User talk:DickClarkMises/archive2

Please do not modify.

ARCHIVED: DickClarkMises 20:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Jewish Libertarians

The Jewish Libertarians Club is a private group. The Jewish Libertarians Club is group which passes around articles about Libertarian issues which relate to Jewish issues. While in part it is a group of pro-Israel/Zionist/Two-State Solution Libertarians, it also deals with non Israel Jewish issues which relate to Libertarianism. Thank you for your interest, and feel free to contact me again on my talk page if you have any more questions.

CabotTheWarrior 23:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)CabotTheWarrior aka Dr. John Cabot[reply]

Men's Wearhouse

I removed the link to buyblue.org from Men's Wearhouse because User:Dave Mott has added that link to dozens of articles (and made no other contributions). And apparently buyblue.org has been encouraging its visitors to come to Wikipedia and add links to their site. To me, this is blatant linkspamming and needs to be reverted/prevented. However, if you feel the link really does add something to the Men's Wearhouse article, I certainly won't object if you add it back. Deli nk 11:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember

Please remember to discuss any changes you make on the talk page with regards to the Walter Block article. Thanks, and have a great afternoon! CabotTheWarrior 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)CabotTheWarrior[reply]

Fine words from someone who has never visited the page, despite requests. -Will Beback 00:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the deleted conversation here [1]. I just contributed to it. Some editors apparently don't have Wiki's best interests in mind, as they avoid adding very important things and concentrate on the trivial. --Sherman W. 01:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)This user now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet[reply]

Please note this is "Sherman W.'s" second ever edit. As for gothard article and other Jason Gastrich socks his edits are to be reverted according to the ArbCom decision made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. This user is banned along with every "user" but David who posted in that reverted section. Also on a side note Sherman is Jason Gastrich's #100 sock puppet. Arbusto 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh... Okay, I'll comply, although I'm sure you'll understand that I'm interested in further development of the Gothard article. Let's be careful about how quickly we assume sockpuppet. I hadn't been keeping up with the Gastrich saga lately. Dick Clark 20:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks at Sobran...

...and for my first barnstar. Good job on the rewrite, too. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 18:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rv war heating up again @ Sobran. St. Jimmy 00:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Guy

I noticed that you have had some trouble with User:Rogerman. Please observe his recent activity in the Billy Graham Edit History. This guy is concerned about antisemitism, as are most sane people, but he is not concerned about NPOV, as can be seen by his predilection for labelling biography subjects as controversial in the lead paragraphs of their articles. I looked at his user talk page and noticed that he has been asked by others not to do this, as well, and has been generally problematic in his crusade to spin other biographies with his POV. How long does this continue before action is taken by admin? Projection70 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projection70, going around talking behind my back is not cool. If you have a problem with my edits, why didn't you come to me directly? That would have been the appropriate step if you indeed wanted to resolve an issue rather than causing trouble. That said, I am always willing to work with anyone, no matter how many conflicts I may of had with them in the past. Please contact me if you would like to make amends and work together for a better Wikipedia. -Rog Rogerman 04:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Rogerman[reply]

Well, it appears that admin Syrthiss took care of this problem. [2] Dick Clark 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting article work

If you are getting this, it is because you do or did work on Scouting articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting#Participants_and_primary_areas_of_interest).

As the Scouting WikiProject has been formed since early January 2006, we've had many great improvements made in this area of Wiki and I want to personally thank everyone for their help. We don't always agree on things, but we keep moving forward. YIS, Rlevse 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

The Wikipedia community's view of editors who are interested parties in the articles they are editing seems to be shifting. See [3], et seq., for discussion in April, and [4], et seq., for May. I don't know whether this discssion will affect written policies in the future. You many want to join the discussion. -Will Beback 02:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Howdy. Yeah, I've edited a few pages here and there so far. Mostly just grammar and spelling fixes. Thanks for the welcome message. (Unsigned comment by Nels N. Nelson)

Thanks for my welcome message and the helpful tips. This is a good resource. I hope I can help.--Sk8ski 16:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 4 welcome

Thanks for your warm welcome, Dick. I am a German Wikipedian. My Goal is rather to get additional information from the English Wikipedia article and discussion pages than to contribute to the articles myself. I will of course contribute to discussions - but articles should be written by those, whose mother tongue is English. I won't hesitate to contact you with any questions. --Don.Rumata 05:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the warm welcome, Dick. Maybe one of these day's I'll crawl out of my gnome hole and contribute something substantial.

