pinned down any specifics. And you implied that all would come out when I applied for adminship (or at least that is what I felt you were implying). Sorry, you were thwarted in that regard because I've got lots of other things to do besides volunteer for admin duties. Still, I would have liked for you to have nominated me and said nice things like 'I'm stunned by his mastery' or 'he has been a saintly mentor' or 'S.Rich is indeed a wise one'. Such will not occur now – partly because my mastery of WP has disappeared, I never was a saint, no one benefitted from my mentoring, and the only truly wise one is the one who acknowledges that they are not wise. Yes, I went downhill considerably in the last 6 months. (But the downhills on the Spartan Races are the easiest.) Bye for now, SPECIFICO. I'm a bit sad because going through your diffs was difficult given the large number of positive ones that did not apply to the Arbcom. (Same goes for you, Steeletrap.) Much of you'alls contribution to WP has been worthwhile. SPECIFICO, I hope your personal real world responsibilities are not adverse. – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Noping?

closing a one entry thread which I don't think is useful on this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What does that mean? @Alanyst: Since in looking at several several diffs got confused on who "nopinged". Plus I can test Ping per below Oh... I got it. Don't use link to name to ping. Why don't they have an easy ping page on En.Wiki. Where's the tearing my hair out smiley?? FYI, [at "User Mention" Here I just learned that "this feature only works if the mention of your name is linked to your user page (with double bracket links ([[ ]]), not single brackets - though it would be good if both worked)". Tried that with Alanyst and didn't work. Must put it on my cheat sheet once get it working. So much code, so little time...Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

CMDC topic ban

I'd rather not have any further discussion here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will support a year-long topic ban for myself if User:Carolmooredc is permanently TBd as well. At times, I have exhibited a disrespectful attitude on these pages, and not always lived up to the NPOV standards to which I aspire (though I always tried to, and usually did -- and hence most of my edits will survive my absence on AE). I do not believe I should be TBd -- this is an attempt at bargaining. However, I acknowledge that my mistakes over the past several months call for at the very least some admonition. I maintain that my contribution has, all things considered, been a strongly positive one. But as these pages drift ever closer toward a neutral, mainstream RS-supported appraisal of the Misesians, their methodology, and their standing in academia, my importance to the AE project is diminished. CMDC's battleground behavior, her 'fellow traveler' status in the libertarian anarchist movement, her inadequate writing and editing ability (as shown by her constant mistakes -- which are illustrated by all the stricken text on every discussion she participates in) her inept understanding of policy, and inability to interact civilly with editors she disagrees with, pollutes the project. I'll voluntarily support a TB of a year if you support a permanent one for her. Steeletrap (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I don't know what the ArbCom might approve or impose. You certainly can propose such a remedy on the Workshop page. – S. Rich (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC) I may do that. Steeletrap (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hargeisa

seems like it would be better to revert rather than removing? Frietjes (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Thanks. I didn't realize an IP had slipped in an edit immediately after I had made a change. (And it seems you and I are in a state of edit conflict. I'll let you do the fixes.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Nations Memorial Cemetery

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article United Nations Memorial Cemetery you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you assist?

I noticed that you have been updating the Palm Springs Walk of Fame page. I recently contributed the article on local architect Hugh M. Kaptur who received his Star on the Walk of Fame on February 14th. Can you update the page? (I admire all that you do for Wikipedia. )

Bsimonis (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Bert

Will do. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

End of Temporary Banning from this page

talk page now open
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In alphabetical order: @Carolmooredc: & @SPECIFICO: & @Steeletrap: I can't get you to stop the sniping and less-than-WP:COLLABORATIVE commentary on the ArbCom, but you three are not to post anything on this talk page until I open it back up. Hopefully that will be soon. – S. Rich (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: @SPECIFICO: @Steeletrap: This talk page is now open for comments. – S. Rich (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Editor review#RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editor review#RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical?. As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editor review (2nd nomination) last year, you may be interested in the current RfC discussing closing and marking ER as historical. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Censorship

