User talk:Srich32977/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Incivility

Now that you admitted that this edit is uncivil, you have an obligation to fix it, else I have an obligation to report you. MilesMoney (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Impolite might be a better term. Either way, I'm not going to change what I said. While you may feel you have an obligation to report, I suggest you read WP:Civility warnings before doing so. – S. Rich (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The warning above is sufficient, but I'll give you what you asked for. MilesMoney (talk) 19:34, 26 September 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesMoney (talk • contribs) 19:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note: this was probably overkill. I've found that templating someone for AGF rarely has the intended effect, particularly when you are involved in a dispute with that person and have been asked not to post on their talk page. It's more likely to escalate the conflict than solve the problem. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Your note has great pertinence. But what to do? A talk page section about "IP vandalism" Talk:Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#IP_vandalism is opened and I posted a link to NOTVANDAL rather than on the editor's talk page. That short note "escalated" the discussion and now there are comments implying that I am using IP addresses to make changes. To answer my own question, I shall refrain. – S. Rich (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you've been hounding and harassing user Miles for several weeks now. It doesn't matter who's "right" or "who started it" -- better to disengage. You know I've advised him the same thing previously but right now you are inflaming and needlessly provoking contention instead of cooperation. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've always found this meatball essay to be helpful in situations like this. It's called "DefendEachOther" but it could just as easily be called "Don'tDefendYourself". It's obvious to any outside observer that the IP edits aren't "vandalism" and if anybody seriously believes the IPs are you then an outside administrator will be able to clear things up at SPI. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Poor Miles. I can see how my comments have inflamed and needlessly provoked contention instead of cooperation in these edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], & [6]. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And this: [7]. – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, I have warned and counseled Miles about his edits on several occasions. But this thread is about you, and frankly the above post is an example of the kind of needless, sarcastic, unproductive edit we've been seeing from you recently. Please take a deep breath. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

[8]. – S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

[9] – S. Rich (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Mises Inst

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please undo your most recent revert and use talk per BRD rather than undo a revert. SPECIFICO talk 02:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You will be so kind as to note that I already opened threads on both the Mises.org and LvM talk pages, immediately after I made the changes. Moreover, the edits were done IAW WP:PRESERVE. – S. Rich (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You would do well to read WP:BRD -- it is not about making sure that your preferred version is in place before or while pursuing discussion. Quite the contrary. It's about thinking of the longer-term improvement of the article and knowing that whatever consensus is reached in the talk discussion will represent a durable improvement. As others have already told you, your repeated jockeying, edit-warring, gaming the system, and equivocating on policy and procedure has been a huge drain on editor and admin attention and has disrupted the improvement of these articles. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think WP:PRESERVE overrules WP:BRD and certainly not WP:EW. For instance, WP:Preserve says that material can also be preserved on the talk page. You would do well to edit a little less aggressively, especially with tempers as high as they are. Specifico said on my talk page that they intended to step back for a bit, and I urge you to consider doing the same. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

RE:Janus U & Newport U

I have added a source, could you have a look at it? I don't have time to create an article for Janus though. Should I delete the redirect? Ajax F¡ore_talk 00:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's do this: Please delete the redirect. Then we can wipeout the old Newport U junk (dead links) and re-name/move the article as Janus University. – S. Rich (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been deleted. Ajax F¡ore_talk 22:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. One of us can redo Janus. At the moment I'm stirring other pots, but will do it later if you don't get a chance. – S. Rich (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I'll have a chance, I'm currently involved in a dispute somewhere. Ajax F¡ore_talk 23:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw. Not understanding Spanish, I have no opinion on that matter. But perhaps some translations, even by Google, would help. I'll do Newport U a bit later. – S. Rich (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

SPI and you

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/QuebecSierra, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

MilesMoney (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises Institute page

I wanted to thank you for your time in working on the Ludwig von Mises Institute page and the "appreciation" you sent my way. I discovered the pages state a few days ago (it was fine a few months ago, last I looked). Do you have any advice to give as far as fixing the bias problems? It seems like two or three individuals are trying to push a agenda over there. Do you have any incite into how the appeals process works over here? I've always been able to reach conclusion on changes in the talk page(s) in the past, but these guys seem bent on not cooperating in the spirit of Wikipedia... a "my way or the highway" viewpoint. --BookishOwl (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Note on Capitalism 06/10/2013

Hi Srich32977, thankyou very much for notifying to me to the correct protocol for editing Wikipedia. Can you please explain more to me about the polite method to delete comments from Wikipedia, I am very new, signed up today.

