User talk:Srich32977/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

EDMC (if you have time)

Hi, S. Rich! Thank you so much for coming back to update the article with the last draft. Also, thanks for clueing me in to the new "Thanks" button! So many recent changes on-wiki that I'd missed that one; I definitely plan to make use of it in the future. Meanwhile, I've done as I said I would yesterday, and I've posted a new proposed section to the Talk page, called Corporate affairs. It's quite short and straightforward. If you have the time, I'd be very grateful if you would give it a look! Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! Very close to being done now; I'll have the new proposed intro to share in the next day or few. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

no-Extra italics for Maxie

Seems, that page formatted properly. Please, check Maxie's page. Thanks. --Vanquisher (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Childrens Rights Deletion at Rothbard

Greetings Srich. Rather than peremptory deletions of valid RS text, it would be much more constructive for you to add additional content to broaden the meaning and context of the sourced text. Repeated removal of sourced text, particularly when supported with undocumented objections or loosely applied references to dubious applications of policy, are likely to impede progress on this article. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Given Rich's fine track record as an editor, I think User:SPECIFICO is assuming there is something to your concern. There is not; your concern is completely erroneous.

Nowhere in the the text does Rothbard state that the right to starve children only applies in cases of euthanasia; the "footnote" regarding euthanasia does not say anything like this, but merely refers us to a work by a philosopher sketching the difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia; the footnote does not endorse or reject either AE or PE, it simply seeks to refer the reader to a work draw a conceptual distinction. (If we're going to go OR, I will say it seems crystal-clear to me that, applying Rothbard's dogmatic "non-aggression principle", Murray would believe letting an unwanted child starve to death is "passive euthanasia" on the part of the "property owner" parents, and would endorse the moral view that however "unfortunate" the starvation may be, it should be legal.)

Please accede to my view or produce evidence indicating that Rothbard believes that it should be illegal to let one's children starve in cases apart from euthanasia. Steeletrap (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Why I "omitted" the footnotes

Contrary to your PA statements alleging bad faith motives on my part, my "omission" stemmed from my quoting a reproduction of Rothbard's remark from the Politics, Philosophy and Economics RS, which omitted the footnotes. In their scholarly judgment, the footnotes were not important enough to keep, presumably because they have only tangential importance to the issue at hand. You should just add the silly things though, if only to allow us to move on from this nonsense. Steeletrap (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Presently have other pots to stir. Will reply later. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

VERIFICATION is a core content policy of WP. Including the footnotes, or making note of their omission, is vital in carrying out our duties as volunteer editors. The Primary Source had footnotes and it was both fast & easy to verify their existence. Given the extraordinary claims involved, careful editing called for a look-see at the original, even if the Secondary Source had provided a quote. It turns out that the secondary source omitted the footnotes, gave a partial quote, and did not give any evaluation as to what the remarks about euthanasia were about. I would have hoped that you'd do a more nuanced evaluation of the secondary source at that point. And I was disappointed (but not surprised) that you did not. So now – why are you removing the footnotes? Do they contradict your evaluation as to what Rothbard is advocating? I don't want to white-wash what MR has said. At the same time we are not here to black-wash him either. And I will not "accede to [your] view". – S. Rich (talk)

Srich, you seem prone to forget, you are among peers here. You have no standing to lecture editor Steeletrap or to impugn her good faith. Stating your incivility in the guise of a question does not mitigate the disruption caused by such insinuations. Please strike your disparaging remarks about editor Steeletrap and do not disparage her further. SPECIFICO talk 04:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

First Rich: Please insert the footnotes. If your argument is sound, the appearance of the footnotes will immediately discredit the misleading RS. Do it now! It will take much less time than you've spent making personal attacks and fallacious arguments (see below for an e.g.) on behalf of your view.

Secondly, in spite of your continued ad hominem remarks about my alleged bias, please remember that the only person who has advocated Wikipedia adopt her or his personal "interpretation" of Rothbard's remarks is you. "My" interpretation comes from an article published in an independent, mainstream, highly-regarded peer-reviewed journal; this interpretation states that Rothbard broadly supports the "right" to let one's child starve to death/die by various "passive" means, rather than merely supporting this in the rare case of child euthanasia.

You are trying to override this interpretation with your own fallacious OR argument. And sorry: the "argument" that the footnotes (which don't even indicate Rothbard's positions, and indeed contain no value judgments whatsoever) somehow prove that Rothbard only supports letting the kids die in the context of euthanasia is overflowing with fallacies and unwarranted assumptions. (e.g. the completely baseless assumption that since, in the context of his views on letting the kids die, Rothbard references euthanasia with a footnote, he must have "only" been talking about child euthanasia in the passage. How exactly is this entailed by the passage? Why is it not possible that, by mentioning euthanasia, Rothbard was simply alluding to one (not the "only") example of a case where his theory applied? Might it also be possible that he is using the word in a sense different from the colloquial one? (i.e. one compatible with all instances of allowing one's children to die?) Steeletrap (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion on Rick Rescorla

Hi. An editorial dispute has arisen on the Rick Rescorla article. Can you offer your opinion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Help me

Hello my friend Username Mohsen trying sabotage this page Kaleh Mazandaran VC is Name Original club Kalleh Mazandaran VC is Please moved Kalleh . tnxIr92 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Refrence

• kalleh
• [1]Ir92 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I put a message on your talk page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Final EDMC request

Hi there, S.Rich. I've posted that final request on the EDMC page, which I'd mentioned previously. If you have time to take a look at it, please do (you can see it here). If you're busy elsewhere, I understand and appreciate the help you've given me so far. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Good news! This has been  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning U.S.D.S prisoner