Enough, time has arrived where censorship is needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. It's really not appropriate to change @Darkness Shines: language on Hoppe talk, hiding the record for any editor who looks at it not knowing there's another version in the history. If any editor feels there is reason to expunge or alter those words, it should be done or (should have been done) by due process -- for example by enlisting Admin assistance or by prompt recourse to the appropriate Noticeboard -- not by hiding it from other editors. I suggest you revert the recent changes and if anyone cares about this it should be treated properly, either with strikethroughs or other means that will not mislead future readers. As I would hope that you realize, the link which ((ping|Carolmooredc}} used to justify her removal of the other editor's words, [1] does not apply to or justify her changes or yours. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Your comments are not well founded. While WP text is not censored, editor behavior-related text gets "censored" frequently. E.g., admins can completely remove grossly offensive material from text, talk pages, edit summaries. etc. You, yourself, have "censored" other editors' comments with the {{rpa}} template. Also, the record is not "hidden" in any sense. The edit history is there for anyone who wants to look. (What a rewarding activity that would be!) No one said anything for two months, so "proper treatment" of the closed thread is to leave it as is. Finally, I am glad you are looking at talk page guidelines. I opened the thread above because you are one of the culprits in abusing article improvement talk pages with the personal admonitions. You're welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC) SPECIFICO: Srich changing the wording was inappropriate. My {{RPA}} was appropriate. How many times have you used {{RPA}} on innocuous comments of mine that you didn't like and I or others reverted you? But someone starts using vulgar words in attacks on editors and it's fine with you??? Come off it. Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks#Removal_of_text. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [ec] Well, Srich, in the first place it was not a personal attack. Some editors might think that everything on WP is directed at themselves personally but that doesn't mean that any of it is in fact a "personal attack" -- the comment was clearly directed at the behavior of a mixed-gender group of editors. Second, for any such sensitive action as I stated above, it's best to get an Admin or at the very least an uninvolved editor to do the revision. Remember when CMDC posted the photo of half a dozen severed penises on her talk page? Nobody came in and deleted that. We just let sleeping dogs lie. It helps future readers get an objective view of editor behavior. At any rate, there's no reasonable interpretation of @Darkness Shines: words that would categorize them as a personal attack. If they were, just think about the many other anti-Semitic, profane, and other hate language that would need to be wiped from the talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC) I'm sure if he'd said "queers" - which a few of us probably could be described as - I'm sure SPECIFICO would be singing a very different tune. Should I test it somewhere??? ;-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

IBAN

@Carolmooredc: @SPECIFICO: @Steeletrap: It will be so refreshing when the ArbCom comes through and imposes an IBAN. At that point the project will be relieved of the incessant, insidious, and invasive comments on article talk pages that are focused at other editors rather than on article improvement. (Indeed, I will be glad if I am included as part of the IBAN.) In the meantime, why don't you guys ping each other on your own talk pages (like I have here) to make comments about editor behavior, competence, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope you are right. I am fed up with the harassment. Meanwhile Darkness Shines can call us all C**ts and saying fucking this and that and - I guess boys will be boys. YUK!!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Carolmooredc has banned me from her talk page -- not that it should be necessary to instruct a longtime editor on the Five Pillars. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

May 6, 2013 you banned me from yours. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the nasty comment when posted, but didn't do any pseudo-admin action on it. After all, doing so may have reflected badly on my forlorn quest for the exalted status of real adminship.

Instruction or advice or reminders to editors, long or short term, should not be done on article talk pages. I am not welcome on some editor talk pages, so pinging them here suffices when I wish to tell them something.

Steeletrap, I await and welcome your comments.

– S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So then I take it you all do have a problem with his comment after all? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. But it's only a small problem. And I have solved the problem by ignoring it. If he had used a crude term referring to male anatomy it would be a problem to. But probably an ignorable problem. Either way it is not worth making a fuss over with non-disputants. – S. Rich (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is double standard and harassment; that I'm harassed for the smallest comment that is merely inferred to be a personal attack, but other editors can get away with comments they could be blocked for (if it wasn't stale.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying I have a double standard or that I am harassing? (I don't think so.) Either way, what does that have to do with profanities? What do you want me to do? I posted this section so that involved editors would stop making personal comments on the article talk pages. Whether I am successful is problematic. But, please note, it is my small effort to stem the idiocy. And I'm hopeful that the ArbCom results will be broader and more effective. – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

IMHO taking these things to user talk pages over and over again just becomes more of a problem than it solves and article talk pages become better. Thus I have banned you from my talk page and you may feel free to ban me. In any case i'm unwatching your page so I don't see any more of the disruptive talk page threads you allow to flourish on your talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Advice seeking for a new wikipedia editor

Hello,

I wanted to know if I could pick your brain/speak to you in a chat capacity re: wikipedia and the (I feel) under-representation of the IT field in general. There are giants in the field that are not referenced directly because they don't appear in scholarly journals and the like. TThe IT long ago made the leap to blogs, online trade magazines, etc. Do you think this skews wikipedia content somewhat? What can be done about it (if anything). Also I had a couple topics I was going to submit for biographical content, but given the high bar of citation I am not really sold its worth the time you know?