--TauLibrus 21:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the welcome too. Ex Pluribus Unum

verifiability

None of the information cited in the Scholars article is verifiable according to Wikipedia standards. We can't rely on blogs and self-published sources here. Morton devonshire 18:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at User talk:Morton devonshire. Dick Clark 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote tally removed

I removed your "current vote tally" from the 9/11 truth AfD. Due to the nature of AfDs, particularly close and controversial ones, the actual raw count of votes is entirely inconsequential to the outcome of the debate. It would send out the wrong message to include such a figure, especially as a running total, as AfD is not a vote. Rest assured the closing admin will consider all the votes and give them the individual weight they deserve. Nice one, Deizio talk 01:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly understand that voting is evil. I was just personally curious as to the tally and added it to save others the trouble of counting. If you feel that it would somehow sway the outcome of the discussion negatively, I'm glad you removed it. Cheers, Dick Clark 01:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

You and I may have our differences, but I appreciate that you took the opportunity to remove the personal attack from my user talk page. Thanks. Morton devonshire 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Cheers, Dick Clark 14:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your welcome message. I am a Taiwanese Wikipedian from chinese wiki, and I am a Libertarian too. My major goal is to traslate English articles to chinese wiki, I have already translated many English articles about Libertarian to chinese wiki, such as zh:自由意志主義 and zh:諾蘭曲線(Nolan Chart). I will ask you if I got any question about Libertarian, Thanks!Lectert 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gothard

I see you recently contributed to the Bill Gothard article. I was wondering if you would comment on the talk page regarding the changes that I made to the article. I have had my work reverted now twice without good reason. I am not a supporter of Bill Gothard. I'm not even a Christian, but I am a lover of Wikipedia. I believe that articles, especially about living persons, should be written in such a manner that we meet the upmost standards in terms of using verifiable sources that are reliable. More than anything I am a supporter of the policy of verifiability and the guidelines about reliable sources.

Self-published personal web pages by non-notable people are not appropriate to be used as sources for claims made in a biography about Gothard. It is completely against wikipedia policy and the guidelines.

Also, Wikipedia should be as transparent as possible -- avoiding weasel words -- like "Critics say this..." and "Critics contend that...". Let us specifically say which critics we are talking about and what exactly gives those critics the authority to talk about Bill Gothard. I want the article about Gothard to include the relevant criticisms, but we must make sure that we don't place undue emphasis on criticism, especially when all the criticism appears to be coming from just a couple of small groups. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons should be adhered to.

I would love to hear what others have to say about the points I brought up on the talk page of Bill Gothard -- whether you agree with the edits or not. I actually suspect that you are more inclined to disagree with my edits, but weel see. I just want to see somebody provide some guidance rather than just hitting a revert button.

Thanks for your time and consideration Vivaldi (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page "spamming"

Thanks for the note! 172 | Talk 04:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gordon Corley

It's just that I originally put in the correlation between his pseudonym and 1984 without any actual evidence, just a well-calculated guess. One can always ask him on #2600@irc.2600.net. I listened to him yesterday there.

I'M ACTUALLY SCIENTZ

And have been here for a while, however, I cannot log in from work. Which does not necessarily keep me from reading and editing articles, mind you.

-Scientz

Mixed economy

There's a debate at Talk:Mixed economy over whether Ludwig von Mises should be considered an extreme POV for purposes of Wikipedia. Your input might be helpful. -Will Beback 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho-capitalism

I'm looking for users how now something about anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is currently under featured article review. Any help in maintaining featured status would be appreciated. -- Vision Thing -- 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:External links apply. Anytime someone adds links to the same website to dozens of articles that meets the definition of spam. If the interviews contain useful information then it'd be worthwhile to add that info using the links as citations. Also, the user is welcome to use the talk pages to justify his linking. But so far he's mostly just added external links which don't help the project, and he has continued despite warnings. -Will Beback 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rothbard's "An Austrian Perspective"

I have left you a question for which you may have an answer here: Talk:An_Austrian_Perspective_on_the_History_of_Economic_Thought.

-- RayBirks 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RoseWilderLane01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RoseWilderLane01.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your welcoming message. I really messed up my first few attempts at posting Laidler's biography, but I think I finally got the format right. I hope to add more personal information over the next few days.

The only question I haven't found an answer for is how to generate the content box. I got the impression from something I read that it would appear automagically if I had four sub-headings, but I guess I haven't created those sub-headings properly.

I link to Wikipedia a great deal on my blog. It is a fabulous resource.

You folks must have had a lot of fun with all the edits of the John Lott article!

Thanks to everyone there for your patience!

John Palmer jpalmer@uwo.ca

Alliance for the Separation of School & State

You may be interested in this article. It needs more info and external links. I'll work on it some more myself. --Kalmia 19:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do No Blank!

