User talk:Srich32977

Jack Swanstrom

I just happened upon the following edit you made to Jack Swanstrom:

cur | prev) 17:01, 16 August 2010 Srich32977 (talk | contribs) (1,112 bytes) (del cats as article does not discuss; IMDB may have this info, but there is no verification) (undo)

I've restored the removed categories and refer you to:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BSM_full.JPG

I can respect a desire for some type of official authentication/verification of veterans awards -- but you should be aware that these records are seldom available to the general public. And let's face it, if someone said to a newspaper reporter that they had an Bronze Star and it was printed -- well, does that make it verifiably so? Does every newspaper reporter verify the military records of every interviewee?

Notes to self

--S. Rich

Your input is appreciated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School#addendum Byelf2007 (talk) 11 October 2011

Disruptive editing - Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs) 15:16, January 29, 2013‎

Nomination of The Daily Currant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Daily Currant 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/The Daily Currant 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 template from the top of the article.

National Debt as Moral Hazard

Although none of the other entries on the Moral Hazard entry are sourced - mine now is. Please inform the other editor to apply source links for his/ her material.

BTW - Every one of those Melissa Rauch entries was properly sourced BUT were rejected by that editor for personal reasons so those should be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magickallwiz (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

LewRockwell.com entry

Please see the talk page as to why I think your recent change is misleading and mischaracterizes the nature of the criticism (which is about the controversial editorial background of LRC's editor-in-chief, and only tangentially relates to Rockwell personally). Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the comment. (Thanks for the heads-up.) Two quick observations about the sub-heading: 1. Changing it to a better version is certainly welcome. 2. Keeping it as a subsection -- with the banner (for now) -- serves to focus talk page discussion on that particular topic. – S. Rich (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Nikpapag comment

Oh sorry Srich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikpapag (talk • contribs) 04:24, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

I would kindly ask that you assume good faith.

As WP:AGF is one of our primary tenets on Wikipedia I would as that you extend me that courtesy instead of making snide comments on other editor's talk pages [1] accusing me of making things up. See Page 57 of the 1930 USCG Uniform Regs it shows a ribbon bar for the Cardenas Medal of Honor in the list of awards. I believe that constitutes a reliable source. EricSerge (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right. And I do apologize -- when I saw the "own work" attribution on the description of the ribbon, I got worked up. As I've got a few household tasks to attend to at the moment, it will take me a little while to go back and strikeout my intemperate remarks. But it shall be done by the end of the day. Please accept my apology. – S. Rich (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries sir. I got a little worked up too, but all is well. I used the {{own}} since I just eyeballed the colors since I could not find a spec sheet. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: SPEC

Sorry, mate, didn't even see your note. Will do so! Stalwart111 05:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mate?! I am indeed complemented! Unreservedly true regards. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, I'm Australian - everyone is my mate! I've boldly non-admin closed the later thread (for which I may receive a nice fish dinner) and have moved my comments to the earlier one. Stalwart111 06:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Buddy, I figured you were somewhere over on the "other side" of the IDL. Me -- I've been on this WP mania (off-and-on) for much of the day, and it's time for bed. Thanks for tweaking that ANI, and have a great day! – S. Rich (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Tucker edits, etc.

This debate is not welcome on 'my' talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You've raised concerns about my past work for LvMI as a COI. I think the whole COI red herring is at odds with WP:NPA, and I don't believe in judging contributions by who the contributor is. Contributions should be judged by verifiability, NPOV, etc. Furthermore, this particular idea for exclusion of interested contributors solely based on previous employment and not merely affinity would mean that those most knowledgeable of a particular article subject would not have a seat at the encyclopedia table but even the most active critics would. This presents a new obstacle for achieving something approaching neutrality in our articles. With that said, I do not have nearly as much time to contribute as I did several years ago, so you're not likely to have much COI to worry about from me, either real or imagined. I am concerned though, that User:Steeletrap, a recently created account, is working almost exclusively on the task of inserting controversial claims about living persons, citing blog posts and other sources that don't meet WP:RS/WP:BLP muster, in order to promote his anti-Austrian School, anti-Mises Institute POV. I would very much appreciate it if you would dedicate some of your attention to these clear violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines by a single-purpose account. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC) You should be judged by your contributions. I have never said anything otherwise. But, according to Wikipedia rules, your employment background constitutes a WP:COI (I quote from that page, "Paid advocates [of an organization] are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question." This is just a matter of reading the rules, and does not constitute an accusation of bad faith. Also, while I am biased against the Mises Institute, my changes have been motivated by a desire to restore NPOV to some of the LvMI articles where it is clearly lacking. There were some objectively absurd offenders, such as the insinuation that "Argumentation Ethics" had received a serious response by mainstream philosophy. Also see the claim that allegations of Lew Rockwell's role in the Ron Paul newsletters are dubious speculations, absurd in light of the fact that he has admitted to working for them (only denying writing), is physically listed as "editor" or "contributing editor" on numerous newsletters, and a plethora of people (including a former Chief of Staff and a former Campaign manager to Ron Paul) have publicly accused him, in notable publications, of writing them. Also note that Gary North's Wikipedia page made no mention of the fact that he has written in support of stoning to death male homosexuals and children, before I made that note. I will continue to shore up the failures of NPOV on the Mises pages, and welcome your help in doing so. Also: Single Purpose Account is defined as " is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose." I have spent a ton of time on edits not related to the Mises Institute(even if those are in the majority), so I don't fit. Steeletrap (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Note on Murphy page