Srich32977 Many reliable sources are there, including his attorney, and it is documented on Manning wiki page. If you want to stick to fantasy and not facts on trial site, leave this info out.Patroit22 (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Discharge

Hi Rich! Thought I'd drop you a note after I saw the Manning thread and posted this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Your info on AR 190-47 is spot on. But do we dare add it in? I think not. One, there is the OR aspect. Two, it will be OBE once the post-trial proceedings are resolved. For the time being the gender issue will be the blackhole of bytes in the article talk page. The technical stuff about the case going to ACCA etc will be lost in the meantime. My guess is that all aspects of the trial & sentence will be approved. In the meantime the news commentators are talking about Manning's residence at FLKS. They do not realize FL has two military prisons. The USDB is for the real bad guys and/or ones with long terms. But Manning is not a likely escape risk, so the JRCF may be the best place to reside. There there'd be less risk of Manning suffering additional punishment from other prisoners. (The JRCF folks want to just get along and get out.) For practical purposes, though, Manning is a "former" soldier and people who are upset about his actions, confinement, sentencing, heroism, etc., may be satisfied with that description. Next, will Manning get hormones? Not likely. Indeed, what a mess that would be! Such hormones have all sorts of side effects, and a lot of them are psychological. Alas, if Manning had joined the medics upon enlistment these problems would not have occurred. – S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with everything above. What a mess! Interestingly though, there are some federal court rulings on the issue of inmates wanting hormone therapy, with more than one inmate successfully getting federal prison policies changed after a court ruled that denial of the care was unconstitutional. In May 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons sent a memo to it's wardens outlining a new policy that all inmates seeking hormone therapy receive an evaluation. Since USDB and JRCF fall under the DOD instead of the BOP, that policy doesn't apply to where Manning's going, but Manning's lawyer is obviously intending to model a federal suit against the DOD after the other successful challenges. On Manning's choice of MOS, I'll always loathe the fact that he went 35F instead of 68W. I guess his ASVAB score was just too high. It's truly a shame, as everyone including Manning (except Wikileaks maybe) would be much happier today. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Coombs is a military criminal defense guy. And I admire him for that. But this stuff about a civil suit to require hormone treatments is a lot of malarky. The Constitution says Congress shall establish the rules for the military. If Manning is unhappy about not getting sex change treatments, UCMJ Art. 138 is available, and will be a required COA before filing a civilian case. In any event, what a precedent such a court ruling (requiring a sex change) would cause! People could sign up and then demand the procedures. How would such stuff enhance the defense of the nation? Or what about this scenario: Manning gets a sex change because of the status of prison confinement, based on the civilian case. Would it be fair to give sex change treatments to military personnel in prison, but deny the procedures to those not in prison? Or would the military be required to provide sex change procedures for family members? The availability of such benefits might be a great recruiting tool, but as USMC General Zinni said "Once you receive your mission, you've got to ask 'And then what?'!" – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Roger that, what a fun can of worms to open up! Hopefully this will stay in the realm of drug treatments and the fight over whether or not they should be allowed, without progressing to litigation over surgery while in prison which is pretty ridiculous. I wonder if the case will get simpler for Coombs after Manning is legally discharged from the military while still incarcerated with time left to serve. At that point, Manning isn't a soldier and sort of more like a federal inmate who happens to be in a military prison. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich-These are interesting observations but are speculation. You appear to be versed in Army procedures. Wikipedia needs factual information . Manning has a mailing address : Bradley E. Manning 89288 1300 N Warehouse Rd Ft Leavenworth, KS 66027-2304 Perhaps he or Coombs will issue a statement on current confinement protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patroit22 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Opps I must have failed to input four symbols. Sorry.Patroit22 (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that address is for the JRCF. What is the source of your info? – S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich -Sir, I believe you are wrong . That is prisoner mailing address for maximum security USDB . The JRCF address is 830 Sabula Rd, Ft. Leavenworth,KS 6-027-2315 and Manning number there before sentencing to 35 years was one digit different. Where did you get your erroneous information?Patroit22 (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, sir, you are so right! My Google Map eye-balling was wrong. The Wikipedia question is what is the source of info for Manning's mailing address? Once we have that, we have WP:V and can add to the article. – S. Rich (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC) And the laugh is on me even more considering that my first eyeball on Google Map actually shows the PX! 02:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I do not disclose sources on this. When the main stream liberal media prints where he is housed, you can add it to Wikipedia if you desire,Patroit22 (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

BUT, here's an address for USDB FOIA requests: 1301 N. Warehouse. [2] – S. Rich (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I know FOIA from its beginning. It takes weeks and sometimes years to use that route.Patroit22 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Egad! I'm not suggesting that anyone do a FOIA request. That gets into the area of WP:OR. We just need a secondary source for citation purposes. I pointed out the 1301 address because it is slightly different than the 1300 address. This is just part of the fun of figuring out what parts of the puzzle go where. Sometimes we find stuff that is out-and-out-right wrong, even in the WP:RS we look at. We are constantly seeking to verify stuff. Looking again at Google Maps, I see Warehouse Rd extending past the airfield. Then it intersects with Sabalu Rd. As it's been a few years since I was there, I can't remember what facility is what. The new facility was under construction then. It's possible that one mailing address services both facilities. So let's do some more digging. Sooner or later we'll find out where Manning is going to reside. My guess is JRCF. But that's just a guess. – S. Rich (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No it is not possible that JRCF and USDB have the same mailing address. USDB mail address is Warehouse Rd and JRCF mail address is Sabalu Rd. Both have official web sites that give those addresses for prisoner mail. Manning is now at USDB. I do not know where he will end up given the current politics but his sentence is for more than 10 years and he is a high risk prisoner which suggests USDS with proper control for personal safety to extent possible. Patroit22 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Copy on the Sabalu Rd mailing address. This story will be in the news for a few more days/weeks, so we'll find out. Thanks for clarifying the mailing address stuff for me. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal opinion