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Regnery Publishing. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lordkazan 16:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked content that had clear citations to reliable sources. the above is one of the standard warning templates. Lordkazan 16:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you apparently blanked the same content twice, that's typically not a good sign. Much more discussion on the talk page might be in order. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you are reading the diffs correctly. Also, you may be confused because User:Lordkazan and I discussed this issue on his talk page rather than on the article talk page. Sorry if that made the exchange difficult to follow. Cheers, DickClarkMises 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I was not aware of that discussion since the article talk page didn't reference it or didn't reference it as clearly as it could. Do you still stand behind your opening remark ("Please don't visit my talk page simply to leave inane, inapplicable warning templates.") in the discussion, though? Characterising a warning as "inane" is rarely a good way to start a discussion, I have found. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I know, WP:AGF is still in effect, and I was a little miffed that another editor would just leave a test template on my talk page when my edit was clearly commented in such a way as to show that I wasn't just engaging in vandalism, but rather an edit that seemed to me to be an accurate and good-faith action based on the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Just leaving a stock test template, without any further initial explanation of his dissatisfaction, seemed to me to be both wrong-headed and lazy in this case. In my opinion, assuming good faith means refraining from taking on such an accusatory tone except for in cases where bad faith editing is clearly occurring and is unambiguous. In my opinion, use of the test templates in other cases may be counterproductive and is certainly offensive. Cheers, DickClarkMises 14:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also refer you to WP:VANDAL, which clearly states, as I asserted above, that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." While I don't think that my edit was a bad one, I was willing to compromise and in fact did compromise based on the seemingly reasonable concerns of Lord Kazan. This was, however, a content dispute and not at all related to any sort of vandalism. I would, however, argue that the over-eager use of a test template on my talk page constitutes a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA. DickClarkMises 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF goes both ways. There is merit in what you say, and I see your side, but I do think that the opener could have been a bit more mellow. that's all. (and ya, leaving stock templates can be a bit lazy) I see no need to take any action about it other than that. Thanks for sharing your views and happy editing... ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: An AnCap "To Do" List

Dick, I've just today started chatting with Ancapstan, a new contributor around here. His first entry was creating the For a New Liberty page. Perhaps you'll consider chiming in at his Talk Page at User_talk:Ancapistan, and maybe we all might start something. -- RayBirks 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Brenneman

Hi DCM - It occurs to me that my edit note on the Brenneman page sounds like I'm saying that YOU embroidered facts: you did not. The two prior edits did. However, I snipped some out of your fair addition so that we didn't attribute intent where we don't know it existed. It might be fair to assume that she signed in order to lend support to the petition, but maybe she did it for another reason - in any case, that's not relevant. Hope you're good with that. - Corporal Tunnel 21:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A 'market failure' issue to look at

If you get a moment, take a look at my comment on the Market failure discussion page Talk:Market_failure. Mine is #8. Please chime in there if you are so inclined. -- RayBirks 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Rockwell/Conflict of Interest

On what basis have you decided it is "defamatory?" What qualifies as a "more precise citation?" The fact that you are connected with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, as is Lew Rockwell, raises a concern of conflict of interest. - MSTCrow 21:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of adultery is pretty defamatory. If the claim is not properly substantiated, it ought not be included according to WP:BLP and WP:RS. I wear my affiliations on my sleeve, and I explained my rationale on the article talk page for the scrutiny of the community. Others, who have no such connections, have agreed with my argument. I'm sure further involvement from other editors will be forthcoming, but right now it appears that most folks think that the claim is a bit lurid to include without additional substantiation. DickClarkMises 20:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Henry hazlitt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Henry hazlitt.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused.

"Center frame"?

File:Leecountyforum2.jpg

Here I am (center frame) participating in my capacity as Libertarian candidate for AL House District 79 in the League of Women Voters Lee County candidates forum held on 17 October 2006.

Aside from the fact that I can't tell if Carolyn Ellis is a woman or not, I have to ask: Are you Carolyn Ellis? Because she's in the center. I'm going to take a wild guess that you're the guy on the left, because of the "ark," and you said your name is Dick Clark. That makes more sense, unless of course you're a woman named Dick. It sounds strange, but then again, is it just me or is that a woman on the right named Mike Hubbard? Was that the League of Women Voters or a GLBT convention? Robocracy 00:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interest, but I am the guy whose face is center frame. The picture was taken from a vantage point to the extreme right of the stage, and this offset the name plates. The guy on the left was a candidate from another state legislative district which included part of Lee County. DickClarkMises 03:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]