I do not want to get into an EW. But your reasoning for changing my title on your previous post ("predictions cannot be "false" or "true") was just flatly false. Predictions can be true or false: when Dick Morris predicted Romney would be elected last year, that was a "false prediction"; describing it as merely a "prediction regarding election 2012" would be descriptively inadequate. Look at the dictionary or google this. The term "false prediction" can and is used in a NPOV fashion if the prediction was indeed unambiguously false (as Murphy's 10% CPI prediction was); I don't know of anyone who disputes this. Because your rationale was obviously false, I reverted the change. If you have another rationale for changing the title, please discuss it on the talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

My response is on the Murphy talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Moral Hazard

Perhaps you can explain how the French Bank and Yonhap news agency are not neutral sources of economic information, at least in comparison to almost all of the other economic THEORY on this page - some of it is more like theoretical economic OPINION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magickallwiz (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of cookies

I really appreciate the gesture! I deleted the thread with the cookies because of a glib joke you made about an issue which (though I'm sure you didn't know this) am remarkably sensitive about. I am certain you didn't intend to offend! Steeletrap (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Here's a listing of veggie related userboxes. Post one on your userpage -- it'll signal others as to topics you are interested in (or sensitive about). WP:Userboxes/Food. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't apologize! You could not have known, and it is certainly not a salient moral issue in the eyes of most people. An encyclopedia, of course, is not an idea place for moralizing; we have to try to be value-free in our edits to the best of our ability. I just wanted to let you know. :) Steeletrap (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

On your threats to block me/false accusations of PA

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Baseless_allegations_of_PA.2Fthreats_to_block_from_user_S.Rich Steeletrap (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Srich, I guess we'll see who gets there first with which diffs making our points and then the second one can delete any unnecessary overlap. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I got a plugged up garbage disposal to fix. (Shall I send pictures for WP:V?) So it won't be till tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ho Ho Ho. Don't worry about it. I still don't feel like reading all his edits and doing a blow by blow analysis so I gave a pretty general reply. Let's hope he reforms. Yeah, I'm trying to decide tomorrow between mowing the lawn and plugging in that big doggie-dug hole with some left over old clay. Also made a nice copy of his talk page for time stamps in case I need to find the relevant diffs. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Cadet editing

Hi Srich32977, I noticed you just edited the page of Cadet. For your information and with all due respect, the section I just edited is about the Cadet training in the Philippines, specifically those for high school and college students. I am a current COCC officer in an academy in the Philippines and I do know how such activities work. If I'm not mistaken, you lived at the United States, your cadet performance may have little differences to those in the Philippines. So, with all due respect, I'm more knowledgeable than you think, especially that you are dealing with someone who just simply adding general information in his motherland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.32.105 (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It is true that I'm in the US. But who is where is not the issue. Wikipedia needs and requires reliable sources for its information. That means items published in books, magazines, newspapers, academic journals, etc. Please take a look at the WP:5Ps and learn more about the project. I think you will find it interesting and helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Srich32977

Dear Srich32977, Thank you for removing the links I posted on the Pi page. I read the COI article and it's quite obvious that there is an apparent COI in what I posted. I really do believe that the student activities I posted are beneficial to students and teachers but a lot of the page to which the link was directed was promotional. I have placed new links to the student activities as direct links to the Microsoft Word documents. There is no advertising and no promotion involved. The school where I teach and the side business I have are not mentioned or referred to in any way. These free resources might be very useful to people interested in learning more about calculating Pi using polygons. However, if placing these kinds of resources on Wikipedia still contravenes its guidelines I will remove them (if you don't remove them first). Thank you again, Spiro Liacos

PS. I must admit, I don't really know the best way of communicating to other users of Wikipedia. I simply clicked on the link to "leave me a message on my talk page". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiro Liacos (talk • contribs) 09:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, Spiro. While your links might be useful, the COI rules are there. Also, you might look at WP:SELFCITE. Now if someone else were to post the links, they might work. Even so, we want to avoid creating a WP:LINKFARM. – S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fringe science thing

As you can expect, I don't agree with what you're saying, but I appreciate your last posts to the thread and your attempt to get on topic. The problem is that my original prompt has been flooded with all of this text, much of it related to off-topic allegations relating to my personal conduct from another user; as you know, this sort of thing tends to crowd out responses (and we have only had two, both of which expressed support for some aspect of what I was arguing for). I propose that I 1) repost my original concerns to another forum and 2) You express your argument against my proposed changes and then 3) we let other editors hash it out for awhile before responding. What say you? Steeletrap (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've responded at User talk:SPECIFICO. – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've created a new discussion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Concerns_on_WP:Undue_regarding_AIDS_Denial_and_LewRockwell.com You are encouraged to comment, but I ask that you keep them concise and limited so as to not recreate the flood of text that derailed the last thread (I know I was bad in both of those respects!) Steeletrap (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Why not get a little wiki-tipsy!? Steeletrap (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the ostrich comment. That obviously wasn't a personal attack (especially when speaking to an animal lover!) so it showed a particular desire not to inflame. You are making a good effort to move past last Saturday's heated arguments and I appreciate it. I soon plan on shifting my attention from LvMI related to other wiki subjects (I want to pick less contentious ones to save time (which I've wasted far too much of the last few weeks) and energy! And I think I've already made my mark for the better, in many of the ways that I wanted to.) But even if our interactions are more limited from now on, I want them to end on a positive note. Steeletrap (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome! You must've discovered I participate in the WP:Drinking game.
  • I had added ostrich under the mistaken impression that it gave some pertinent advice. While not on track in your case, it does contain advice in general that is worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Austrian hat