SRich My good faith edit to this article is based on New York Times publications in the referenced web site as to the destination between leaks of legally classified U.S. intelligence and whistle blowing of improper U.S. actions. I assume that you are acting in good faith and not following my edits due to past differences.Patroit22 (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually the "reference" to the NYT stories is not an acceptable source. And I have removed it IAW WP:ELNO #9. The second problem (with they NYT search result) is that references "should directly support the information as it is presented in an article." WP:RS. So, even if one or more of the NYT stories used the term traitor, we do not have direct support for that description. Third problem is the definition of traitor. Legally it is waging war against one's own country. Since Assange is Swedish or Australian, we do not see him waging war against anyone and cannot properly describe him as a traitor.

In any event I apologize for mistaking your edit as motivated by POV and I will strikeout the message left on your talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

SRich Thanks for apology. Now that NYT source is deleted, there is no direct support cited that Wikileaks publishes whistleblower information. Should you delete that? Th term traitor referred to sources and not Assange.Patroit22 (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair question, but a bit tougher to answer. Information published by WikiLeaks gives us a blow-by-blow description of what WikiLeaks has put out. Did they get the info from whistleblowers? If so, the WP:LEDE in the Assange article is correct when it says he got stuff from whistleblowers. Assange article does have RS that describes WikiLeaks as a website for whistleblowers/whistleblowing website. (See footnotes 68, 82, 122 & 160.) So that tidbit of info in the lede is proper. Could it use a citation right there to support it? Yes. But I'm not inclined to do that bit of work. – S. Rich (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikileaks self reporting on what they do is not objective and credible. CiaoPatroit22 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But the footnotes I referred to are not WL self-reporting sources. When we see stuff in WP:RS like various newspapers we accept it as "reliable" because the source, the newspaper, is designated as reliable. – S. Rich (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC

Hi, thank you for the advice on the RFC. The main problem is that everyone is letting their emotions rule instead of reason. That's why I never commented in the discussions or think they're constructive. If they weren't yelling at each other, I wouldn't have to have raised these points. While this will make a lot of arguments, it will benefit the community in the end by making a new precedent. If it was a few people, I would gladly give warnings. However, 50+ people is too large for me to track down. Again, thank you for the commentary. --Thebirdlover (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hatting some of the purely bickering/PA portions might help. Even though you are an non-involved editor, such efforts might be herding cats. I think the real (and only) cure will be time. – S. Rich (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with WMSCOG page

Hello, I am writing regarding some edits on the World Mission Society Church of God page. It looks like a potential edit war and I saw that you had given a 3rd opinion on the page's talk page. It seems there are 2 completely different versions of the page, and that someone, who was not signed in, made drastic changes to the page that do not agree with wiki's NPOV policy. The page formerly was objective and provided history from both the church's website as well as 3rd party sources. However, the page was changed and added history that is completely contrary to these verifiable sources to try to make up negative, untrue claims and digging for negative information from opinionated, subjective articles. One neutral article is from a major magazine in Korea which lists the church history (see here: http://monthly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?nNewsNumb=200903100002&ctcd=&cpage=1 & translate). If you could please provide your assistance in this matter I would greatly appreciate your help and experience. Thank you! Watts9595 (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Watts. I've left a welcome message on your talk page. It has a lot of links that explain WP editing procedures and policies. As for your request to review the WMSCOG page, I think I'll pass. I've got some other pots on the stove at the moment. I suggest you post a request on the WP:3O project page. – S. Rich (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi, thankyou very much for your kind and constructive feedback regarding my edits to the Nidal Malik Hasan article. It's very rare to get in touch with another Wikipedian. I was born in Malaysia and lived there for twelve years before migrating to New Zealand, which is now my home. Now, I am interested in the Nidal Hasan article because I felt that not many other editors were paying that much attention to the ongoing trial and sentencing. I wanted to provide a balanced and neutral account of the Hasan trial based on news reports from Google News. Besides that topic, I also have an interest in editing articles related to Malaysian and New Zealand topics, particularly those relating to history and government institutions.

I have also edited for about nine years at Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki. I divide my time between those two places. It's a pleasure to get to know you even though we live on the opposite sides of the Pacific Ocean. I also read through your user page and see you have served in the US Army and are experienced in law as well. Thankyou very much for taking the time to help a fellow user like me. Best regards. Andykatib 05:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.90.142 (talk)

Andy, you are a young Asian/Oceania guy and I'm an old American/European guy. But the internet and Wikipedia have created a miracle whereby two guys from across the Pacific can work together on a project (WP) that impacts the world in a most positive (at least hopefully positive) manner! I am thrilled that you took the time to respond to my message. Best regards, and thank you for your thoughtful comments. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks very much, glad to hear from you very quickly. Sorry, I forgot to log in just now. That was my IP address. As a university student, I know that a lot of students in my generation would turn to the Internet when they do research. Since it's not advisable to cite Wikipedia, it's good that users like us add references in order to point them out to other reliable primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is useful because it serves as a medium for people to locate sources for their research. Best regards and thanks for your time. - Andykatib 05:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Weird

I can't remember removing that content.I must have been tired.Anyway my intention was probably to change no to No with a capital N.--Killuminator (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps so. What I thought was you had seen the infobox without the Alexa data (in the read state) and thought it was not worth keeping because it did not appear. All is well with the world and Wikipedia. Thanks for the comment. – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

gladwell article link

https://www.byliner.com/malcolm-gladwell/stories/blowing-up

it is a profile on taleb from 1996

another link to same article http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/04/22/020422fa_fact_gladwell

Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

byliner only gives us a partial view of the story. Feel free to improve the article by adding the New Yorker link! – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Economic Value of a Law Degree

Placing the Economic Value of a Law Degree article front and center in the "Law School in the United States" article appears to give undue weight to the article. I definitely think it should be included, but I disagree that it should be cited in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berknyc81 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Move the section lower in the article. But removing the sourced material as you did is not the way to improve the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all of the people you are signing up for IBR need to know that they are signing up for an indenture. As Congress proved in 2005, there is no assurance that the educational loan contract they sign today cannot be modified to their detriment in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berknyc81 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. I am not signing up anybody for anything. Please explain. – S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Friedrich Hayek

I was going to mention the Guggenheim Fellowship to you, but you seem to have beaten me to it. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

Hi, Srich.

Whoever is editing the 'Objectivism (Ayn Rand)' page to read 'an amateur philosophy' is definitely engaging in an act of vandalism. 'Amateur' has two meanings, one being a statement of fact, the other an opinion. In the first, an amateur is someone who does an activity as a pastime, rather than for money. Ayn Rand was definitely a professional rather than an amateur. She wrote articles and books on philosophy for money. An encyclopedia deals with facts. One can subscribe to the view that Rand was an amateur in the second sense, 'amateur' meaning lacking the skills of a professional, i.e. 'amateurish'. But, that is an opinion. An encyclopedia does not present an opinion as a fact. If the vandal wishes to cite any such criticism from reputable sources, he should be free to do so in the appropriate section of the article. But, he should not use weasel words.

Renren. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renren8123 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Renren8123, there are two issues involved. One is the back and forth edit warring on those article pages. I requested page protection to stop the EW, and it was granted. If I see more of this edit warring, I will post advisories on the editor talk pages. (As I have in the past.) The second issue is about "vandalism". Wikipedia uses the term vandalism with a very specific meaning. There is discussion about using "amateur" in the Ayn Rand and Objectivism articles. Those discussions are open for everyone to read and contribute to. But using "vandalism" (or "vandal") to describe good faith edits is uncivil and does not assume good faith. This applies to talk pages and to edit summaries. Please do not use the term except when reverting edits which are clearly vandalism, and not merely part of the slow moving discussion/edit war about "amateur". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ayn Rand

Srich32977, I'm not going to revert you, but I would be grateful if in future you didn't do things like this, on the Ayn Rand talk page. It may be undiplomatic to point out that someone is editing incompetently or making incompetent suggestions, but it's not a personal attack. It would have been a personal attack if I had simply said "You are an incompetent", but I didn't do that. There is altogether too much prissy over-sensitivity regarding this kind of issue on Wikipedia. By the way, when and if you do make a bid to become an administrator, you can expect me to oppose it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As you objected I was about to restore the material. But looks like you've removed the template. That's fine, in fact, it's good. The difficulty was in saying "incompetent". Comments themselves are not incompetent, they get posted by incompetent editors. The comment "Your comments are an example of what I mean by incompetent editing" directly challenges the editor's competence. The discussions on Ayn Rand get pretty heated, so I've sought to temper them. Alas, I've rushed into to an area where angels fear to tread. Your admonition is well taken and I shall be more cautious. – S. Rich (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Lake Cahuilla

Per WP:ALSO, "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Like Lake Cahuilla, Tulare Lake was an enormous lake in California. Both lakes were important to the indigenous peoples inhabiting the regions and both lakes went dry after European contact. That seems to me at least "tangentially related." --50.46.245.232 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Add it back with a note about how it is related in this regard. But without a note Tulare is no more related than Mono, Tahoe, or other natural lakes. We do not want See also sections for lakes that go on and on listing lakes. (And thanks for the lake infobox.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure where to add this information. "By the way, there was another huge lake in California also named after a local tribe that suffered a similar fate!" seems a little out of place. If I can think of something, I'll add it back in.--50.46.245.232 (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL. When you decide, you add Tulare back into the SA section – ({{spaced ndash}}) it and give a brief description. (And you want L Tulare to be a worthwhile article to link to.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ramona High School

Dear S. Rich, thank you for correcting me and pointing out "conflict of interest" policy regarding contributions to the Wikipedia. I agree with your reasoning, and respectfully concur with my article being deleted. Markharbour (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Markharbour

You're most welcome. If you've never been overseas before, I'm sure you'll find the trip to be a great adventure! – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap's comment section

User:Steeletrap – rather than add comments to article talk pages and user talk pages about me, which do not relate to article improvement or other users, please add your comments here, in this particular section. I think (and hope) doing so will help keep discussions focused on the articles. I will respond as I consider appropriate.

The area below the line is reserved for your comments. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Starting things off, here is a comment (and my reply) [3]:

"Miles is a noob, so WP:Bite applies, Srich. We all should try to be more civil, but the WP:Competence problems generally characterizing these libertarian articles (note that I'm not speaking specifically to the situation in which Miles invoked that term, which I haven't read) is enough to make anyone lose her temper.