I know from first hand experience that the comment, starting with "In practice, all early 21st century developed economies devote 40–60% of their GDP to taxes and the public sector" is incorrect, because I am an Australian and Australia is a developed country with a commitment to the free market and (relative to Europe at least) minimalist government. According to the CIA Worldfactbook Australia has taxes/public services worth 32.3% of GDP, substantially lower than 40%. Furthermore, America and Singapore have an even greater commitment to small government, with taxes attributing to 15% of GDP for both countries. Reference: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2221rank.html?countryname=Australia&countrycode=as&regionCode=aus&rank=79#as

I would very much like to see this error corrected, and I suspect that if the "In practice, all early 21st century developed economies devote 40–60% of their GDP to taxes and the public sector" is corrected then the whole paragraph does not make sense, because it means that Joeseph Strummtler's prediction is incorrect, since many countries (including the biggest economy in the world) did not embrace such high taxing model for the economy.

So I believe it is important that this comment is removed after we get contact from the author, because it is not factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strength, honor, and liberty (talk • contribs) 06:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Riverside City College

The History section needs to be updated. You have contributed a lot to the article, so I thought it would be polite to let you know. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Gosh. I have not looked at the article for a while. The school has been around for many years and not much changes. They've build new structures and they are working on a culinary arts institute. But that's all that I know of at present. (I was a student at RCC some time ago and I'm interested in Dr. Jaeger.) At present, though, I'm working on other projects. Thanks for contacting me and thanks for your interest in RCC. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. (I attended evening classes at RCC in the 1960s). A word is missing in a sentence in the History section. I think it is supposed to be enrollment, but am not certain, so I won't make a guess. Could you put it on your "do it whenever" list? I know some of what is going on elsewhere and understand your plate is full. As an aside, please see my comment at United States Armed Forces. And take a look at your Retirement Certificate and all your Honorable Discharge Certificates. I bet they read the same as mine. Not United States Armed Forces but ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! If a discussion for name change surfaces again, please use your ammo. Sorry about the shouting. Thank you for your service to our country. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've done some tweaking on the RCC article. More is needed. Re the certificates, are there WP articles that need work? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hillsdale College

Srich, I am currently trying to repair the Hillsdale College article after a user (SPECIFICO) mass blanked/deleted large section of the article instead of adding sources or trying to fix text that was objectionable to that user. I noticed that you had made several helpful changes around that time and are an experienced user, and wanted to ask you to take a look at the page and help me repair the disjointed impact of the mass blanking as well as address other issues with the article. I am not a regular editor and only discovered the damage caused by SPECIFICO's mass blanking/deletion of large portions of the page because I came to that particular wikipedia page to learn more about Hillsdale's Washington D.C. Kirby Center. Coincidentally, the portion of the article providing information on the Kirby Center was essentially deleted as part of those mass blankings. Three of the largest mass blankings that SPECIFICO did deleted (-2,460)‎, (-2,674)‎, and (-3,207)‎ portions of uninterrupted text, respectively. I am not familiar with the editing guidelines for Wikipedia, but mass deletions of text without attempting to reword text or add sources appears to run against the spirit of what I have always considered Wikipedia to operate under. Your help would be greatly appreciated until the page settles down and some of those issues are addressed. Part of my worry is that I will further disjoint the page in trying to fix it because I do not have significant experience editing Wikipedia. If nothing else, perhaps you could keep an eye on the page for a while. Thank you for reading my long post! 66.252.102.197 (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I offer three suggestions: 1. Recommend you register as a WP editor. 2. Post your specific concerns on the article talk page. (WP:BRD is an important essay on how editing in these situations is carried out.) 3. Read up on WP guidelines. The WP:5P and WP:BETTER are worthwhile. I know that User:Orlady is monitoring the page and I trust her judgment on what is proper. – S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Your false insinuation