Hi. I moved the hat up a notch as explained in my edit summary on talk:Austrian school. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 05:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from IamSwitzerland

I am not a new user. I have been editing here for years and never dealt with such aggressive behavior as you are employing. I may have forgotten a few things but I appreciate you helping me to look like a complete loser. That is pretty awesome of you. I put two words on a page and you attack. You even took down edits to preexisiting issuese that were corrected. IamSwitzerland (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(Not much help was needed.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I have to ask that you cease making personal attacks. Implying that "not much help was needed" to make user IamSwitzerland look like a loser is not an acceptable remark. Steeletrap (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil, perhaps. IamSwitzerland exhibited incompetent editing and I left polite (template) messages about how to do a better job. The response about not being a "new user" and my "aggressive behavior" and my "attack" is just bullshit. Perhaps a simple would have been better. Stick up for Switzerland if you wish. I don't mind. But don't go about accusing me of PA on any pages other than this one. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC) PS: However, you or Switzerland certainly may post an ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not personally familiar with Ms./Mister "Switzerland," nor do I know about her or his work on behalf of this encyclopedia. However, knowing from experience how deeply you care about calling out users who make "PA", I thought you should know that you clearly made one above. Unlike those of other users I have encountered, your PAs have not been consistently disruptive, nor material to substantive edits, so I am fine with not mentioning this on other threads. It is something to watch for the future, however. Steeletrap (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Cabazon Dinosaurs

Maybe you can make the Huell Howser video link a little more prominent so that visitors to the page will be likely to watch it. It is only 19 minutes long. pechaney (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be moved up the list and the citation format changed. I'll take a look later today.-- – S. Rich (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Huell

You're fast! I was just about to revert my own edit after discovering that the {{FAG}} template led to Find-a-Grave.  :) Not the best choice of template names... Anyhow, good looking out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Huell Howser has been a favorite of mine for years. Chapman University has an archive of his videos, which I've been incorporating into WP lately. Mainly his Palm Springs stuff. BTW, there has been some talk page controversy about whether he was gay. No RS supports the rumors. – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm on board with the need for RS for something like that. And for establishing relevance for its inclusion. Typically the only time people feel the need to include sexuality in articles is when the person is not from the prevailing camp. We don't, for example, have an infobox field for sexuality. And Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's article doesn't say "...and he is a heterosexual." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe

I'd have expected you to use talk if you disagree with my revert of the quote, not to reinsert. Please self-undo and use talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is underway on the talk page. My gosh, the important part of BRD is the D. We've both stated our concerns -- now's the time to wait and let other editors weigh in. The rationale for leaving that very short sentence there -- for now -- is set forth. (Remove it if you wish, I will not consider it as EW. But please do leave the lopsided tag so that it can attract other editors to comment.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your reinsertion of the Reverted content was not BRD. It's not B-R-R-D. The important part is not only D but restraint from R-R. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I said remove it if you wish. So, just go and change the stinking page. Why expend these precious bytes over such a small issue? – S. Rich (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Added comment -- strike out remark about changing the page. Why bring up this trivial issue when Steeletrap has already made the change? There was no edit warring going on, which 3R/2R seeks to discourage. Simply a disagreement, which is posted on the talk page. 00:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the talk page thread only started after the EW was underway, right? Next time consider not undoing the revert? At least Steeletrap took the bull by the horns. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

EW? I don't know what EW you are talking about! Double cheers back atcha - one for each revert. – S. Rich (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

When an article has a history of contention, if an editor reverts some text, you can expect that reinserting it prior to discussion is going to put further strain on the process. That was my prediction and that's what happened. Next time, consider talk first. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Regarding your restoration of my post at Talk:Fractional reserve banking (as opposed to the other editor restoring the post and apologizing at my request): thank you; I appreciate your effort to mediate. I didn't know what brought this on until I went back and read the interaction between me and the other editor on that talk page. The genesis may have been what seems to me to have been a relatively mild disagreement back in mid-March -- hardly what I would call a "hornet's nest" that should result in "bitterness." I didn't realize that he had taken our discussion so hard. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaming the system

I told him to read the policies about, for prevention of attitudes against consensus, I was clear about this attitudes could come from no-comprehension of notability policies confused with "credentialism" (I'm not talking about bad faith, a person could sabotage consensus without the will of been evil). I put the comment not by BLP issue, but by economist/philosopher issue and editions. I could change the line if you told me a better way to say someone not to commit a fault about sabotage consensus. I'm from Spanish language Wikipedia, here there are variants in some policies that I'm not acquainted (little diferences, I guess). --Sageo (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am herding cats with different editors all admonishing (scolding) each other about BLP, PA, NPOV, etc. in these various libertarian article talk pages. Bringing up "gaming the system", which is an editor behavior issue, was not appropriate for the talk page. It was like another cat breaking out of harness. (Because it explicitly refers to bad faith.) If you like -- or will permit -- I'll remove that sentence. (And if you have personal advice about consensus, etc., post it on the editor's talk page. Doing so on these article talk pages only makes things worse.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If that is the recommended practice in this Wikipedia talk pages, I have no problem.--Sageo (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe section heading

