User talk:Srich32977/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Srich32977. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Question about best practices for adding link to more complete information

Thanks for your note on my talk page, Rich. I understand the policy on advertising. Is there a way I can word the addition I made differently so that it is not promotional but still gets that information out there? The list I edited is woefully incomplete, and I thought the best, easiest way to address that would be to add a link to a more complete, updated list. I'm not going to claim not to be biased -- I know the list I linked to is the most complete because I'm immersed in this issue every day and have contributed many of the updates to the list I linked to myself. But failing a complete overhaul of the Wikipedia list page, which I have neither time nor editorial "authority" to do, what is the best option here? Rebekah Wilce (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rebekah Wilce: Thanks for your message. Please note I've added the SourceWatch link at the bottom of the page in the External links section. We cannot use Wikipedia's "voice" to say 'SourceWatch is the best place to go to for more or complete info'. Because SW is a wiki we do not consider it a reliable source. The acceptable practice is to use the sources that SW editors, such as yourself, rely on to post info. Also, your connection to SW may be a problem in terms of conflict of interest. That is, any time you posted a SW link you'd be violating policy – even more so if was material that you had written. (I think you would be okay if you posted non-SW data.)

Anytime you want to ask, please drop by here. I'm pretty active on WP and like to help other editors. Also, you can see that two other editors are quite involved in the ALEC list pages. You can contact them too. Finally you can post a {{request edit}} on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Italy-USA Foundation and ALEC

Regarding the article Italy-USA Foundation and the relations with ALEC I would like to suggest this source http://www.italiausa.org/index.php?c=notizia&id=975 I am sorry but I dont know how to include a source in the article, may be you can help me. Thank you. 79.37.211.126 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Done – S. Rich (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux Page

I noticed you reverted another user who was making some edits removing sections and adding poorly sourced material from forums. Looking through it seems this happen now and again and the user made an account and immediately made those edits and nothing else. Do people normally do that to the page? Perhaps the subject themself considering the name? If so I'll keep it on my watch list and if they do things like that again I'll clean it up as well.FlossumPossum (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think most editors start off with IP edits and then move to establish a username. (I did.) And I had the same thought about who the newbie was considering the description as a philosopher & first name usage. Thanks, FlossumPossum, for keeping an eye out for WP quality.

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on G. Edward Griffin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