I was not involved in the Rand RfC and have not commented on that talk page in over a month. You should strike through your insinuating "question" on AN and next time please ascertain the facts before referring to another editor's actions. SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I was quite aware of the facts, and the "insinuation" you see is entirely of your own making. You did comment some 20 times on the Ayn Rand talk page to make off-topic comments about me and about the status of Rand as a philosopher. Doesn't that make you an "involved" editor? Moreover, what justification do you have for making off-topic, personal remarks on article talk pages and WP:ANB pages? – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As I stated numerous times on that talk page, the discussion was moot and will only be resolved when the article text itself provides a definitive solution. I gave up on that long before the RfC and your accusation, in the guise of another of your rhetorical questions, is uncivil and unproductive. I've tried to counsel you many times that your passive-aggressive interference with other editors and your posturing as a magistrate or moderator among your peer group editors is disruptive. Your behavior has garnered you warnings from an incredibly diverse group of editors, from Steeletrap to Carolmoore and many others. I can only repeat: Instead of trying to impose your will on your peers, and instead of edit-warring and maneuvering to prove yourself "right," you should try to be more responsive to other editors messages. When other editors explain to you that you have misstated or misinterpreted WP policy, that is your opportunity not to argue and deny their views, but to challenge yourself to a better understanding through study and reevaluation. Instead, I see increasingly battleground behavior and attempts to denigrate and criticize other editors. It's needless and it will ultimately prevent you from getting the fulfillment you could be experiencing from your efforts at WP. I suggest you back away from Miles, an editor whom you know to be easily provoked, and concentrate your efforts in other areas including reflection and study of WP's core policies. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are just repeating the same bullshit. You have not posted any ANI's on me and my egregious behavior. I only see pink, orange, yellow, and green comments about me. (Worst yet, you do so on article talk pages.) Still, you might like to post an WP:RFC/U. That would be interesting to read and I would welcome remarks from editors whom I hold in higher regard. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Rich, I've been watching this conflict for a while, and since you said you'd welcome remarks from other editors, let me say something. It's pretty obvious that I think User:MilesMoney and User:StillStanding-247 are the same person, and even if they aren't, Miles seems to be going down the same path. My advice is, don't be Miles's User:Belchfire. It didn't end well for him either. I don't know what steps would work best for you, but you do need to do something, whether that means taking a step back, limiting yourself to a voluntary 1RR, or mending bridges with User:Specifico (you both seem to be very reasonable people). Anyway, there's my opinion, do what you like with it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

WP policy

I suggest you read the policy on talk page refactoring and hatting. Time and again you assert nonexistent or misapplied policy rather than follow the applicable WP norms, policies and procedures which actually have been promulgated here. Such actions are disruptive and disrespectful of other editors and the WP project. It is unfortunate that you appear to disregard the many times this problem has been brought to your attention and that your knee-jerk response is to edit war rather than to engage in discussion on such topics. SPECIFICO talk 12:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Srich, you now have 3 editors telling you to undo your refactoring of the talk page. Ignoring that could really boomerang on you. You are an involved editor on that page, not an Admin or moderator. Please review WP:COMPETENCE. You are not working well within the collaborative environment. When you become agitated, it's important to disengage, not to dig in to prove (only to yourself) that you were "right." Please undo your actions. SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have read Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures and are bringing up the issue here. Also, I have commented further on the AR talk page. You may wish to have the closed threads re-opened, but I cannot see any justification for reopening them. The issues they involved are resolved. MilesMoney may wish to have them reopened, but MM has promised not to dispute the results of the RfC or edit against its stated consensus. So I don't think MM really wants to make comments about the RfC or its results. Who was that third editor? IAW "Challenging other closures", I await their comments on this talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

SRich, you might remember this warning that I gave to Miles. I was actually coming here to say something similar to you about closing discussions you're involved in and then reverting when somebody reverts your close, but when I checked your edit history I saw that you'd already self-reverted. (Thanks.) In my opinion, if a discussion needs to be closed then somebody uninvolved should do it, or it should be left to die organically and be archived. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: As the RfC had closed, I hoped the related threads could be resolved. They were suffering from more needless post-RfC additions. (And I have no stake in which way the threads run.) So I sent up the trial balloon(s) – only it turns out they had radiation shielding. (Also I posted talk page comments that urged the community to move on.) While the threads are "reopened", my efforts may have had some small positive impact. Oh well. And thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, not to belabor this unnecessarily, however... Your response above again has the tone of petulant rationalization, spin-meistering, and denial. It's not a "trial balloon" to hat the threads and then kick, scream, and edit-war when others object. You're right this is not, per se, an earth-shaking issue, but I hope that it can be significant for you in that it offers you the opportunity to reflect on and reevaluate your recent behavior and interaction with other editors -- the issues which have caused Steeletrap's and others' WP:COMPETENCE concerns. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Small side note, I think we can stop throwing around the WP:COMPETENCE essay. It's obvious that SRich is both competent and capable, and suggesting otherwise isn't going to do help anything. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Classy

Tagging me for edit warring is hilarious. Have a nice day. IrishStephen (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The second tag occurred because I did not realize Hot Spot had already tagged your page and I added to my comment explaining. But I'm glad you have a sense of humour. And I shall enjoy my day. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Pritzker Military Library

First, thank you for all your help with the Pritzker GLAM project. We really appreciate it as we want all Wikipedians to be able to use our collections.