Furry's entitled to revert the heading without getting undone. I think it would be best to let Furry's edit stand and go to talk, not to appear to OWN the article or be edit-warring deviations. I suggest you reinstate Furry's edit. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Furry's edit was Bold. My edit was Revert. The next step was Discuss, not a re-reversion. But the first two edits are OBE. I opened a section on the discussion page and Sageo has re-re-reverted to the original (more recent) section heading. In any event, please see my rationale in the discussion section. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

EW ANI

You appear to question Steeletrap for citing the "malicious" comment but you fail to mention that the cited word is only one of many personal attacks made by Sageo over the past week or so. Perhaps you might consider a more balanced statement or revision of your comment on the EW page? SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think Sageo has made PAs, then you or Steeletrap should post it. Steeletrap brought it up the "malicious" comment, and I provided a comment to put it in context -- which serves to balance out Steeletrap's comment. You brought up the section heading matter in the EW ANI, and I made commentary about it. If it was such a trivial matter, why did you bring it up? Seems you don't like it when the evidence is against you. Well, consider, 50% of the people in trials don't like the results when the judge or jury makes the final decision. – S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I raised the title because it is a revert and the EW complaint lists excessive reverts. You would be well advised to strike through the personal attack on me in your message above and to refrain from sarcasm in future talk page messages. You are among peers here. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And now you accuse me of PA? And you accuse me of EW here [2]? Worst of all, you attack my integrity by accusing me of making false statements! – S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, one approach would have been, once you learned that you'd inadvertently undone Furry due to a false edit summary justification, one approach would be immediately to apologize, set the record straight, and self-undo your error. Then nobody could ever question your motives or evenhandedness (not that anybody has done that, just sayin' -- since it seems to concern you.) SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

picknick99

thanks for message. But I'm afraid I don't really understand it.Picknick99 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you did this note correctly by putting it down here at the bottom. (The other one on Barrister was posted at the top of the talk page.) And the heading you added "No way Jose" really doesn't tell readers what the over all subject of your comment is about. – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

HOPPE -- AGF

You wrote "his discussion should not be a back-door or a run-around effort to get the homophobia material into the article."

This appears to suggest that you believe other editors are not acting in good faith, and may be construed as an unwarranted personal statement, particularly on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for interrupting you (and this goes for Srich32977 and SPECIFICO), but I think you should both perhaps stop this, let's just call it teasing, and do whatever helps you relax. And no, it does not matter who is correct. Lectonar (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I said "This discussion...." not "his discussion". I was not referring to any particular editor or editors. If an editor wants to skin the cat a different way, that's fine. But the academic freedom heading issue is not a good way to try. – S. Rich (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's right, "this" -- cut and paste truncation error. My comment stands, and you have not responded to my concern. It seems likely readers will understand that you are making the statement because you are concerned that the particular editors who are advocating this wording are not acting in good faith. Otherwise, every thread would be prefaced with that remark. Please consider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Steeletrap

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Steeletrap. If you continue you may be blocked from Wikipedia.

You accused me of making a PA, alleging that I said, without evidence, that another user had made a personal attack. This was a false statement, as I had loads of evidence for this claim, which you have seen on numerous occasions. (either through your participation in conversations where she attacked me, or in my and user SPECIFICO's personally relaying to you the PAs; please see my talk page for a brief sampling of the PAs.) Note that, per WP:WIAPA, false accusations of PAs such as yours are themselves personal attacks. Steeletrap (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you believe holding "loads of evidence" is justification for repeating, again and again and again, your charges of PA in various postings? How many such accusations on various talk pages would be enough? Or, do you think you have an unlimited right to complain about the PA? At the very least, this demonstrates a lack of good faith. – S. Rich (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in the event that such conduct continues, as it has. I am glad that you are backing away from your assertion that my claim of PA had no evidence; an assertion which, per WP:WIAPA, was itself a PA. Steeletrap (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I will caution you again that your belief that you have justification to post repeated (unlimited?) complaints of PA is completely wrong. If there fresh instances of PA, then post them. But holding a history of past PA is not a justification. Moreover, I am not backing away from my assertion in the least. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, please note that nothing in WP:No_personal_attacks#Responding_to_personal_attacks justifies repeated accusations of PA. In fact the guidance says "Avoid responding on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. [Emphasis in original]" – S. Rich (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe reversion

Hi Rich. I think you agree that we don't want an EW on the title thing, so I don't plan on reverting until this is sorted out. But your justification for your reversion strikes me as erroneous. The consensus (3:2) is in favor of the reverted version. And we have made extensive arguments in favor of it on the talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm posting an RfC at this moment. (It's the first one I've ever done, so I'm not sure on the technical details.) Preserving the existing section title is needed because the RfC, thus far composed, refers to that particular section and the talk page we have been working on. As for the count, Furry has not weighed in on the discussion. (And I'm sure you realize that we don't settle these things by voting.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not necessarily proved by numbers, Steeletrap, however I'm so very distressed to see edit-warring behavior by Srich in this matter. There's no record to confirm Srich's insistence that this was definitively litigated in the past WP:CCC wp:DRNC WP:OWN and other policies apply. Moreover Srich, you keep changing your rationalization for the reverts. It's not in the spirit of collaboration. You haven't even waited to hear from Furry in response to your earlier remarks. I'm going to undo your edit, so don't rely on your EW version being intact for the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As stated -- the RfC that I have already posted refers to the section in question and the talk page section, that I initiated uses the term academic freedom. Please do not change because it can or may lead to confusion by editors looking at the RfC. – S. Rich (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please get some assistance or rename the talk page section to a term such as Hoppe Controversy RfC. Please don't be offended, but it goes without saying that your difficulty is self-created and could have been avoided by leaving Steeletrap's heading in place. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What a pain! I revert and say I'm posting an RfC. I post the RfC and give reference in it to the talk page and particular section. I then ask that the section title be kept so that editors can see WTF we've been talking about. But you, SPECIFICO, have to go and change it back, and accuse me of EW. There is no stinking EW going on -- the section heading "was" the one that had been there for years and I'm the one who initiated the talk page and the RfC. How long are we supposed to wait for Furry to comment? Doesn't Furry have a watch list? I'm not changing any of my rationalizations for keeping the section heading as it was -- I am trying to explain the rationalization! Interfering with the section heading as you did after I explained the section heading change and initiated the talk page and initiated the RfC is WP:POINTY behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening a request for comment