hm, i opened a discussion of this on Talk - you just have edit warred. Shows where each of us are coming from.Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: please note that our closer, an admin with some considerable experience, has restored the lede edit, protected the page {(edit conflict) and suggested opening a new talk page thread). Also, the archiving on the talk page was done in a very modest effort to remove completely non-relevant sections. The talk page is at 350kb, a huge number. There is no reason to put the garbage back in. You are being disruptive. Stop. – S. Rich (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. It is not shared by all. I was actually ready to accept the conclusion to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence, but in my view the implementing edit exceeded the scope of the RfC. Nyytend went too far. I have asked for a review of the close, so we will see where that goes. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed both the comments you added and the ANI. What is disappointing is to see you ignore the guidance and comments I provided on both the edit summary and on the talk page (e.g., procedure for challenging a closure). As for Nyttend, you should have put two and two together (Nyttend's edits and the closing rationale) to see what was intended. Nyttend closed the RFC and based the edit on policy. That new version became the "consensus version" and it was improper to skirt around it with the flimsy "first sentence" excuse. Unfortunately you (and others) are so intent on denigrating Griffen with the CT label that you are not content to see the term used in the infobox, text lower in the article (it its own section), and as a category. And now I see you withdrawing the ANI. Jezz, two dozen edits by you, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. – S. Rich (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: you got upset about how I manually archived a few small threads, but then you agreed to (and implemented) a 45 day archive period. This resulted in 15 threads/100kb being archived. To me this says you are objecting to my edits simply because I am the one doing them. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You could have simply asked a neutral question - the lack of AGF in your question was unnecessary. You still haven't asked me why I reverted (although my explanation was there in my edit notes and in the Talk sections I opened both times) if those aren't clear, please just ask me. thx. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And now you accuse me of lacking good faith? You posted comments about being "confused" about the small manual archiving and I've tried to explain it was simple clean up of needless threads. (Do you need diffs to see this?) Jytdog, I'm looking for something that will motivate you to look at your own lack of objectivity – it seems to me that if I do something you've got to find or invent some fault with it. IMO you can't see the the contradiction inherent in reverting my small incremental manual archives and then implementing the huge archiving that the bot accomplished. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You are still not asking me anything - you are just telling me things about myself, and that is your goal - not to actually try to understand why I have done what I done. OK. I hear it, that you think I am not being objective. Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Why did you do what you did? – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(so strange.. is it so hard to just ask a simple question - does it really need italics? i don't understand your communication style) When you did your "one-click archiving", you provided no rationale for selecting this or that section to archive. It wasn't chronological, i couldn't see a topical thread.... it seemed random. As far as I could tell, the archives resulting from your one-clicks would be random, and anybody trying to trace what has unfolded would be pretty much lost. that is a bad thing to me. The first time you did it (without discussion first) i reverted and opened a discussion, to which you didn't reply. Which said to me that you didn't really care. I was surprised when you selectively archived things again, again providing no rationale for selecting this thing or that to archive. Again, I opened a Talk page discussion so we could discuss it; this time i offered a suggestion for addressing your concern with the length of the Talk page. This time you responded and we reached agreement on a way to archive the page. The archives created by the bot should be roughly chronological; they should not be not too difficult for somebody (which by now includes me) to follow. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The one-click archive feature does not provide a means for giving explanations. Nor does it allow for marking the edits as minor. Edits do not always require explanations, especially when they are minor or obvious. The archives I did were not random -- they were obviously minor and/or on threads which had closed. Whether done by bot or manually, the threads go into the newest archive, not randomly. (Editors who are interested in old topics can search the archives.) When you could not figure this out you might have given me some credit for knowing what I was doing. Instead of reverting, you could have asked me why. (VictorD7 did so.) You could not see that I had fixed the archive parameters and archived two 2011 threads, a 2012 thread, a 5 month old thread, a closed thread re the BLPN, the resolved American Media thread, the resolved CFP thread, the UNDUE tag thread that was being discussed below, and the PP request that was OBE. Now the threads with Steeletrap were more recent, but you could have "undone" them individually. Instead you did a one-click revert of my selected archiving with a "Sorry, but I don't agree with selections of what to keep and what to archive" edit summary. You mean you thought all of the old threads, etc. should have stayed on the active talk page? That is silly because the bot would have come along sooner or later. Instead you added to the cluttered talk page with a rather silly (IMO) question. Note I replied at 02:33, 7 January 2015. (Specifico ~~seemed to object to~~ [commented on my response].) Again it seems to me that you are not putting much thought into figuring out what I do. – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Crazy. I wonder what the heck happened to your reply in the archives? So what is becoming clear here is that it was important to me that the threads be preserved in a coherent order. It was important to you reduce the length of the Talk page. You attempted to meet your goal by selectively archiving things. I objected and eventually proposed that we let the bot do it, which should preserve the chronological order. You agreed to that. What are we talking about, exactly? We both got what we wanted. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup. We are resolved and can now move on. Why don't you go ahead and manually archive this thread? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

mmmm should I laugh? heck i am laughing.. (i hope that was meant to be funny! tone is so hard, in writing) Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, I wasn't objecting to your response. I was just giving you a heads up (correctly as it has turned out) as to how your words would be received by other editors. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A request for Arbitration has been made for America: Imagine a World Without her

The request can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Casprings (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Srich32977, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that this case has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

Reputable references

Hi there, I notice you reverted my cited references and understand your reasoning for doing so, however, I would submit that they are in fact reputable and reliable citations for reference of the information on the page rather than spam. For example, the citation inserted on the Barrister page references material on a legitimate law firm website of a barristers' chambers. I hope you will agree, and that this edit can be restored. Thank you. Danshensmith (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Danshensmith It is not the information on the website that's at issue, it is you posting your website(s) as a reference. There are a lot of barristers, solicitors, lawyers, and attorneys in the world and many of them have websites. Just because the info on their websites is legitimate or correct does not make those pages acceptable on Wikipedia. Same policy applies to Baseboards and the other pages you edited. Thanks for your inquiry, but the links will not be restored. – S. Rich (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Rescue lost ref?