Secondly, can you update the director on the info box you created? The director is Ken Clarke, whose official title is President & CEO. See: http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/About/staff-clarke.aspx My position at the Pritzker is more of the Assistant Director varietal; I manage Books and Library Services department. See: http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/Home/About/staff-embrey.aspx Other key staff include Nancy Houghton, who is in charge of the TV shows for PBS and Kat Latham, who handles the institution's museum functions.

Thank you again for your help! TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Perhaps later someone can come in and add the refs. (And, Teri, please tell your volunteers thank you. If they can look at the before and after renditions of Dietz, they will see article improvements that should serve as a guideline for other contributions they want to make.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense warnings

This warning is nonsense, and I just reverted your article edit, removing the tag. You placed a tag, you got a chance to explain yourself, but nobody at all agrees with you, so now the tag goes away. MilesMoney (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding a similarly nonsensical warning to my talk page doesn't help. The bigger problem is that you're edit-warring and it looks like you crossed the bright line. What are you going to do about it? MilesMoney (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Forum shopping and specious ANI

Regarding [10] I suggest you read the WP policy regarding forum shopping and wikilawyering and focus whatever effort you feel compelled to devote to HHHHoppe's Society on article improvement via addition of content based on RS references. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Professor3929

Please stop your safeguarding of false information misleading readers. Read wikipedia rules, any post can be edited any number of times. Do not continue reverse edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved. It is you, who acts in disruptive way. Information on the page "Editing List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations" is obviously incorrect. This post promotes CHEA and misleading all readers (that has no any authority). Continuing to act in disruptively way , as you do, can result in your being blocked from editing.

Professor3929

August 2013[edit source]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please discuss your suggestions for improvement on the talk page. The approach you are taking is not helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor3929 (talk • contribs)

16:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Edit Warring on Fractional Reserve

Your undo of my reversion of the Ron Paul bit is very disappointing. I had thought you were staying away from these economics articles and concentrating on other areas. If you disagree with my edit, you should use talk. To reinsert and announce your (flawed and defective) reasoning for preferring your version of the content is not collaborative or productive. All kinds of books make the NYT bestseller list. That doesn't make them WP:RS for any particular article. I don't know whether you understand this, but Fractional Reserve Banking existed long before there were central banks such as the Fed. Furthermore, this is a primary source with no secondary discussion of its notability. Your spotting it on a bestseller list -- regardless of why -- is also a primary source. You should reverse your edit and either bone up on relevant policy and find appropriately sourced content, or step back from these articles in which as you admit (e.g.Capitalism) you have little understanding. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring? Why would you say EW?? You did Bold, I did Revert. You gotta problem with how I readded the citation to the book, then you can institute Discussion. But it aint no edit war (and you accusation of EW disappoints me). Your rationale for the removal of the two names was the flawed one. Paul & Rothbard were merely mentioned as critics, and none of their criticism was placed in the section. So it is impossible to say they are improperly used as Primary source material. Also, WP:FRINGE has a particular meaning, largely dealing with science related topics. Heterodox material or contrary to your way of thinking material does not constitute fringe. – S. Rich (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Rich, your remarks are both discouraging and revealing. You insinuate that economics is not a science when you imply that invoking WP:FRINGE to evaluate sources is out of place. The problem is that economics is a science! Perhaps a "dismal" one (owing to the influence political commitments impart on one's views of economic), but a science nonetheless, and one whose (many) achievements have radically improved human well-being over the past several decades. It is sad that you think ideologically-motivated charlatans like Ron Paul, whose economic "treatise" could've been written in one afternoon, deserve equal mention to real economists, whose work is informed by years, even lifetimes of hardcore empirical research aimed at understanding the world as it is. Steeletrap (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I hear that Pee Wee Herman and A-Rod also have some doubts about Fractional Reserve. You'd still do well to reflect on the feedback you've been getting rather than lash out with the quick denials and gobbledygook. Please review WP:UNDUE WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRINGE. Monetary economics is a science and Paul's economic views are fringe. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I did not insinuate that economics is not a science. Rather, I do not like editors throwing out the "fringe" label as an editing justification. WP has the WP:FTN for such discussions and I do not think Ron Paul or the other anti-fractional reserve banking group have ever been discussed on that board. If you really think they are fringe, then bring up the topic there and see what the community says. If the community supports your idea that they are fringe, then giving them the FRINGE treatment will be justified. Until then, labeling a source as fringe in an edit summary is simply POV. At the same time, I wish there was a WP article that gave us a description of economics as a science. We see it alluded to in experimental economics and, admittedly, economics does not lend itself to controlled experiments. (And what success has economics had in making predictions?)