Hello Srich32977. It appears you want to open a request for comment about Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is no need for you to post at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board. Instead, follow the instructions at:

• WP:Request for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues

You make your addition to the article talk page. Add the template {{rfc|blah|blah}} as described in the instructions. Then a bot automatically posts a notice in the central RfC list. Explain in the text of the RfC question what the issue is, and link to any talk sections that you want. It helps if you pose the question in yes-or-no fashion to avoid any uncertainty on how to interpret the !votes.

If you are uncertain as to the best RfC question to ask, you can open a thread on talk *first* and ask others for comment. You could also post multiple proposed section titles in the RfC and ask for votes if you want. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance. Please take a look at what I've done, and if you would tweak as needed. I thought I had it down correctly, but SPECIFICO came on in and changed the article page so that more work was/is needed. (I am not happy about SPECIFICO's action in this regard.) And responding to both the article revisions and talk page comments, when I had said I was posting an RfC has not made the task any easier or pleasant. – S. Rich (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no conventional {{rfc}} template on the talk page. While you *can* use the 'Request Board' system it won't get the RfC listed in the usual places. Also the automatic notification bot won't invite others to participate. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As this is a BLP, should I or can I post {{rfc|bio}}? – S. Rich (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The tags you put in the {{rfc}} template are up to you. I suggest 'bio' and 'pol,' which you would write as {{rfc|bio|pol}}. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Got it. But the talk page comments are too much to handle right now. Maybe if Carolmooredc's most recent edit sticks for a while, this will blow over. (She's restored the version that was there for years. But I'm not too hopeful at the moment.) [[File:|18px|link=]] – S. Rich (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

New section

I'll be moving to have Steeletrap banned from the article in BLPN after weekend. Specifico's recent defamatory comments which I've hidden make him ripe too. The evidence that the POV of these two academic colleagues is far too much like a WP:COI becomes stronger every day. Even with all the nonsense I've seen on BLPs in the Israel-Palestine area, this is the worst WP:BLP assault I've had to deal with. They really hate him! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Hi. I think this needs to be posed as a question with a specific alternative, e.g. "Should ... changed to 'Controversy on Hoppe's views of homosexuality'" (or whatever Steeletrap's last version was.) Then editors know what they're voting for and against. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeking to post the most non-POV title for the RfC, not suggesting anything. Editors can review the remarks and say "Yes, change to ..." There may be lots of acceptable alternatives. Or they can say "No, ....". – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No uninvolved editor is going to understand that or take the effort to get up to speed. They just won't take the time and effort to come up with their own alternatives and if they do, you'll have a long list of alternatives with splintered vote. Apparently per a recent talk page comment, not even Carolmooredc has read the talk thread. It should have the specific alternative that you reverted or the else Steeletrap's alternative, but to have no concrete question in place does not focus the decision. Check with an admin if you have any further concern, but I feel the current form of the question will not be constructive. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich, please change the title of your question from the vague and unhelpful "Should the title for the "Academic freedom controversy" section be changed?" to "Should the title for the "Academic Freedom Controversy" section be changed to "Controversy over views on homosexuality"? Providing a concrete alternative will facilitate discussion and debate. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich, FYI, Steeletrap's request was made after my complaint about User:Specifico's canvassing.

I believe because of User:Specifico's campaigning to 10 wikiprojects with an inappropriate title, the RfC has to be cancelled. In any case, I have added the canvassing here to the ongoing WP:ANI on Specifico and Steeletrap. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No to both requests. WP editors are smart enough to figure it out. You can add your comment to the discussion that says "Yes. Change to "blah, blah, blah" because "......". The notice simply serves to say "There is a discussion going on over at..." The notice does not set the stage for the discussion. As I said above, adding a suggested title tends to skew the POV. My posting was NPOV. Re the canvassing, I believe tagging can remedy that problem. If the RfC is cancelled, then it'll have to be restarted or the lousy debate over the stinking section title will continue on the talk page. Fresh eyes are needed. – S. Rich (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2013 (U TC)