"From personal experience, I also have to say that I consider your (Rich's) "mentoring" to basically equate to WP:Hounding. Steeletrap (talk) [Timestamp omitted]"

Reply: Let's review what I have done WRT MilesMoney: 1. I post a discussion notice about Gary North. 2. I say "don't get discouraged" and post a service award. 3. I leave a paragraph explaining the RSN & need for RS. 4. I upgrade the service award and 4a. leave a template message about EW and I add comments about tagging edits as vandalism. In response MilesMoney removes my message about EW/vandalism with the comment "bs". 5. I in turn (tit-for-tat) revert my upgrade of the service award. And then 6. I leave a message about WP:THREATEN and specify what are offending remarks. (These are not the only inappropriate remarks in MilesMoney's edit history). MilesMoney responds and implies that I am not competent. So were my remarks in July WikiHounding? Were my comments about EW and vandalism tags and MilesMoney's threats uncivil? – S. Rich (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL Srich. Stalkers always start off with the "friendly" words.. Time to chill. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Rich, I again question your comprehension of policy. WP:INTIM does not refer to simply "uncivil" comments, but to threats. If Miles were to threaten to block/report to ANI another user based on erroneous claims (something you're fond of doing with your "template-bombs"), or for that matter threaten to murder or kidnap another user, that would constitute a threat. But Miles did nothing of the sort.

I think you need to try to unwind for a bit. Your stress levels are very high right now, and it has me worried. Steeletrap (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich is fortunate to have the gentle touch of a woman here, urging calm. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Steele, MilesMoney had made a series of explicit "threat" type remarks in the past, not just today. (And as you have often commented, uncivil remarks are often not appropriate.) I choose to post only the diffs from today, with hopes that MilesMoney would look at the guidance and take a different approach to talkpage commentary. Your comments -- which were actually digs at me -- only served to encourage MilesMoney's undiplomatic commentary, which I still hope is at an end. – S. Rich (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a personal attack on my and an accusation that I slyly posted in bad faith with intention to dig you, whatever that means. Do not interact with me until you are able to do so in full accord with WP core principles and policies. If you are unable to control yourself, I will seek community support. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

?? What is a personal attack on whom?? Steepletrap says I don't comprehend policy and I was replying to Steele. – S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, it looks like you thought I was replying to you. Your remark was unsigned. In any event, I will post remarks on this talk page (preferably in the section above) whenever you make comments about me. If you don't want interaction, don't mention me in commentary or make personal comments in reply to other comments I make on article talk pages or other user talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Bleeding Heart Libertarians

This website is a forum for academic discourse among libertarians, most of whom are tenured university professors (see: here for a list of contributors). Exactly how is this a non-RS while the LewRockwell.com blog (which unlikE BHL publishes creationist/AIDS denialist/911 truth nonsense) is one? Steeletrap (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting here. No matter how you look at it, BHL is a WP:BLOG (and is not a news blog), and the guidance is clear: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." As the blog post refers to third parties, living third parties, we cannot use it. BTW: You posted the BHL piece Boldly, I went and Reverted it, and so the next phase is to Discuss it on the talk page. I am going to re-revet so that you can open a discussion if you desire. – S. Rich (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia rule says that blogs cannot be used as reliable sources? WP:Blogs refers specifically to self-published sources; it does not cover every website that uses the word "blog" to describe itself. A source published and reviewed by dozens of academics is not self-published. Steeletrap (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So as to avoid being accused of mis-quoting policy, here it is verbatim: "...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. [emphasis added]" Even if composed of academics, BHL appears to be a group blog. (Also, it may qualify as unacceptable BLOG material under the other criteria.) Accordingly, no matter how distinguished the contributors seem to be, it is "largely not acceptable". Even so, where are there academic reviews, let alone academic peer-reviews, of BHL? And since the blog mentions BLPs, the greatest care must be used. Since the blog involves living people, the WP:BURDEN is on you to show why we should include it. You might post something on the WP:RSN and ask. Perhaps it has already been discussed. – S. Rich (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you're edit warring again. Please read the policy.

It doesn't matter that you believe the "wrong version" resides in the article text during discussion of your dispute. Do the Right Thing and undo your removal while you attempt to convert other editors to your erroneous assertion that policy forbids this source. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What policy, Specifico, what policy? If the page has a BLP issue, then the offending material has to go as a matter of WP:BLP policy and it's best to keep it off the page until the issue is resolved. And since the BHL posting involved living people the policy says: "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Maybe you mean EW? Well, the bold face policy which I've quoted is pretty clear. And 3RR has an exception for BLP issues -- see WP:NOT3RR. What policy do you want me to follow (or quote)? Steeletrap has done the right thing by opening a discussion, which I suggested above IAW BRD. Edit warring "again"? Please feel free to post my "EW" on the notice board. – S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what page this is about, but one general comment: The exclusion of blogs as sources for BLP material refers to material that is used in the article. If the blog is being cited for something in the article that is not about a living person, and there just happens to be other material about living people somewhere in the blog, then I would expect the normal WP:SPS standards to apply. Those standards aren't exactly pro-blog, but they aren't as strict as the BLP rules and definitely don't provide a 3RR exception. So, as I said, I don't know what content is in dispute here, but be careful with the distinction. If the disputed claim in the article is about a living person, then leave it out by default until the issue is resolved; removing disputed BLP claims is not a 3RR violation. If the claim in the article is something else, follow the normal 3RR guideline. --RL0919 (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are the diffs: [4]. – S. Rich (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on that content, I doubt that an uninvolved administrator would consider removing it a 3RR exception. The in-article content is a claim about an organization, not an individual, so per WP:BLPGROUP it wouldn't get the same treatment. So my advice is to proceed as if this were a normal, non-BLP dispute. (Please note that I am an administrator, but I am involved in disputes with some of the people in this discussion, so this is just my opinion as an editor, not any sort of "ruling" or "warning".) --RL0919 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

We did not get close to 3RR – a discussion was opened. I requested that we open BRD with the 2nd revert. And Steeletrap did so. Here and on the article talk page. Specifico's comments, as far as I can tell, are directed towards me. I'm glad to see them here, rather than on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't raise a straw man (3RR is solely your statement). Your behavior is EW reinsertion based on your false assertion of BLP and later of half a dozen other inapplicable policies and if you wish to proceed with a good faith discussion, you would do well to reverse yourself. Jockeying to ensure that "your" version stands prior to discussion is unfortunate. Up to you. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If no one is pushing 3RR and the policy issue is clarified, then I disclaim all further interest in this dispute and hope everyone strives for a productive collaboration. WP:TPW, over and out. --RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For User:SPECIFICO, I await an answer to this question: [5]. With your answer, the discussion can proceed. If you say "yes", then I will pose the next question. If you say no, then I will ask what sort of source BHL is. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Murray & Gary

I notice you are in "doubt" about whether Rothbard influenced North.