Specifico, bringing up Pee Wee & A-Rod are, as you sometimes say, strawmen. And you have not addressed my observation that Paul (or Rothbard for that matter) was not used as a source in the article. They were mentioned as critics, nothing more. In the interests of WP:PRESERVE they should remain. And if there are other or better sources of criticism, then those sources should be in the article in the interest of BALANCE. Moreover, whether or not Paul's views are "fringe" in an academic sense does not matter because he has had, for better or worse, a certain amount of influence in politics, which does often involve economic subjects. – S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] "And what success has economics had in making predictions"? A shit-ton. Have you heard of a regression? What about Nate Silver? (the guy who predicted virtually everything that happened in the last three election cycles, using methodologies he learned as an econ undergrad at UChicago) That you don't know about the awesome predictive power of econometrics makes me question whether you should be editing articles on technical economics subjects. Steeletrap (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

[Inserted reply] Good for Nate Silver! I'll look at him further. (Thank you.) But in my quick scan I see that he has had some criticism leveled because of misses. And he has not put up his methodology for peer review. In any event, my edits regarding the inclusion of Ron Paul had nothing to do with the technical aspects of economics because the paragraph had no textual material. Specifico simply removed it with an ill-considered edit summary/rationale. Steeletrap, you wouldn't be trying to say I'm lacking competence, would you? No, I'm sure you are not. (And I don't expect you to take the bait.) Still, this is not the place to discuss the merits of econometrics. Specifico started the thread with his comments, which I have refuted. Not much more is pertinent. – S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you're writing English words and citing WP policies without regard to their meanings, or, in the case of the policies, even whether they exist. You're orbiting some other planet. Please review WP:UNDUE WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRINGE. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

See if you can get yourself out of the yellow and orange Specifico. Your green arguments have not faired/fared too well either. And you sought to distort my rhetorical comment [11] in Talk:Capitalism#Ayn Rand. Shame on you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

fared? SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You did what you did with the Capitalism remark, Specifico. Don't try to hide behind it with a NPA template. My comment about what you did was simply about what you did. And you should be ashamed of what you did. – S. Rich (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. 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.

What Srich "refuted"

Srich, what part of this comment do you claim to have refuted? Please provide diffs or quote your words of refutation:

Your undo of my reversion of the Ron Paul bit is very disappointing. I had thought you were staying away from these economics articles and concentrating
on other areas. If you disagree with my edit, you should use talk. To reinsert and announce your (flawed and defective) reasoning for preferring
your version of the content is not collaborative or productive. All kinds of books make the NYT bestseller list. That doesn't make them WP:RS for any
particular article. I don't know whether you understand this, but Fractional Reserve Banking existed long before there were central banks such as the Fed.
Furthermore, this is a primary source with no secondary discussion of its notability. Your spotting it on a bestseller list -- regardless of why --
is also a primary source. You should reverse your edit and either bone up on relevant policy and find appropriately sourced content, or step back
from these articles in which as you admit (e.g.Capitalism) you have little understanding. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO talk 12:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The record shows, Srich, you had all the time he needed to edit-war this refactoring but couldn't manage a simple answer to the question you reformatted 4 times. Record is clear. SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I chose to simply ignore your repeated comments. The record of what you did is clear. – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on von Mises Institute

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You've reverted the removal of the Austrian School box for what is now the third time. The fact that the first reverts were made by another editor does not excuse you from the policy against edit warring. You should undo your re-insertion of the disputed content and use talk. If you edit war you may be blocked from editing WP. SPECIFICO talk 03:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion on including the sidebar has been initiated. And as you are fond of saying, the EW issue you raise as to my edits on the sidebar issue is specious. Go ahead and post a EW violation, if you care. – S. Rich (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Callahan Material

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have again reverted relevant valid RS text concerning vMI. You are in a slow-motion edit war. If you continue to edit war you may be blocked from editing WP. SPECIFICO talk 04:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Another specious EW message from you? Bullshit. Bring it up on the EW noticeboard. – S. Rich (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, if you oppose rollback say so, but don't omit your view on page protection. You needn't block page protection just because you are worried about whatever the rollback looks like. That would be like Ted Cruz, right? SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll let my comment stand as is. I am tempted, though, to offer a counterproposal. Something that might address the editing behaviors that have commented upon in the ANI. My proposal would/could/might invite concerned editors to supply diffs to document their complaints. Such a listing might make for interesting reading, or become a fruitless TLDR listing. I'm mulling at present. – S. Rich (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The OP asked a specific question which should be addressed. The accusations and boomerangs should not be thrown into this simple issue. Admin could have simply protected, but did everyone the courtesy of proposing 1RR as an alternative. That question should be settled before getting on to whatever else. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Helping Hand

Srich, please re-read my message about the Austrian School template on Mises article and revise your response. There's no point in a long thread that seems likely to occur if various editors try to point out your misreading of my message. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No editor but you seems to misunderstand what the AS template is about. And I cannot understand why you won't go to the template talk page to discuss the issue.