Jeff Stokes (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

United Nations cemetery...

...is passed as a GA. Thanks for all your hard work on it! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! The critique you provided was invaluable. – S. Rich (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleting references and leaving unsourced information...?

Here [2], you deleted a reference but left the information that had been corroborated by that reference. If you believe the reference to be untrustworthy, why would you leave the information that reference introduced? Perhaps because the information is accurate and adds to the article? Why, then, is there anything wrong with the reference that introduced the information? And why are using a policy on external links to take away an inline reference? Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The best place(s) to discuss are the article talk pages (or your user page). Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have done that, at Rodney L. Davis. It baffles me that you prefer no reference at all to a reference you don't like. Why not find a reference you like better, or leave an imperfect reference and let others build on it? I don't see how leaving no reference at all is a service to readers. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: Often we have unreferenced info in articles. When we see such material, we look for acceptable references. Also, we "tag" materials and sentences as {{cn}} (citation needed). The tags get indexed and alert other editors to come over an find references. This process serves to build the encyclopedia with reliable sources. I suggest you take the sources that Ballotpedia has supplied and incorporate them into the Wikipedia articles. – S. Rich (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for United Nations Memorial Cemetery

The DYK project (nominate) 17:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United Nations Memorial Cemetery

The article United Nations Memorial Cemetery you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United Nations Memorial Cemetery for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the new information. I appreciate it. I had been under the impression that new stuff went on top. --TamsinSpencer (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

New Editor

I think this guy whom you recently welcomed could benefit from some of your mentoring: [3] SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Gary Ryerson Wiki Page

Hi Srich--

I just noticed that you made some edits to the additions I made to the Gary Ryerson Wikipedia page. I am not sure what you consider a reliable source, but I am his oldest daughter. I think the personal information I have about him is pretty reliable, considering I work with him in Real Estate at Century 21 Award and live just a few miles away from him. I would like to see the additions I made added back in to the page. Can you do this?

Thank you, 72.199.136.199 (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Holly Ryerson Hanson

We all are certain you are correct, but Wikipedia requires (basically) published sources for claims in any article. Did your local newspaper print any of this material? If it has (or will do so for you) then the process becomes simple. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Are those the Cookies of Doom that I've heard so much about?

Thanks for the welcome! Wikipedia and I have a casual relationship going back for some time, but I resisted tying the knot until fairly recently, being allergic to bickering and drama and all... I signed on mostly for the purpose of contributing to commons. If you have an interest in the photographic work of G. W. James, you may or may not already be aware of the large number of high-quality scans from the USC archive which recently landed in commons:Category:George Wharton James... what do you think re: a representative gallery to go with his bibliography? You know, for visually-oriented monkeys like myself. :D Junkyardsparkle (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sensible editors such as yourself do well to avoid the drama. Me, somehow I get sucked in.

Regarding the USC archives, I know they have many on Carl Eytel. (That is an article which I worked up to GA status.) If you could get some of those into the Commons, I be grateful. I'd love to add something that could get him promoted to Featured Article status. – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, commons:Category:Carl_Eytel now exists, and contains the few things that a commons search turned up (mostly him as a subject, and a few photos he took). I'll see what else I can find at the archive... he lived at just the right time for his works to be public domain now, which was very considerate of him... Junkyardsparkle (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so very much!! This image linking & public domain stuff is a bit too complicated for me. So I'm most happy that we've met. You've done me a great favor. Danke Schoen (or should I say, Danke Schooner), – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It's no joke, public domain in the U.S. is a giant can-o-worms, and I don't pretend to have any substantial insight into its depths whatsoever... fortunately, pretty much anything published prior to 1923 is fair game... beyond that, there be dragons. The USC digital archive only came up with this (let me know if any are of interest), but I'll see what I can find in the way of his works elsewhere. The beer showed up just as I was cracking open the first one for the evening, and the universe laughed. If you ever feel like creating a stub for Charles C. Pierce (after all, he did take at least one of the pictures of your pet visual artist) his ghost would probably relax a notch or two... I gather that he may have done some sketchy things regarding crediting other photographers in his collection, but holy !@#$ did he leave behind a treasure trove of early California images... --junkyardsparkle (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