These two men were not only intellectual fellow travelers but exceedingly intimate friends, who saw eye-to-eye on cultural as well as economic issues (North's Christian Economics epistemology grew out of the breakthroughs of Man, Economy and State). Please see North's beautiful lecture in honor of Rothbard, where he cites the career of the profilic lecturer of economics at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute as an "academic role model" for all future economists ever. (1) The lecture (supposedly relating to "economics") is an hour comprised solely of anecdotes and clichés with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Thus even in this lecture, we can see Rothbard's "footprints" on North's "methodology" as well as his heart.

North's eloquence and empathy, as well as his irrepressible love for Rothbard, make this lecture a "treat" to listen to, as Llewellyn Rockwell says in his introduction of the prolific Christian Reconstructionist theorist. Most revealingly is when North says Rothbard was the best economist ever because of Man, Economy and State, and that no student ever will come close to matching his achievement.

I'm also trying to find Professor North's acceptance speech after receiving the Rothbard Medal in 2004 -- the picture on North's entry appropriately pays homage to this occasion, one of the (if not THE) highlight of North's life.) I think you'd agree that the Youtube link above is sufficient to substantiate Murray and Gary's intimate intellectual relationship. But I think we need to add a section to North's article detailing this connection, so seminal it was in forming North's theoretical views. Steeletrap (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for posting your comments. By itself the fact that North cited Rothbard is not enough to say he was influenced by him. (Frankly, the "influenced/influenced by" parameters in these infoboxes are subject to abuse. The infobox should summarize what is in the text, so a mere mention in the text does not justify mention in the infobox.) But I did not want to dig too deeply to figure out how the context of North's article played into their saga. I'll take a closer look at the UTube video. As both articles are on my watchlist, I look forward to seeing what pops up. – S. Rich (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, I note, in general, that "The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." – S. Rich (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links

Thanks for the links. I didn't realize I had put our GLAM notice on the wrong page. We'll fix shortly. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

3RR reported

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MilesMoney (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh? Please specify the diffs. – S. Rich (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I see the WP:AN3 you posted and have responded. – S. Rich (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's comment section

User:SPECIFICO – rather than add comments to article talk pages about me, which do not relate to article improvement, please add your comments here, in this particular section. I think (and hope) doing so will help keep discussions focused on the articles. I will respond as I consider appropriate. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll start you off:

At this diff [6] you said: "[inserted]Who do you speak for Srich, or is that the royal Us? [Timestamp omitted]"

This was apparently a comment about my remark "Let us know if you think this is an improvement. If not, we can change it back or find other phrasing. – S. Rich (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

Please add more comments as you wish below the line. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Added note: SPECIFICO, since you are worried that your comments from other talk pages might be construed as having been posted by you, I will provide the diffs and the quotes, taking care to remove signatures. As you say, your remarks are "for the record" and I do not want to be seen as making replies to empty space. – S. Rich (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

---

At this diff [7] SPECIFICO made certain comments. My reply (posted here because they were directed to me) follows:

Reply. MilesMoney's talk page comments speak volumes. I only cited three particular edits (out of 7 done today), which are confrontational. Yesterday I posted a novice editor service award and a message about labeling non-vandalism edits as vandalism. MilesMoney removed my message about vandalism with the comment "bs". If you think I am being BITEY, post your comment here. Why? Sadly, MilesMoney is showing a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and even more sadly you are encouraging that attitude. – S. Rich (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I will also note that SPECIFICO sought to remove his comment from this section. I have restored the diff, but not the comment. If SPECIFICO will remove the comment from MilesMoney's talk page I will be happy to remove the comments from this page in accordance with WP:OWNTALK – S. Rich (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

New comment posted by SPECIFICO on MilesMoney's talk page at this diff: [8]:
Reply: Yes, SPECIFICO has instructed me to say off his talk page, and so has Steeletrap. Alas, there are other editors who I have mentored who decided that WP is not for them. At the moment I can think of only one (above), who thanked me for my assistance. SPECIFICO is making an ad hominem comment implying that editors who chose not to continue have done so because of my comments. [Added comment: I've culled the number of userpages on my watchlist by over 100. The names were added automatically when I posted a welcome message or template warning on usertalk pages. The vast majority of these editors did not continue editing –whether this is because of or in spite of my messages is beyond my ability to figure out. Sometimes new editors respond favorably to comments, sometimes not. 05:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC) ] SPECIFICO has no evidence to support that accusation. And it is sad that SPECIFICO chose to slight me on someone else's talkpage while offering encouragement to MilesMoney. – S. Rich (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@SrichDo not cut and paste my signed text here or elsewhere. WP enables you to post diffs of my words for any legitimate purpose. You may not cut and paste with my signature, giving the appearance that such paste is my own writing on the destination page. I am telling you not to do that again. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As noted in a comment below, I will post comments by SPECIFICO which reference me or my editing behavior. Those comments will not contain SPECIFICO's time stamp. I will faithfully quote SPECIFICO, and I will not reply to an empty space. – S. Rich (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

New comment comment posted by SPECIFICO on MilesMoney's talk page and MilesMoney's response at these diffs: [9]. Subsequent diffs are omitted.