Insert: Not sure what you mean by tagging,but once I saw how many there were I sure didn't want to have to correct them all! I brought up invalidation cause saw it done once before, but not sure of correct protocol otherwise. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me there was something available to alert editors about canvassing, but I can't find it at the moment. (There is a tag for canvassing done with particular editors, but that does not apply here.) Perhaps I'll go to the various notices and post something that clarifies what the actual RfC title is. But then that might be objected to as an improper counter-canvassing. I don't know what the guidance is, so I won't do anything until I find out for sure. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich, my strong view is that they won't be willing to read all the surrounding context when such a vague and unspecific question is leading into it. My suggested title -- or another one which invokes homosexuality -- provides organization and clarity to the debate which follows. You claim that WP users are "smart enough to figure it out", but if my/Furry's/SPECIFICO's favored title (one which invokes HOppe's views on homosexuality) is inappropriate (as you allege) or "defamatory" (as Carol absurdly alleges), aren't they smart enough to figure that out too? Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Apology and offer

Hi Rich. My realization that I violated a serious WP rule, in 3RR (for which I was warned), has compelled me to take a step back and think about my contributions to the Hoppe article. While I continue to disagree with you on substantive content-related matters on the Hoppe page such as the section title, the aforementioned realization and subsequent reflections have led me to the conclusion that over the last 24 hours, I expressed my disagreements with you on the Hoppe page in a shrill and impatient manner. I am sorry and hope we can move past this in future editing collaborations. I will be steering clear of the Hoppe article for at least a few days, but I do hope we can build a more agreeable editing relationship in the future. Best, Steeletrap Steeletrap (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

And all the best back attcha! I've been at this WP stuff for a few years and I know it can get exasperating. You'll see my recently posted frustrated notice, which I upgraded to orange just yesterday. It is the first time I've posted such a notice. But with your most honorable comments in mind, I shall lower the level to a simple {{user frustrated}} format. (And hopefully remove it soon.) Yes, we do have disagreements, but they are not related to Hoppe's views. I've read only a tiny fraction of his stuff, so I can't opine on whether he is right or wrong, good or bad. But as an editor I don't need to read much. That is the job of people who are writing up Secondary material -- we simply use it to build our project. (But I am not developing much regard for him as I work on this stuff!)

I'll give you another example of where and why reading the Primary stuff is not needed. I see in the LvM article that he had some association with JBS. (That has been a group that I have a very low regard for.) Well, is that material supported by RS? At present I'm looking. But I saw that the JBS article had North as a "See also" link. So I ask myself what is the rationale for posting that link? (I did not recall seeing any such connection in other articles.) Well, nothing in North's article links him to JBS, so the link maybe an indirect (and unsupported) jab at North. Without a rationale the link is improper, so I removed it. Now will someone else come along & restore it? Perhaps, but they'd better have a justification for doing so. And if that article remains stable for a few days I will take it off my watch list.

Steeletrap, I hope that each time I've quoted policy and guidelines for you, it has been for a valid purpose and that the results are positive. Your response gives me great heart in that regard. Thank you, and here's a to go along with my best wishes. – S. Rich (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Your citations of WP policy/guidelines really generally have helped my learning process, Rich. As has the personal study of policy I have been inspired to undergo by arguments with you. The North/JBS thing does seem like a jab (though "again whom"? is perhaps a good question, since neither JBS nor North has a particularly savory reputation :P) if the connection is not established as significant by RS; I will take a look later. Steeletrap (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You aren't really the subject of it, only mentioned, but better safe than sorry thought I'd tell you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

JBS issue

The issue wasn't just confined to an improper association of JBS with Gary North. Also listed under "See also" on the JBS page are R.J. Rushdoony, Dominion Theology, and the Chalcedon Foundation. I have studied both the JBS and Dominionism in an academic context, so I know more than a bit about their ideological and social norms. Put over-simplistically, Dominionist theology (also known as Christian Reconstructionism) is the view that Christians ought to work to construct a political order which upholds the Mosaic Law outlined in the Old Testatement (e.g., stoning gays and recalcitrant children to death); R.J. Rushdoony is probably the most important Dominionist "intellectual", who -- along with Gary North -- has written extensive (in my view, crackpot) works on political strategy, economics, history, and how they relate to the future of the Dominionist project; and the Chalcedon Foundation is thinktank Rushdoony founded to promulgate Dominionism/Reconstructionism.

Apart from also being a far-right fringe group, there does not appear to be any evidence JBS is associated with or endorses the ideas of any of the three aforementioned subjects. (Indeed, while it does tend to be populated by Christian fundamentalists, JBS -- in stark contrast to the "Dominionists" -- is willing to work with non-Christians and even irreligious people on behalf of "fighting the NWO", and what that mission may mean in the current political situation often has little or nothing to do with advancing a particular religious (Christian) idea.) Please look into this if you have a chance, as these edits may have been (as you say) baseless jibes. Steeletrap (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The stuff about Dominionism, X-ian reconstruct, Mosaic law, etc. is much too abstruse for me. Still I'd say your edits are well-founded. – S. Rich (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Mis-categorization

Hallo. Thanks for trying to fix the problem in User talk:Quiddity/How it Works. I did see the mis-categorization last night, and attempted to go about fixing it by checking the code in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Links - Much more complicated than usual! So I left it until later (now!).

It appears the template automatically adds the category if&onlyif the page otherwise has no categories. (I think? Hmm, nope, I tested adding it to Cat:User essays, but it still added the Wikiproject cat in addition). I have no idea how it's meant to work! That template isn't critical, I'll just add a manual link to the directory, instead.