Can you help me restore lost ref comc1112? Thanks Hugh (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I found it. Hugh (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Outdated

I tagged List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council as outdated because I was halfway through updating the list of state chairs from the 2012 chairs to the 2015 chairs. Since most of the chairs are different, and many of the old ones are no longer legislators, I thought it prudent to alert readers that the article was out-of-date for the time being. I intended to remove the tag when I was completed with the update. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WTAF

I'm a fan of WTAF, but it doesn't apply to adding J Robinson to a list in the Ranger article. Robinson meets GNG and WP:ATHLETE easily as an Olympian. Being a 4 time national champion and an Olympic coach 4 times just adds to it. He is clearly notable. He was clearly a Ranger. The RS is solid. In any case, WTAF is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Like I said, I'm a big fan of it and invoke it when it's someone of questionable notability. Robinson isn't questionable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: I'll go with Robinson. But Saturn is problematic. As a fan of WWE (for the sheer athletics) I can appreciate him – as a pro wrestler. (And hopefully he's turned his life around.) But was he a Ranger? (As a member of the American Legion and VFW I've see lots of guys brag about being over-the-hill Seal Team 6 and Deltas.) Let's find real RS for him. – S. Rich (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the change on Robinson. Thank you. As I said, the source is a RS, beyond question. The writer is an established reporter for the paper. He didn't invited anyone to edit the list or give them the ability to. Scroll down and you'll see the "additions" in the comment section. That's all, inviting comments. And I've never heard Satullo brag about it himself. His WWE bio also lists him as a Ranger, but I know that may be challenged as company hype. If the source were some wrestling fan site and a discussion, I wouldn't even put it in here, but the Journal is a reliable source (and the oldest paper in NY State). Niteshift36 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Phil himself says he is unreliable – "off the top of my head" etc. If there was more RS supporting Saturn's Ranger status we could find it. But there isn't. Come on, defend the Wiki! – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure how you use the phrase, but that doesn't make it unreliable per se. If he said he could name 30 of the 50 states "off the top of his head", does that make those 30 invalid? No. It means those are what he recalls, having learned them previously. I'm confused though. First your objection was that he asked people to add names. When we established that meant in the comments, it became a question of his memory. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    - The 30/50 states comparison is a false analogy. But to get down to specifics – 1. If Saturn is a "remembered" name, then Phil is problematic as all memories are faulty and he admits he has not verified Saturn as a Ranger from a source. (How or why does he remember that Saturn was a Ranger?) But more importantly – 2 – Phil says he might have found the name as a Ranger somewhere on-line. Well – where??? If he had, then we should be able to do so to. – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Eamonn Butler

Hello. Why is there a threatening tag on his talkpage? What happened to justify that?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a "threatening" template at all – simply a notification to please edit carefully. The reason (Austrian economics) is listed. He has written on Austrian economics topics. – S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I know, but why is that a reason to be careful?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

For you, an experienced Wikipedian, there is no particular reason. But the Arbcom which adopted the sanctions involved some POV warriors. A TBAN was issued to two of them. Just to be clear I cast out and tagged all the Austrian econ topics I could find. The idea per {{Ds/talk notice}} is to inform/warn other editors (and POV warriors) who might seek to edit in the topic area with less than care. – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I did not know it was a blanket tag. He is obviously very prominent, but the trick is to find references to in-line throughout the article. He's very self-effacing and only really ever talks/writes about ideas, so it's not that easy. (I find it very difficult to have a conversation with him as well--he's definitely not an open book.) There are biographical details in Think Tank, Madsen Pirie's book, but that doesn't seem very "third party" as they work together... Btw I could probably take his picture soon if he agrees.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sloppy

Can't say you're wrong about that (though repeatedly self-reverting typos is better than ignoring them). I've always preferred substance over style. Steeletrap (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You know, I appreciate your calling me out. I'm the smartest person in the room, so my credibility is high. But the typos still diminish it. My problem is that I have no secretary here.

Would you be up for being my secretary? Your job would be to proofread my posts for typos prior to my posting them. Steeletrap (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin Violation

Greetings amigo. You have done 2 edits, each labeled "my one edit for the week," in a span of 6 days on the Griffin article. I suggest you revert your second edit and wait until a week has passed so that you will not be sanctioned. Patience. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the one revert per seven days restriction ([1] & [2]) on the page G. Edward Griffin, you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

February 2015

Hi Srich32977. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Marinello Schools of Beauty, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. A7 does not apply to educational institute and schools. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! Jim Carter 10:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Takimag: David Cole

Well then, would you mind helping me out make this article? Honestly, I'm doing this with no harm intended and I have no idea why I'm even being told this is unconstructive. I was told on another IP by User:Materialscientist to just cite sources and that would be ok. I just didn't want to add any unrelated Takimag links to reflist even though the guy is notable. How might I be able to fix this? Sorry for any trouble I may have caused! :( WarpSoldier (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)WarpSoldier