"Hi Miles. Don't let Srich bait you into confronting him about his behavior on the article talk page. Better to give him a day to consider the matter. After that, if he has no further response to your concerns you may more reasonably infer that he has dropped his objections. Every time he mentions "policy" I suggest you take it as an opportunity to read what the policy actually says. Contentious editors mis-quote and mis-apply policy right and left around here. Good luck. [SPECIFICO timestamp omitted]"

"What's going on here is that the two of them are dragging their feet. One keeps ignoring the fact that "popular" either means "lots of fans" or "amateur", so every mention of the second sort of "popular" is support for "amateur". The other, as you noticed, is just avoiding the whole debate by making vague noises about policy, hoping it'll blow over. Well, it won't. If they won't engage, I gotta just go right past them. They have to shit or get off the pot, already. [MilesMoney timestamp omitted]"

My response to SPECIFICO: You might note that the comments by MilesMoney imply that my silence in the thread is an endorsement of MM's views. That is not the case and I sought to clarify that doing so was to misconstrue my view. I was hardly "baiting" MM. Rather I pointed out that article talk page commentary should be on the subject of the article and not on other editors, as MM had been doing. Your inferring that an editor has dropped objections might be valid in some cases, but the better course of action is to reach consensus. (And note that I have continued to work in that regard.) But your implied statement that I am misquoting policy is completely off the mark. I have not done so. If you feel differently, then please provide the diffs. Now I might mistakenly mis-apply policy, but those occassions are few and far between, and never deliberate. I do not think your comment of "contentious editors" was very sincere. Your commentary in the subsequent dialogue with MM was acceptable and commendable. – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by SPECIFICO at Talk:Ayn Rand#Oxford Companion to Philosophy with this diff [10]

"@Srich -- Policy states that you should respond to Miles, not remain silent in response to his attempts to engage you in resolution of a disagreement. Miles is not "guessing" about content, and your remark to him on that score is either mistaken or disingenuous. [Timestamp omitted]."

Reply to SPECIFICO: 1. Your comment to me that I am being disingenuous (or mistaken) is not well taken. 2. I did not say Miles was "guessing" about content -- my reply to Miles was in direct response to Miles' (repeated) attempt to ascribe some agreement on my part about the comments that Miles had made. IOW, I objected to Miles' attempt to use my (temporary) quiteness as agreeing with what Miles had said. (And note that Miles repeated the un-founded and polemic "Guess you agree" comment just two minutes after I had said Miles should not make such guesses.) It was quite clear that Miles was not guessing about content and my comment that "Guesses do not help" was in direct response to Miles saying "Guess you agree." 3. What policy says I "should respond to Miles"? I'd like to see you quote such policy. 4. Editors are free to engage or not engage in talk page discussions as they wish. If an editor makes a good faith inquiry or asks a good faith question about an editing rationale, then failure or refusal to answer the inquiry/question can be noted. But Miles was not making an inquiry or question. Miles attempted to put words in my mouth by speculating that I agreed with Miles' position because I had not posted anything recently. (Again, I quickly made it clear that I did not want that to happen.) 5. Your remarks to me on the article talk page hardly helped the article improvement discussion. They are another example of how you go off-topic in order to post barbs about me and my editing behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

At this edit [11] User:SPECIFICO says:

"...@srich Please be careful to review context before using "undo" on recent edits. You've made similar errors on recently on several articles where it appears you either did not read the sources or familiarize yourself with the content and talk page history. Thanks. [Timestamp omitted.]"

Reply to SPECIFICO: Again, sadly, SPECIFICO goes off topic to criticize my edit – not by saying I was incorrect in this specific instance, but by alluding to other undocumented edits. Moreover, SPECIFICO's criticism is not well founded. The IP whom I reverted was the one not familiar with the content or talk page history. I did read the source – it was but one which addressed the question of Ayn Rand's status as a philosopher. And I was one of the participants in the discussion who proposed alternatives and cited policy in support of the proposals. If I was incorrect, SPECIFICO, please specify. (I'd like to see diffs from you.) But don't use article talk pages to make personal remarks that do not address article improvement. – S. Rich (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

At this edit: [12] User:SPECIFICO comments:

"Actually you've made two errors, the first was your decision not to familiarize yourself with the threads of article text and talk page discussion before edit warring. The second, if you care about this issue, was your failure to contribute to the discussion here. [Timestamp omitted]."

Reply to SPECIFICO: Even as I post the comments above, you make personal remarks on the article talk page. You repeat the same allegation, without proof. You fail to AGF by implying that I do not care about the issue and you blatantly ignore the contributions I have made on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack on Riggenbach page

I am asking you to remove the following personal attack which you posted on Riggenbach talk ". Placing the tag for the sake of placing it is disruptive. (I note that User:SPECIFICO had shown no interest in this article in the past.)"