(Added a few paintings with clearly visible pre-1923 dates to the commons cat...) --junkyardsparkle (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Pages related to the Austrian school of economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.
2. Steeletrap (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Steeletrap may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
3. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
4. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Carolmooredc may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
5. Editors who have not previously been involved in editing the articles at issue in this case are urged to review these articles to ensure that they are in compliance with the applicable policies and best practices, including neutrality and the policies governing biographical content.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Nonsense about "censorship"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
== Nice job on my talk page == Do you intend to fix it? I am inclined to just let it stay there as a monument to your competence level, even if it means I have to click on your censorship template to read about how you get to decide that it's okay for you to censor things even though you know parts of them aren't allowed to be censored, along with all my new talk page messages every time I want to read them. EllenCT (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC) I believe the problem can be fixed simply by adding tl| right after the {{ part of the template tag. Like so: {{tl|collapse top}}. It's how you "quote" a template instead of simply transcluding it. alanyst 23:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Added: I decided just to go ahead and fix it for the convenience of all. Best wishes, alanyst 23:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Thank you. Do you have a template prefix which will make Srich stop trying to prevent people from seeing what I write? EllenCT (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

RSN discussion

This thread may be of interest to you [4] SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoppe Talk Page

@Carolmooredc: I hope my recent edit to the talk page, adding the {{unsigned}} template has provided instruction on how to handle comments were editors have inadvertently forgotten to sign their posts. @Steeletrap: you too. @SPECIFICO: besides the lack of a signature, the spaces you had at the beginning of each line served to disrupt the layout of the material you added. The leading space causes some browsers to render the lines oddly. (Please use the preview button.) ALL OF YOU: what a petty issue to be reverting over. Specifico made mistakes with layout and a signature, Carolmoore improperly posted a bracketed [[please sign]] note, and Steeletrap refactors another editor's comment and declares the edit was "inappropriate". I'm thinking some administrator should apply some blocks until the ArbCom is decided. Jeez! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs)

Silly silly! Good morning. It's me, SPECIFICO. I used the text box to highlight the primary source text and facilitate discussion on the talk page. That's how these boxes are used on talk pages. Did you really think I inserted five successive leading blank spaces by accident? Silly. If there's some policy-based reason for your ruminations, please do provide links or quotes so that your peers can learn from your pique. I guess you don't like boxes. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's silly. Mainly I'm chiding Carol & Steeletrap. For you, Specifico, you may not realize that your formatting did not create a box on Chrome or Safari. (E.g., the successive line breaks did not occur and the several lines just go on off the right side of the page.) If you want to create a box, try something like this:

Do it right. Also, read WP:TPO, which allows for fixes to formatting errors. Or you can use a quote template, or just indent the material. But putting the quote into a box can be seen as WP:SHOUTING. – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC) That can be seen as a WP:WEASEL. Live and learn. On my Chrome it's fine. Possibly you should reinstall your browser(s). Thanks for the explanation. 03:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Statue of Liberty image I re-opened that discussion as the consensus is currently to move the image but not to remove it. Since this seems to be contentious at this point with your closing it and my re-opening it, I figure we should get more input. But please review that again to see what I mean. There are four !votes with detailed explanations as to why it should be moved and the fifth !vote agrees with two of the other editors but does not state whether to move it or not, just "keep". In their explanation they do not actually disagree that it should be moved just that it remain on the article.--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I did close the culture image discussion regarding the Times Square image as a snowballs chance however.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC) I've got no beef with the reopen of SoL, but just where should it go? I don't see agreement on any particular location. My larger concern with the thread is the length and the prospects of if remaining so long, especially without auto-archiving. But since we now have some closed sub-sections, I recommend moving them out of the main thread so that they can be archived. As closed subsections, they are loosing relevance to the open subsections. – S. Rich (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)