WarpSoldier, I'll give you a detailed explanation tomorrow. (It is a bit late right now.) Please be patient Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@WarpSoldier: the edits done on Taki had a few problems. 1. Cole is a living person and Wikipedia has very strict rules about WP:BLP (biographies of living persons). 2. The two links went to Taki itself, one article by Cole and one about him. Neither link called him a Holocaust denier. 3. The section is there to list notable people who have written in Taki, and by notable we mean people with WP articles. Put another way, we want to avoid listing all of the various contributors to magazines when they don't have WP articles. Yes, Materialscientist may have said "supply sources", but sometimes these comments are just basic remarks and sometimes we have templates that produce canned messages. We do wish to encourage new editors to learn about WP so they can contribute. So there is a challenge for you. Go through the WP:TUTORIAL to learn the basics. Carefully look at WP:NOTABILITY and consider whether Cole merits a WP article. To get an article on him you'd have to find various independent sources that talk about him. Does this help? Feel free to contact me again if you've got questions. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Toxic Editing Atmosphere and Suggestions to Improve it

Mr. Rich I noticed your name while researching the toxic editing culture by reviewing ANI. I am a long time editor and have noticed an increase in drama and personal attacks over the years. I wrote an article about the troubling atmosphere here that lacks decorum, order and professionalism and placed it on Jimbo's talk page. I noticed your comments in an ANI discussion about an editor's behavior. I came over to your user space and noticed you have a background in the military and the law. I have a 24 years as an enlisted man and have trouble with all the juvenile behavior that goes unaddressed and creates a negative experience for editors, new and old alike. I am asking if you would be willing to offer some suggestions for improvement in the comment section under the article I submitted. Thanks for your consideration. Very respectfully, 208.54.38.202 (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken a short look. (So far I gather you made comments via two geographically similar IP addresses) At the moment I'll say you are right about the polluted atmosphere, but I don't know that it has gotten worse. E.g., how do we quantify this? In any event the editing atmosphere may simply reflect the real world social and political atmosphere which teams with silly, distracting, and often cruel ad hominem commentary. Editorial cartoons are fun and interesting but not really informative. Sadly much of the editing, edit warring, and discussion we see is little better than cartooning. Administrators do their best to squelch this, but they suffer the same fate as Sisyphus. (And, regrettably, the very process of applying for admin status is tinged with toxicity. The result is we do not have enough admins.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Very thoughtful comments Srich, but if you don't mind another view here, I don't think the problem is with Admins. The boards which are intended to determine community consensus are dysfunctional -- widely called "drama boards" -- and tend to reflect social or political connections among active editors. How do you see the environment being improved with a greater number of Admins? SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the Jimbo talk page. which is a paradigm of drama. (If its hundreds of archives were studied, I wonder if we'd find any changes that resulted from the discussions.) The thread which IP started illustrates some of the problems. The original posting does not have data (simply observations), but commenting editors are too happy to post their favorite diffs about problems they've faced. IP is criticized as a SOCK, but that's an ad hominem because the criticism does not address the issues raised. I could go on, but I don't want this user talk page to be a drama board itself. As to the number of admins, I see delay and backlogs that require admin attention even for mundane actions. (Again, my observation lacks data.) More admins could clear up the backlogs and free them to enforce behavioral norms. – S. Rich (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wise comments, although it's my impression that the backlog is not due to the number of Admins but to their disinclination to perform that role in an increasingly politicized environment. Most of the threads could just as well be closed by non-Admins but it is a thankless task, partly due to the crossfire that characterizes most Noticeboard threads nowadays. Most unfortunately, as noted above, the RfA process itself is largely political, with unfortunate outcomes. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Unblock appeal

appeal granted

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Srich32977 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Edits were completely uncontroversial and not reverts of prior editing. E.g., the first edit was normal article improvement because it served to match the lede with the infobox. Likewise, the second edit served to remove duplicate/redundant information from the lede. Both edits were properly explained, justified, and uncontested. So, if one of these edits is found to be justified, then the 1RR rule will not apply. In any event, I recognize that 6 days had elapsed between these edits instead of the required 7 days, so (to stay on the safe side) I will observe a complete WP:ONLYREVERT prohibition on the article until the 1RR is lifted. arbitration enforcement noticeboard. – S. Rich (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