As is evident from my edit summary, the tag relates to the content which you are edit-warring. The PA should be struck through. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. As per the above, you are happy to make personal remarks about me on article talk pages, but it looks like you can't accept a comment about adding inappropriate tags. And even while you fail to explain why the primary source template is appropriate, you add another personal remark: [13]. – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You removed my comment on Mises Institute talk.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#The_institute_as_a_cult. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You should note that I commented in the edit summary that the change you created appeared to be mistaken. And you should note that I commented further in that thread, commenting about the mistaken removal and my intention to re-add your remark. You should note that vandalism has a very specific meaning in Wikipedia, and that an edit summary which clearly explains what was going on should be considered before accusing someone of vandalism. – S. Rich (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, please note that I have commented further on the LvMI talk page, with the observation that my change to your edit occurred one minute after the material had been restored by the other editor. – S. Rich (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#Paleolibertarian_support_for_LvMI_edits_.28BRD.29 Dif – [14]

@srich - If you have reasoned concerns, based on policy, with respect to the article text or sources please state them clearly and with diffs to text and policy so that other editors can discuss them. You have failed to do so. In order to ensure that you are understood, please refrain from any humor, irony, sarcasm, parody, or other distracting insertions, including smileyfaces and extraneous links. Thanks. [Timestamp omitted]

Lighten up. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC) [Original timestamp]

You can pose as the clown prince of WP if you like, but that stance is not going to lead to improvement of the articles here. If you can't post on topic your efforts are wasted. [Timestamp omitted]

– S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Here: [15] "@srichYour recent bizarre attempts at off-topic humor, smiley faces and proffers of personal rumination in lieu of bona fide WP policy are disruptive. In the context of your other recent actions, they contibute to a pattern of tendentious editing. Whatever you are going through, please take a break, step away, and reflect. [SPECIFICO's signature & time stamp omitted]"

Again SPECIFICO does not provide commentary which seeks to improve the article. He gives nothing more than a severe and ill-founded attempt to lecture me. Another editor responded with "Bullshit" to SPECIFICO's remark. But that was unfair -- to bulls. SPECIFICO's remark is too lightweight for bullshit. Lacking a sense of humor, it is lighter than mouseshit. – S. Rich (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Another complaint. From User talk:SPECIFICO#WP:Competence.

Posted by me: " Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ludwig von Mises Institute, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. The reason you gave for removal here [16] is not valid. My edit summary referenced the talk page, which in turn references the RSNs. Either way, the citations are under dispute. Readers who are not following notice boards may wish to comment, and the SPS tags properly serve to alert them. Also, the tags put the article into Category:Accuracy disputes. Resolution of the dispute (on the talk page or RSN) is the only valid reasons for removing these templates. Please restore. – [[User:Srich32977|S. Rich]] ([[User talk:Srich32977|talk]]) 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)"

Reply by Specifico 3 days later: "Srich you have been told not to post on my talk page. Do not post anything other than required notices on my talk page. Your template appears to refer to something from several days which has already been addressed on the article talk page and elsewhere. [[User:SPECIFICO |<font color ="0011FF"> '''SPECIFICO'''</font>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)"

Specifico's post from today implies that I just now added the template. In fact, I posted it immediately after he had removed several SPS tags. Moreover, a discussion was opened on the specific edits. The template did not address something "which has already been addressed". The tags were posted because there were discussions ongoing at the time. Specifico's removal of the tags may have been mistaken because he lacks understanding as to how the tags function in WP, but perhaps it was an effort to divert attention from the SPS problems in the article. – S. Rich (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Hillsdale College

You appear to be edit-warring on Hillsdale College. Do not EW even though you believe you are "right." Seek dispute resolution or pursue consensus on talk. SPECIFICO talk 04:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I won't touch Hillsdale for the time being. But I think your edit summary reveals what's going on: [17]. The selective, partial, and POV edits from the Huffington Post story tell the real story. – S. Rich (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, the quote about "dark ones" is accurately represented by SPECIFICO. Low-tier, ideologically biased academic institutions often have scholars who make inflammatory and impolitic assertions. They've got nothing to lose.

I also have to question the self-serving "history" of the institution regarding its being the first university to oppose discrimination. Is there any non-right-wing source that attests to this?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As to the "quote", I must differ. Specifico's edit summary referred to Arnn's comments as "racist". And the very selective and blatant partial quotation from the Huffington Post story bears this out. Indeed, I am appalled. Steele, your concerns about the history of the institution are well founded. I'd like to see non-PRIMARY to support this history as well. (While it is self-serving, but may be well founded in historical fact.) As Wikipedia editors, we should be looking at the RS with a neutral stance. E.g., we should not pre-judge the RS as right or left wing as the basis for our editing evaluation. All-in-all, Steele, I greatly appreciate your comments. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether a comment is "racist" is largely a matter of personal opinion. In my opinion, a glib use of a term like "dark ones" to describe blacks, Latinos and others implies some racial insensitivity (he sounded like he was speaking about some sort of commercial product). You're entitled to disagree. But why can't we present the quote? Steeletrap (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, deciding whether Arnn's comment was racist is a personal opinion. And editing WP must be done with the absolute minimum of POV. But the edit summary expressed the editor's POV and the actual material presented was a distortion of the source. Given that Hillsdale prides itself in its non-discrimination policies, established decades ago, it is hard to believe that Arnn was asserting any sort of racial prejudice when he used the term. The quote from the H-Post story is now in the article -- in full. (Thank you for the further rendition.) And that is the only way for WP to present it. – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

or...

Hillsdale states that it prides itself on its non-discrimination policies because that statement has been a useful fundraising tactic for the college, which was reported near insolvency before Lew Rockwell launched the imprimis which has been called the most successful fundraising vehicle ever devised. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Having read more about this, I can report that the culture of the university was radically transformed since the 19th and early/mid 20th century. If it had been a socially conservative university back then, it would have supported slavery and segregation respectively. The current university culture is a proud product of the Reagan Revolution, with a heavy contemporary influence by Doc Ron Paul. Steeletrap (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The entire world has changed, century by century, decade by decade, year by year, etc. It is what it is now, and they seem to be proud of certain traditions. We are here to write up informative articles, and not speculate or conduct OR on the influences that Reagan or Paul or Rockwell had on the institution. Above all, we must avoid injecting our POVs into the article. I see that Orlady has edited there recently. She's an awesome Wikipedian and I think the article will benefit greatly from her attention. – S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)