While I'm at it, I see you refer to "various editors and admins" warning me about EW [12]. This is another one of your distortions. Who are these folks? You and MM. Miles' posting of a 3RR notice was unfounded. The warnings and helping messages you post are phony and seem to exist only so that you can complain on other pages. Why do I say phony? I post SPS tags on portions of the Mises.org article that are the subject of discussion and you count those postings in your bullshit "4RR" tally. – S. Rich (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you out of your hole on vMI because you acknowledge you don't understand the subject matter very well. I tried to state this as clearly as I could. There's nothing wrong with the content of that template per se. The problem is to put the template on an article which doesn't match the template. Name X is in the template. Name X happens not to be affiliated with vMI. Name X is a living person. Name X therefore might feel libeled by the false implication that she is affiliated with the vMI. That's why we mustn't use that template on vMI. You could erase all the names, that would solve the problem however then you'd need to create a new template called vMI. That might be a good project for you to put on your to-do list and get some help with the technical types regarding the details. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

By your logic, it would be improper to put the AS template on any biography simply because the template mentions other people. That is, Mises himself is mentioned in the template, as is Hayek and the other "Austrians", therefore they are all "affiliated" with each other and LvMI, GMU, Cato, Reason, etc. No, that is not the case. These are merely associated topics in the Austrian School "Series" and the template serves to direct readers to related topics. The template does not say LvMI is the organization to end all organizations in the AS series. I've suggested edits to the template in the past, and done some editing on it. You can as well. – S. Rich (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

THIS JUST IN... Mises and Hayek are d-e-a-d. No BLP problem. Capiche? SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I only know what I read in WP. What about the others? Are they dead too? – S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Outside view: S. Rich is correct that appearing in the sidebar alongside other persons or entities does not imply affiliation, only a shared relationship with the parent topic. alanyst 23:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank, Alanyst. But I am concerned about those listed in {{Austrian School economists}} – shouldn't they have "memorials" in Findagrave? – S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Alanyst. That's exactly my point. The box implies a relationship with the parent topic. However some of those listed are living persons who have no such relationship and should not be implied to have one. My concern was not listing them as having an affiliation with one another. My concern was exactly what you have stated. That the box implies a relationship of each one with the "parent" -- a relationship which for several of them does not exist and should not be suggested or implied to readers. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, I see you've made a change to the AS WP:SIDEBAR. (And I agree with the removal of Paul.) Can I interpret your change as agreement to bring up the issue of including LvMI in the sidebar on the template talkpage rather than on the LvMI page? The template talkpage can resolve these issues of relationships, implications, affiliations, associations, etc. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI edit conflict

I did too! Thanks for notifying me. I have restored the deleted comment. --Surturz (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Do mediation on Austrian economics??

Too soon for arbitration. But Mediation would be helpful, though I'm too burnt out to initiate it myself. A few of us did it once with a couple editors vs. a very powerful and squirrely admin who knew how to game the system. Nevertheless, even with with a less than perfectly skilled mediator, it worked really well and the squirrely admin definitely stopped dominating the article. Would be even better with a good mediator. It just seems to me the next few times I asked for mediation, requests were ignored. But with all others complaining and all these ANIs I listed, the request might be rapidly accepted. Do you want to initiate it? cc. Binksternet User:Carolmooredc 17:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless this proposal makes it unnecessary?? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal.2C_general_sanctions? User:Carolmooredc 23:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Temecula

Reviewed requirements for notable and not sure your remission is accurate. At the same time I admit my inclusion may have lacked supporting detail. I am happy to revise and resubmit unless it's going to just get auto-reverted again. In other words, my original intent was to include author in this article, but it's not worthwhile enough to start a wiki-edit war over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5C80:49:A879:5F20:C698:BC71 (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, I spent some time reviewing your talk page. Disregard previous. Enjoy your crusade. Not worth my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5C80:49:A879:5F20:C698:BC71 (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. And I hope you didn't get the wrong impression. The various "warnings" you see above are spurious and they will disappear into the archives sooner or later. I think my userpage gives a more accurate view of my WP accomplishments (and crusade). Also, I encourage you to signup as a registered editor and become a Wikipedian. – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been told that you learn something new every day. I refuse to register, but have come to more fully appreciate wikieditors of your ilk. Carry on.