There is quite a bit of controversy about the first sentence (I've lost count of the number of talk page discussions about it), and the second revert is part of this edit war [3] so is controversial. I really do thank you for trying, and going out of your way to follow the rules and edit constructively. Given that, and that you intended to follow ONLYREVERT (which I think you'll agree has been one of the problems on the article), I'll unblock you in a sec. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, I think this means you should put off your RfA for at least a year. Unjustified though the block may have been, a block is a block. And a recent block is likely to hurt you in an RfC. WP users are not known for their subtlety, attention to detail, or concern for context. Steeletrap (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but – besides what was said above, please to take a look at what Callanecc said on her/his talk page: "I really do appreciate the work you've been doing on the article. There has been many times when you've been the voice of reason, which is refreshing." The block was imposed for about 50 minutes, so it is not a big deal. Anyone who wants to wave the bloody flag about the block is welcome to do so. And when I am nominated (or apply) for Admin I think you'll be supportive. (Again) thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The block won't change how I vote. Srich behaved exactly as you'd hope, he explained his thinking and what he would do to remedy the situation for the future and got right back to work. That's a mature, responsible thing to do and speaks wonders for the type of admin he'd be. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Nor should it change your vote. But 'the community' as a whole will be impacted by it, I predict. We have a big problem with drive-by editing/research here, and I doubt they'll take the time to read about the trivial nature of Rich's block. Steeletrap (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. At present I have other matters to attend to. So I'm thinking of applying when I hit 100,000 reverts. Ooppss, I mean edits. – S. Rich (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, I disagree with Steeletrap, though I'm sure her advice was given with due consideration of the circumstances. I suggest you accelerate your RfA and apply by the end of the quarter. Reputation on WP is a wasting asset and like many others, you have suffered as increasing numbers of editors cross paths with you. Your credentials will not increase over time, but the risk of problems and complaints grows and can overshadow your longer-term record. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what Callanecc said, and feel confident that SRich32977 would make an excellent admin. I also appreciate his understanding of BLP, and the 3 core content policies. I particularly appreciate his ability to create articles, write passages, and that he knows what it takes to get an article reviewed and promoted to GA. I would not hesitate in accepting an opportunity to collaborate with him in getting an article ready for FA review. He gets it - and that's what counts. Atsme☯^Consult 20:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme - you are an articulate supporter. You should nominate him, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I would do it in a heartbeat. All Rich has to do is tell me he's ready. Atsme☯^Consult 20:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

As I've previously stated, reputation is a wasting asset. Such is the nature of WP for better or worse. I suggest nominating him by April 1 at the latest. I'm not familiar with protocols, e.g. whether one waits for permission to do the honors. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The nominator has to get the green light from the nominee. Atsme☯^Consult 22:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the first step is for you to make the nomination, then I think Srich will consider and likely accept the nomination, even though he may not be actively pursuing it on his own initiative. Opportunity knocks but once. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate However, it is a good idea to seek out the prospective candidate before you create the RfA subpage – if the candidate wants to wait or doesn't wish to be an admin, creating the page may be a bit awkward for them, so please check first. This will also prevent the candidate from declining the RfA. Atsme☯^Consult 22:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

{

I'll let you know when I'm ready, so no more discussion. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Collecting diffs

Hey, Srich32977,
I saw your sandbox and noticed these edits from quite a few months ago. According to WP:POLEMIC, material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws is prohibited. The exception is the compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.. Given the age of the diffs, it seems like you will not be pursuing dispute resolution in the near future so it might be best if you deleted this collection of diffs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll delete. – S. Rich (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing inactive maintainers

This is a minor concern and I generally agree with what you're doing, but I noticed that one user being removed, Bedford, was active as recently as November. My concern is that perhaps the determination of active vs. inactive is a bit too tight. Is there something I'm missing in this case? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to do the task, but have to agree with Stevietheman and have wondered the same. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Stevietheman:, @Winkelvi:, @Bedford: I realize Bedford is current. Two possible explanations: 1. I may have confused the name between my "active" & "inactive" lists; or. 2. Perhaps Bedford had not edited on the particular article in some time. (With some of the articles I did reassessments so we did not have stubs being "maintained" and on some of them I removed the maintained template from the non-reassessed stub article. Why? Maintaining a stub is an oxymoronic routine.) If you folks could send me the particular article links I will be happy to take another look. Thanks so very much. – S. Rich (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Affected talk pages: Talk:Thomas Downs House, Talk:John Hay Center‎, Talk:John Work House and Mill Site, Talk:Grisamore House, Talk:Thomas Hines. This list may not be exhaustive, but I don't really have the time to go through the entire list of talk page updates. I was able to find these from the WP Louisville/Kentucky change patrols. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Restored. I was confusing Bedford with another editor. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Gracias! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Premature close?