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks, and ask how you found the page? Are you using a tool/script/bot that watches for miscategorizations, or did you already have that page watchlisted? (Regardless, I hope you read and appreciated it ;)

Best wishes, –Quiddity (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

When you added a "|" in front of the template i thought you fixed it. So I posted a note on the talk page. Then you changed it back. THEN i realized this was an essay page, and saw that you have a regular page. (And now I see you have fixed it.) Once I had my morning coffee, all became clearer. How did I find the essay? It was listed on the category page for various WikiProjects. I was perusing it for different projects. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Civility thing

Hi rich. Your post on my wall accusing me of uncivility was mistaken; as such, I deleted it. I did revise the post to remove any language that could be construed as loaded, but no personal attack was made in the original. (I do not believe that describing a highly charged (and false) personal accusation as "nonsense" is "uncivil", but I have replaced this term with more vanilla language in hopes of placating you.) I continue to believe that the entry I added to the talk page serves as an important substantive contribution to the knowledge of editors, especially those new to the Hoppe page and the debates at the talk page which shape it, and should not be read as a jab. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Without looking at your revised remark, and in response to your talk page reply (deleted), I will say the original remark did come across as a jab. "Her charges have been found to be baseless at an ANI she filed ... [therefore what she says] should be assumed to be nonsense until proven otherwise." Bbb23 closed the ANI down because it was part of the bickering about the article, and said specifically that editors must treat each other with more respect. Your comment about nonsense was not complying with the admonition. Please focus article improvement and put your feelings about Carol aside. (Please note that I am not taking Carol's side on the BLP issue. And I oppose her Canvassing complaint about SPECIFICO.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to User:Steeletrap. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. There is no personal attack in my remark on the Hoppe page. (Saying someone's beliefs are false is not the same as calling him or her a liar; is this seriously what you're claiming?) Making charges of PA based on no evidence are clearly PAs. (I would also add that your understanding of the BLP issue is false. First, if a charge of BLP violations is rejected, it can be inferred that the admin/editors who rejected it.) Second, literally every editor on the BLP debate explicitly asserted that Carol's claims are false/incorrect.) Steeletrap (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Even so, putting these observations and feelings and facts on an article talk page is inappropriate. They have nothing to do with article content, they do nothing to improve the article, they do no advance civil discussion between editors with regard to improving the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That's just your subjective judgment, particularly since those (false) charges of BLP were so instrumental in shaping the composition of the Hoppe page. Steeletrap (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstars

		The Civility Barnstar
		Even if it can be a pain in the butt being reminded sometimes! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

		The Third Opinion Award
		Thanks for your help resolving the disagreement on Sebastian River High School! — Narsil (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, gosh. You are too kind! But I thank you. I'll be cleaning up my userpage in about 1k edits and shall post it then. In the meantime I'm lowering my frustration level a notch. (No longer orange.) Happy editing. – S. Rich (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Soto name and on fractional banking

• It seems to me in some source they kept calling him "Huerta de Soto" in ref to a last name. Also "de Soto" probably is used thusly. Is it worth it to check that out and change accordingly? Want to do it?? :-)
• Do you want to look into those refs I put up on the talk page about debates among libertarians on fractional reserve and expand the section or should I? It is an area of long interest to me (though I disagree with him on the fraud issue) but I'd be very happy to let you do it since trying to spend less time on Wikipedia. It's up to you. (Also, searching "review of" his most relevant book might bring up some good returns.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Your copyedits to Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

Thanks very much for your copyedits to the article I've recently created from scratch, at Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

I've retained the vast bulk of them and raised issue with some of them on the article's talk page at Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

Hopefully they are just minor points but there are extra bits of information that I think are only helpful to the reader to retain and keep in the article rather than summary removal.

Perhaps we could engage in talk page discussion in the future before more removals of information from the article?

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much and sources query

Thanks very much for your helpful and polite contribution to talk page discussion at Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties, much appreciated!

Do you perhaps happen to know of any other secondary sources or potential references not yet cited and incorporated into the article???

If you do, if you could suggest them on the talk page that would be most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

		The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
		Presented to S. Rich, esq. For dedication to polity and policy on WP

. SPECIFICO talk 13:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hola !

The worldcat listing on Human Action Catalan edition states Soto wrote the preface. It lists the translator, but the translator is not Soto. Hasta etc. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In which case I shall change. – S. Rich (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done. SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If article text, which has adequate RS, is incorrect, then it should be revised. Removing sourced material with an inaccurate edit summary is not helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That goes without saying. The present example was fiction with a vaguely related citation which did not support the fictitious text. But you took lemons and made lemonade, all to the good. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Overlink v the educational purpose of wikilinks