"The human race is intoxicated with narrow victories, for life is a string of them like pearls that hit the floor when the rope breaks, and roll away in perfection and anarchy." --Mark Helprin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5C80:49:A879:5F20:C698:BC71 (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Behaviour at ANI

I've seen enough. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I realise that you mean well but I think it would be best if you did not do things such as this in ANI threads where you are involved. Worse still was the recent prior thread where you actually closed a section despite your involvement, thus attracting an incredulous remark when the entirety was closed (see the close by Bbb23 here). Leave such things to admins and to those who have no vested interest, please. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Your template fetish I hope, now that an uninvolved Admin has echoed what many of your peers have repeatedly tried to inform you in various venues, that you will desist from further gratuitous templating, self-closing, and other pseudo-admin behavior. To the extent you wish to assume a leadership role on WP, I urge you to re-read and study key policies, which you have repeatedly misunderstood or misapplied recently. You are among peers here on WP. Onward and upward. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Specifico, you, MilesMoney, Carolmooredc, Srich etc all seem to have devised a unique set of protocols for discussion etc that differs from how things are generally done on Wikipedia. I've no idea if Srich has a "template fetish" but you certainly have a pointed inclination to comment repeatedly about any given ANI matter on the talk pages of numerous people, thus dispersing a thread. You also seem to have a tendency to get the wrong end of the stick, perhaps proving the adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You've done it with your recent comment on my talk page, with your complete misunderstanding of how general sanctions work and now, seemingly, with your ill-informed belief that I am an admin. Perhaps concentrate on your own issues, eh? - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC) If you think you could help me or other editors at ANI to understand how these Sanctions work, why not either explain or point everybody to a link for further study. I have not been around WP as long as you, so any help you could give to us junior types or less knowledgeable veterans would be helpful. I am pretty sure, having followed that thread on ANI that various editors have differing understandings as to the meaning of the proposal. Under those circumstances, a binary "support" "oppose" scheme is problematic. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC) You are deflecting. However, I'll try to answer your query, the asking of which rather begs the question of how you managed to oppose something that you did not understand anyway (!) Basically, instead of having to disrupt ANI every few days with another long-winded thread etc, any uninvolved admin can issue a sanctions warning for transgression of normal editing practices (or whatever the specific sanction wording may be - it varies in small details). In the event that the warned contributor repeats the problematic behaviour, the admin can go right ahead and block, topic ban, article ban, impose a one-revert rule etc as they feel appropriate. This can be appealed by the person who is sanctioned, although I cannot recall the last time I saw a successful appeal because admins are usually pretty careful before taking that sanctions step. The only people who are having trouble with this proposal are some of those who are involved and have had a history of repeated reportings at ANI: if you wish me to be blunt, it looks like they're running scared because of past behavioural problems. No-one need be scared: just edit as you are meant to do and no harm will come from it. As someone else said, a closing admin can see the consensus and work out who is opposing for valid reasons and who is opposing out of self-interest etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC) BTW, Specifico, would this not be a possible example of a "template fetish"? - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I've got a better question: is there any sense in which you can accuse someone of having a fetish without a violation of WP:NPA? If not, you need to redact and run away. MilesMoney (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC) You are just dmeonstrating yet again that you do not read before jumping in, MM. If you check out the entire thread then you will see that it was Specifico who accused someone of having a fetish, not me. I've merely queried their use of the term. However, I don't think their use was a personal attack: there are some very thin-skinned people, quick to make such accusations as you have just done, but I think Specifico was just using a colourful phrase. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC) If I had to pick the most inappropriate response to a warning about personal attacks, it would be calling the accuser "thin-skinned", which is itself a personal attack. Are you going to redact that now? MilesMoney (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Coombs