Please revert this edit, as I think it important that the perpetrator of such attacks ought to be identified if possible. -- PBS (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@PBS:. I'm not an admin and certainly couldn't object if you or someone else reverted. Perhaps the similarly titled usernames are socks of Winkelvi (e.g., false flags), but I doubt it. So I 'closed' the SPI as a matter of good faith for Winkelvi. Instead of an SPI, I recommend that the purported socks be blocked on a case-by-case basis. – S. Rich (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

St. Lucy's Controversy section.

Hello,

I saw that you reverted my changes to this section. My intention was to balance the section because the original text and reference appeared argumentative and one-sided. I thought that balancing it with the response from the school made the section (and thus the entire article) more objective and consistent with high quality entries from other similar institutions, even those that contained "controversy" paragraphs. I hope my changes make sense to you.

Warmest Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBQuiet (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Kent Krupa patrolled by Srich32977

On April 3, 2015, I was alerted that "User:Kent Krupa was patrolled by User:Srich32977." Discovering on your user page that you belong to the Wikipedia Autopatrollers category, I read Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, I remain confused. Does being patrolled by you mean that I can be trusted not to submit inappropriate material, and that is more efficient to treat my contributions as approved preemptively? Or do you suspect me of vandalizing Wikipedia? At your convenience, please clarify. Thank you. Kent Krupa (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kent Krupa: I am not patrolling you per se. When you edited the Manning article I took a look at your user page. New pages have notations about being patrolled, and so I clicked the notation to indicate I'd looked at it the page. (If the page had had problems I would have done something about the problems.) It was a one-time event. I'm not sure what you mean by "as approved preemptively", but all edits are subject to some sort of review. That's just the way Wikipedia works, we review each other's contributions and we fix problems such as worse grammar, speling, tpyos, sintax, vandelism, etc. (We do not make corrections to other editor comments on talk pages.) I certainly do not suspect you of vandalism. If I did I'd say so via a message or warning. When you become more experienced you can serve as an autopatroller too. In the meantime, happy editing. – S. Rich (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Perusing my contribs ...

... and I saw this. May I offer you in return:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		My thanks! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kevin Barrett, PhD

You edited this article when it was just Kevin Barrett, now a dab page after the old article was deleted at AfD. Not sure if you are interested in its possible recreation. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't remember what my interest was back then. (Can you give me a date?) Presently I think I'll steer clear of the draft. – S. Rich (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

G&S/Opera project tags

Please do not tag articles with the Opera tag that are already tagged with the G&S banner. G&S project is a subproject of the Opera Project. This was discussed long ago by the Opera project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Taxation

Hey there, i agree to the fact it doesn't add any new info, but the statement adds a different perception to the concept. i think merely because the statement is delivered by a politician, it doesn't constitute a politician speech (which are normally delivered at press conferences), the statement was presented in the Union budget before the parliament. Moreover Wikipedia doesn't define statutory definitions, does it?Agasthya1992 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Agasthya: We seek to write in a WP:TERSE WP:SUMMARYSTYLE manner. As the passage only repeats what comes next, we can omit it. But the political aspect is a problem too. Of course politicians say "We do great things with the taxes we collect." So the speech is pushing a point of view. Thanks for your note. – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fred Wilcox

Hello Srich32977, I am a new Wikipedia editor just getting up to speed (I realize it will take a while). I hope that a veteran such as you will forgive me any unintentional errors in process I might make while trying to educate myself.

I am writing in regard to a living-person biography of Fred A. Wilcox, where you inserted a ["dubious-discuss" note].

I do not want to simply remove your note because you make a defensible point, but the problem quote you cite would be easily fixed with a simple word change: instead of "broke" the story, the article should have said "illuminated" or "greatly expanded." I will add such a clarification to the References note 2.

Beyond this, I am adding to that bio several other articles from other sources that support the assertion in the section you found fault with.

I hope I've followed proper procedure here. Let me know what you think.