Yes, you know what tax exempt status means and that Manhattan is a borough, and what that means, but not every reader is also going to know those things. Wikipedia is supposed to be educational. Taking out most of the links makes it hard for people who do not know what you know. --Abel (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SEAOFBLUE applies. We want to educate people about FEE and its contributors, not about geographical terminology or president, etc.. The tax status was changed only for better layout in the infobox. The article is already massively linked. – S. Rich (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the points of "general points on linking style" were violated. --Abel (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are my changes: [3]. The article now has a more reasonable level of linking -- focusing more on the authors. MOS:LINK warns about excessive linking. Again, as an example, president was linked, but the president article itself is about governmental presidents and has a small section about NGO presidents. Did we link president so that they could learn more about national presidents? No -- we want to encourage readers to learn more about FEE and the various contributors by linking those names. Readers who want to learn more about WWII etc, will use "Search" Too many links distract from the important stuff. Abel, you've created a Good Article. Don't fall victim to WP:OWN. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Am not disagreeing with president, vice-president, professor, author, or Atlanta. I am disagreeing with tax exempt, borough, estate, chairman, economist, Lawrence Reed, World War II, headquarters, acre, and resident. No one owns any Wikipedia article, that is kind of the point of the whole thing.--Abel (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Reed is a triplicate. The residency article is a lousy one. Chairman is not much different than prez or VP. Other items are common English words. (I agree about relinking economist, and will do so shortly.) As for the rest, how about posting a WP:3O review? – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If Reed is already linked then yeah, no need to do so again. The residency article might not be good, but there is no reason to believe that it won't be better in the future. Also, a less than perfect explanation is still better than no explanation at all for people who have no idea what it means to be a resident, especially considering that this is one of the disambiguated terms. Most people have no earthly idea what an economist does, and the same goes for a chairman. At best you would get "someone important" with no real understanding of the position, although I will concede that this one is debatable. Tax exempt, borough, estate, headquarters, and acre might have been common English words at one time, but they are no longer. Just like I would expect anyone over 40 to immediately know what World War II was, but for others? Not so much. --Abel (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Soto

Greetings. My talk and edit comments tried to make clear that the existence of 7 volumes, which I retained, is not in doubt but the details and characterization of them is all OR and SYNTH. Please undo your reinsertion of my edit and lets continue the discussion on the article talk page if you wish. BRD time. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Soto

Greetings. My talk and edit comments tried to make clear that the existence of 7 volumes, which I retained, is not in doubt but the details and characterization of them is all OR and SYNTH. The publisher website is an additional primary source, not a secondary source. Please review policy and definitions of primary source. Please undo your reinsertion of my edit and lets continue the discussion on the article talk page if you wish. BRD time. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made remarks on the talk page. You are misapplying primary source. Soto's CV is the primary source when he says "I wrote, I edited, I ... such and such." And primary sources can be used if they have reliability, particularly about the person. The secondary source is the publisher data which lists Soto as an editor on the copyright page. Also, we can confirm via WorldCat data. Your edit left the reader with the CV data only. The restored info has the Googlebooks data. It is more helpful, and serves to confirm what the CV says. – S. Rich (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi no you're wrong. The U Chi Press page is a primary source document. Policy cites the example of viewing a parking ticket, primary source, does not qualify to assert "Soto received a parking ticket." Please undo yourself and resolve on talk. I wouldn't want to encourage other editors to think edit-warring is a good mode of discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So even if UChicago (and Union Editorial) is primary, it is completely acceptable. We are not doing some intrepretation of the data. E.g., we are not saying "he was the primary editor" or "the widely published" or "influential" Spanish edition. We are simply saying Soto was an editor of the Spanish stuff. You are spinning this concern about primary too far. And you are misreading the PS guidance. "An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident." Soto is writing "I was in a traffic accident and here's what happened to me." – S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The latter would not be an acceptable account of the facts concerning the incident, particularly to the extent it involved other people or entities and made assertions about the participant's actions relating to the accident. Does the Adolph Eichmann article quote him regarding the false allegations against him? Does Bill Clinton's article say "Clinton never had sex with that woman..." usw. I feel that you're inciting a riot on talk over there. Frankly although I know you understand the issues, I don't believe that other editors may even be aware of the wide range of the various roles which could all be described as 'editor' -- the whole thing needs a bona fide secondary source. Anyway, citing the 7 Hayek volumes as part of Editorial Union's project founded and headed by Soto, which was my solution, more than adequately references his important role and the scope of the project without resorting to any undue ambiguous, unsourced, or otherwise problematic claims. Please consider restoring my version while we continue talk page resolution. Thanks, amigo. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control

Srich Carolmoore attacked user:goethean, not me, on gun control. Your comment there was out of left field and had nothing to do with what had just happened. Please remove it. You should not be making personal remarks like that on article talk pages to begin with, especially on articles in which you've previously had no involvement. Please remove those remarks. SPECIFICO talk 03:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My talk page Iban

Since User: Srich keeps talking voluntary IBANs and wants to keep temperatures and soapbox down, how about he doesn't comment on my talk page (and specifico neither) unless it is a ("one") official template notice and then send me to the relevant noticeboard/talk page for further discussion. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 06:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you saying CarolMooreDC, that you don't want me to comment on your talkpage? And why is this a new section? It seems to be directed towards SPECIFICO. – S. Rich (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Srich. You are persona non grata. Welcome. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

SRich, you tempt me to naughtiness on my personal talk page and I don't want to get in trouble. User: Specifio, I banned Steeletrap before, not you, even though you banned me way back when, remember? But I decided just to be fair to User: Srich should ban you too - unless you have official notices and for very limited discussion of them, like I just replied to your incivility complaint and mentioned that failure to discuss is edit warring, for which the diff'd evidence grows everyday. But I always liked to think people will see the light and become a Wikipedia Firster instead of a (MY POV) Firster.... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Austrian School‎

That comment has everything to do with article improvement. The only difference between Lady O and SPECIFICO is that SPECIFICO is about one hundred times better at concealing the campaign of destruction. Making a few useful edits, using reasonable sounding edit descriptions that conceal the actual actions taken, citing respected sources and half sticking to what the sources actually said, ... Masterful gaming of the system. I applaud the intelligence behind the campaign. There is dedication and craftiness that would be one of the biggest assets ever if applied to improving articles rather than used to push unsupported propaganda against a theory onto an unfamiliar population. --Abel (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply is on your talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)