Srich32977. Why did you revert my addition to this sentence and let stand another unsourced addition of name that did not exist in 2010 cite?Patroit22 (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair question. I think you are referring to the last sentence in the Coombs article where Manning's new name is added. That info does deserve a citation, and the RS for Manning's name is contained in the Manning article. Earlier in the article you added "who was sentenced to 35 years in military prison". But the citation for that sentence, as a whole, only talks about the fact that Coombs represents Manning. I'm trying to provide guidance about how to add info on Wikipedia that is supported by the verification process. At the same time there is a lot of discussion going on about how to use Manning's name in WP and about what gender pronouns to use. So I've tried to steer clear of that issue. Regarding your other edit, you talked about how Manning will end up in FLKS. But there are problems with adding that info. 1. The article is about the trial and legal proceedings. Once the sentence is approved by the GCMCA that is the end of the case. (Except for appeals & requests for a pardon.) What happens to Manning after the trial is not part of the case or the US v. Manning article. That is, the judge didn't say "You are sentenced to 35 years at the USDB." She only said "You are sentenced to 35 years imprisonment." 2. We do not have RS that says Manning is going to spend time in any particular prison. As a convicted inmate Manning comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corrections Command and may end up at the Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility. Wherever Manning goes, we need RS to support that info. – S. Rich (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich Thanks for you explanation. I am skeptical. The article as written does not answer the question of where Manning is a prisoner. He is at the U.S.D..S in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and his mailing address is at that maximum security facility. That is factual and it is speculation that he may end up elsewhere. Wkii contributors should stick to facts and not political correctness or shading content to what editors want to portray. .Patroit22 (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How do we know Manning is at the USDB? We need a source that tells us. (There is a Kansas City Star article that says Manning is "likely" to end up at USDB.) I personally believe Manning will go to JRCF (partly because my professional experience). But WP does not operate on what you or I know. If we get a news article that says so. The fact that Manning is physically male and psychologically female will present an unusual problem for USACC. They probably don't have any experience, much less regulations, to handle this. Can Manning mix with the male population at USDB? Oh-ho, Manning self-identifies as female! So Manning will suffer even more isolation in the future. Of course these thoughts are my own speculations, so we can't use them (or inject them) in WP. – S. Rich (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Associated Press and Kansas City Star on August 22,2013 and several TV stations report and Fort Leavenworth spokesman confirms Manning is prisoner at USDS.Patroit22 (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

With this in mind, we need a link(s) IOT verify. Once we do, we can add the info – with the link/s – to the articles. Take a look at WP:BURDEN for more info. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patient guidance but Wiki rules and conventions are too cumbersome and subject to nit picking beyond my desire to jump through all the hoops.Patroit22 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't go. Give the tutorial a try. The "nit picking" as you call it does not have to be cumbersome – and the rules are needed to keep WP at the level of quality it has. If there are subjects and articles you are interested in, WP is an interesting medium to explore the topics and make contributions. – S. Rich (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

S Rich-I hung on as you suggested but the cliques with POV agendas edit out the facts and post uncivil comments. So I am leaving Wikipedia. By the way, Manning is still in maximum-security facility at Ft. Leavenworth and appears to be accepted. Thanks for you experienced voice in the wacky world of some Wikipedia misfits.Patroit22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

S.Rich Looks like I am going out in flames as SineBot says I did not sign. Sorry.Patroit22 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Re Bear

Hi, walter H Scott here - I am just returning the amendment to bear's article, using an offline reference from his biog - as you may know, 'watty' is short for walter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter H Scott (talk • contribs) 20:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Watty. But, sorry, we can't have name-dropping in articles. Bear's book is an autobiography, and as such comes under the restrictions of WP:SPS. You can enjoy your memories of the past adventures with Bear, but an encyclopedia article is not the place to mention them. Bear has my highest respect, especially after I saw an episode where he jumped into a icy bog to demonstrate how to get out. (Was he wearing a wet-suit?) Having experienced a few thrills & chills in my life, I was most impressed. – S. Rich (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Refactoriong on Mises Institute Talk

Please undo your refactoring of comments on Mises Institute talk. It's confusing, and there have been many comments after the original was posted last week. Thanks. Whatever information you wish to add with the refactoring can be explained in a post positioned in order at the bottom of the thread. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

University of Law

Hi there!

Thanks for your message regarding the edit I made to the Law schoolpage. I work at The University of Law, and my main objective was to amend reference of 'College of Law' to 'University of Law', which has been the brand and trading name since March 2013. You can check out the University of Law's website to verify this.

When The College of Law was bought by a private equity company in 2012, it ceased to be a charity. As such, the statement on the Law school page 'For the UK charity providing legal education, see The College of Law' is factually incorrect. For more info, check out this press release.

Is it therefore possible to amend this page to reflect the proper brand name 'The University of Law' and the fact that it is no longer a charity? If you have any suggestions, feel free to contact me.

Many thanks Bryonybennett (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is declare your COI. At that point I will be happy to modify the {{connected contributor}} template on the Talk:University of Law. Please note that "paid editing" v. "paid advocacy" is a very hot topic on WP at present. Therefore, resolving the COI declaration issue should be done now. Next, you must recognize that changing factual information is fine, but adding "world's leading professional" (as you did here [13]) is completely unacceptable. (Please look at WP:BOOSTER and WP:UNIGUIDE.) As said, let's get the COI resolved, and then I'll be happy to work with you on the other changes. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)