Best wishes, MSWriterEditor (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@MSWriterEditor: Another welcome to you. When I "tagged" the Wilcox article I also made a note on the article talk page about the tag. As I recall, I did not read the reference supporting the article text, so I simply commented about why the claim was dubious. Once you get a bit more experience in Wikipedia editing, please feel free to make the changes you feel are appropriate. (And you might explain the changes on the talk page also.) I will put the Wilcox article on my watchlist. And feel free to contact me for any other questions, hints, concerns, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Conservatism in the United States#disagreement

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Conservatism in the United States#disagreement. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Fred Wilcox

Hello Srich32977, I am a new Wikipedia editor just getting up to speed (I realize it will take a while). I hope that a veteran such as you will forgive me any unintentional errors in process I might make while trying to educate myself.

I am writing in regard to a living-person biography of Fred A. Wilcox, where you inserted a ["dubious-discuss" note].

I do not want to simply remove your note because you make a defensible point, but the problem quote you cite would be easily fixed with a simple word change: instead of "broke" the story, the article should have said "illuminated" or "greatly expanded." I will add such a clarification to the References note 2.

Beyond this, I am adding to that bio several other articles from other sources that support the assertion in the section you found fault with.

I hope I've followed proper procedure here. Let me know what you think.

Best wishes, MSWriterEditor (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@MSWriterEditor: Another welcome to you. When I "tagged" the Wilcox article I also made a note on the article talk page about the tag. As I recall, I did not read the reference supporting the article text, so I simply commented about why the claim was dubious. Once you get a bit more experience in Wikipedia editing, please feel free to make the changes you feel are appropriate. (And you might explain the changes on the talk page also.) I will put the Wilcox article on my watchlist. And feel free to contact me for any other questions, hints, concerns, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

New discussions on Portal: Capitalism

Here, your input is appreciated. Lbertolotti (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Eamonn Butler

Why is Eamonn Butler subject to "discretionary sanctions"? I'd like to remove the notability tag; he is clearly notable...Zigzig20s (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Discretionary sanctions because of Ludwig von Mises/Austrian School connection (a big arbitration was held). Agree on the notability tag. Have at it. – S. Rich (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You may enjoy the picture I took/added yesterday.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Wellwood Cemetery

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wellwood Cemetery , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RES2773 (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

WP Theology - question about 'Defunct status'

Greetings, Since I joined Wikipedia last year, I've been doing updates & article assessments for WikiProject Catholicism. Today I came across WP Theology and am wondering what (if anything) should be done with the articles tagged for WP Theology? Thought I would contact you as the defunct tagger from 00:36, 2 May 2014‎ Srich32977 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,229 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (no activity for more than 1 year, move to defunct status). Not urgent - just thought to ask since this is new to me. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: As I understand, you've seen the WikiProject Theology as being tagged defunct. From there you've seen articles tagged as being of interest to the WP. Tacitly you wonder what value is there in posting the quality/importance assessments on the various articles with the defunct project. Well, I don't think leaving the articles as tagged or un-tagged with the project makes much difference. (Projects serve to help Wikipedians focus on areas of interest to them and in turn they can improve related articles.) Still, it is possible that the defunct Project will be revived, in which case the articles of interest will get some attention and the quality/importance assessments will have more value. All this said, I'd simply leave the WP Theology tags and assessments alone. Thanks for your question and many thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. – S. Rich (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with MetLife?

Hi S. Rich, It's been a while since I last reached out, hope all is going well! As someone who's been helpful in the past, I'm wondering if you might be able to help with something I'm currently working on. I've suggested a few edits to the article for MetLife, specifically in the History section, but thus far I haven't heard any feedback from editors. Could you take a look here, if you have a spare minute? Cheers, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

At present I don't have the time. Perhaps next week. (Give me a reminder.) When I do look more closely, do you mind if I modify the proposed material? – S. Rich (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Florida Tech is Not Tier 1

US News rankings are tier-1, top 100, tier-2, 200-299. Florida Tech is ranked as tier 2. Next, US News ranks Florida Tech below the University of Florida, University of Miami, Florida State University, University of South Florida and University of Central Florida. To assert that it is above these schools is not true and is damaging to the brand of Florida Tech, and these other schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.181.88 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Capitalist state

Hi, I made the edits to better reflect what happens in capitalism. Can we keep the edits if I provide more Wiki-friendly sources? Socialistguy (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Srich,

We see that you've edited a number of legal articles on Wikipedia (law firm pages, legal marketing, etc). We are looking for advice on how to get a Wikipedia article for Lawyer.com and you seem like an expert in the space. If you can help with advice, we have provided all the secondary articles about our company below and a draft for an article. We see that company employees should not publish related Wikipedia articles, but we are not clear what type of editor might take an interest in our company. Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Lawyer.com is an online directory of lawyers in the United States, Canada, and the UK [do we need an article to add UK - could put our press release and try to get an article] featuring lawyer and law firm profiles. The site includes a free lawyer matching service connecting users to lawyers in the desired legal practice area and geographic location. Lawyer.com' is headquartered in Basking Ridge, Somerset County, New Jersey.

History

The website began development in 2008 and officially launched in 2009. In 2014, the company acquired a $1.7 million office complex in Easton, PA for Lawyer.com expansion.

Features

The site's main function is a legal directory, featuring about 2 million lawyers across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Lawyer.com also offers a number of online marketing services to lawyers and legal professionals in North America and Europe, including online presence management, legal websites and search engine marketing.

Additionally, the company has partnered with various legal professionals and law groups, including BarBri, the American Bar Association, American Bankruptcy Institute, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and American Association for Justice. It also works with state bar associations and holds seminars offering continuing legal education credits in certain states, including New Jersey and Missouri.

Awards

In 2014 and 2015, Lawyer.com was selected in the top 50 of NJBIZ's Best Places to Work in NJ.

Bitcoin

As of July 2015, Lawyer.com is the first major player in the legal services industry to accept Bitcoin as a form of payment.

Wikipedia Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lawyer.com

Wiki Reference 1: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/somerset-county/2015/08/13/lawyercom-hosts-annual-summer-olympics/31645097/

Wiki Reference 2: http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/easton/index.ssf/2014/12/internet-business_incubator_pl.html

Wiki Reference 3: http://www.njbiz.com/article/20150506/BPTWORKNJ/150509885/congratulations-to-the-2015-best-places-to-work-in-new-jersey

Canada Article: http://thebulletin.ca/lawyer-coms-online-directory-goes-canadian/

Lawyer.com Accepts Bitcoin https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/online-lawyer-directory-lawyer-com-now-accepts-bitcoin-payment/

http://www.coindesk.com/press-releases/lawyer-com-%E2%80%8Bis%E2%80%8B-first-major-legal-%E2%80%8Bservices-company-to-accept-bitcoin-payments/

http://digitalmoneytimes.com/tag/gerry-gorman/

http://www.kitco.com/news/2015-08-04/Lawyer-com-is-First-Major-Legal-Services-Company-to-Accept-Bitcoin-Payments.html

Jack J. Kushner is not the same as the obit you sent. He was however a boted war hero who walked the death march, lied in the dead bodies to hide then swam to corrigidor. He was written up as dead mia. And received commodation from president truman. He...

I plan on adding his bio (not obit) as its own wiki page. His story is unique as be was in zero and zero/zero ward in cabanatuan. I dont care if you delete him and his good name from , as you say a memorium. Heaven forbid tgese soldiersshould clutter up your page... A.A. Kushner (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark Pennington

Would you like to add the discretionary sanction tag to his talkpage please? I reverted some vandalism a few days ago. I will try to expand his page with referenced info from Jstor, etc., soon.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Feel free to add it yourself. Frankly it is not needed because Pennington is a not a controversial figure and very little editing problems have popped up on the article. I do advice that you provide ISBNs for his books. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

There was one, which I reverted.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nazis/vegetarianism

You consider me to be a biased editor committed to POV-pushing. Your view in this regard was instrumental in getting me topic-banned by the Kangaroo Court of lazy, morbidly obese mamma's boys (the aptly named "Arbs").

Since you still stalk me, I encourage you to take a glance at the work I've done on the pages related to the Nazis and animal welfare. As you (as a stalker) know, I am not only a Jew, but a vegetarian. Yet I am committed to accurately presenting the (relatively progressive) policies of the Nazis in this regard, politically damaging though that may be for the animal welfare cause. I have taken the same attitude in my work on transgender-related pages.

My "bias" on Wikipedia is against the politically-motivated factions that have no regard for facts and RS, and who seek to promote a misleading narrative about their pet issue. This "bias" was the motivating force behind my edits to the pages of the Misesean economists, whose "conclusions," which command no respect from any RS, were presented as established fact on WP before I showed up. My overall body of work shows that I care about facts, not pushing a political agenda.

Once you examine my work, and change your view, I hope you'll join me in appealing my TB on AE-related pages.

Cheers,

Steele

Steeletrap (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Garbage. Hurt feelings. Progressivism. Not worth keeping, but I will archive rather than deleting. – S. Rich (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)