User talk:Srich32977/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Question on recent Libertarianism edits

You recently edited the Libertarianism article to "avoid redirects on piped links" and I was wondering if this is a common practice, something in the MoS, or just a personal preference of yours. I usually let the redirect do the work, so I'm just curious. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I went through the MoS and found these two policies that suggest we should use the redirects instead of piped links: WP:MOSLINK and WP:NOPIPE. I have edited the Libertarianism page accordingly. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I looked at the article and saw a WP:SEAOFBLUE. So I'd like to eliminate redundant, duplicate, overlapping links. There are so many, so I thought sorting them out would help and the only way I can figure to do this is determine which links are redundant because of the redirects. At the same time, take a look at WP:PIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. Am I making sense? – S. Rich (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Feel free to revert my changes if that helps your editing; I will not make a fuss.  ;) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a priority for me. (In fact, I have not gotten around to taking a look at what you did.) Carry on, and I'll come back to it later if I can take care of my other front burner concerns (off & on wiki). – S. Rich (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mises RFC

Please add a wikilink to the article section in your statement of the RFC, as you did for the talk page sections. Also, please give notice of the RfC to the projects listed at the top of the talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your comment around 22:00 on the RFC. It begins @SPECIFICO. SPECIFICO talk 02:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I think all of my comments are timestamped. You might be referring to a 2 paragraph comment, which was timestamped. (Can you give a diff?) If you see an edit that completely lacks a signature, feel free to add a {{unsigned}} template. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you do not seem to be getting any support for your views at RfC. I suggest you withdraw it and instead relate whatever questions you have to the actual content and sources, so that your concerns can be resolved. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Survey response is disappointing. After making 4 or 5 comments in the threaded discussion, I would have thought you could provide a definite opinion. Other editors have done exactly that – they seem to understand the issue (and they agree with me). Indeed, Steeletrap was so eager to agree that she removed portions of the "Off-topic" section, albeit pre-maturely. In any case, the default period on RfCs is 30 days, so others will have opportunity to opine. If they convince you one way or the other, please feel free to revise your Survey response. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of racism material on LvMI

This is mistaken for two reasons. 1) The Volokh Conspiracy is a mainstream (albeit libertarian leaning) legal blog with multiple authors, not a SPS 2) LewRockwell.com has been deemed an RS by the community, which means we can't cherry-pick authors, and have to consider its articles RS unless proven otherwise. Steeletrap (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, you Boldly added the material. I Reverted. You re-Reverted, which is not part of the BRD process. Still, I have opened a Discussion on the talk page. Please defend the submission on the talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Srich, how come you apply that "BRD" process so selectively? I know you're watching Mises Institute and Rothbard but I haven't seen you advising two- and three-time reverters there. Hard to understand, but remember that with General Sanctions coming soon there will be plenty of eyes on those pages. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

RSN Noticeboard

I made this posting (1) in relation to the Volokh Conspiracy source, and thought you might be interested in commenting. Steeletrap (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your use of Straw Man Arguments

Srich, I didn't want to embarrass you by telling you this on the RSN page, but your boast that you use Straw Man Arguments clearly confirms the fact that you don't understand some of the basic principles of logic and reasoning which you try to apply to various RS threads. Please read that link about straw man, with which you invalidated your own position. Also please look at the WP pages on other forms of fallacy, which I've previously indicated to you. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Note from 144.82.219.143

Hello. I was not sure where to put this exactly but you wrote me a message suggesting that I write back to you here with constructive criticism or advice etc (not your words exactly, sorry). All I wanted to suggest was on the 'Property and Freedom Society' page it may be nice to add something about this guy's experience (Jared Taylor) under the 'Annual Conferences' section since it may provide the same view as all the attendees (120 of them) which it indeed does. It is a primary source and I think more 'reliable' than Mower's (point 6 I think under 'Allegations of racism') although reliability is wholly subjective so I am not sure how this can be argued either way. Thank you ever so much for taking the time to improve this article. Ooh, one more thing: could you possibly think about putting the quote on Richard Lynn 'Lynn has described black people as "more psychopathic than whites"' in some context, or possibly removing it as heavily biased, as he only stated this in terms of a study he conducted and did not mean it as a stand alone comment. Thanks! Soph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.219.143 (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Demos RS question

Rich, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the relevant question here whether Demos is a reliable source, and not the educational attainment of those whom its editorial team chooses to publish? (by the way: "Correct me if I'm wrong" isn't a rhetorical statement, but meant to be taken literally; if I am wrong, please show me the relevant policy that allows for scrutiny of journalists who publish for accepted RS)? Steeletrap (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Short answer, publishing in one RS does not automatically qualify the author as RS for everything & anything. Longer answer is on HHH talkpage. – S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing of the BLP thread

WP:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures says the way to challenge a closure is to contact the editor who did it and discuss. Well, I was not an involved editor in the BLP thread and it had been opened while another thread on the same source was open. Even so, the proper place for commenting on BLP issues is on the RSN thread – BLP issues can be raised as yet another rationale for removing the blog. Editors who might ask me (here) to reopen the BLP thread will receive a polite "no". Such a reopening would only re-create the third thread, which is two threads too many. (BTW, posting requests on one thread that another thread be reopened does not assist in resolving either thread.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You were involved on the article and it was entirely inappropriate for you to close down that discussion while it was still active. Please add me to the list of editors who have asked you to reopen that discussion and were rejected. I've also brought the issue up on WP:ANI. MilesMoney (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

MM, you can certainly see that you are the first and only editor to come here to discuss re-opening that discussion, but I cannot think of a good reason to do so. Multiple threads is just WP:Asking the other parent and simply disrupts consensus building. The particular topic of the discussion were not "closed down" in any sense because there are open and continuing discussions on the other two threads. In fact I wish I had "closed down" that other thread (instead of commenting on it). So I will decline your request. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• Given that you are heavily involved with the LVMI article, I think it might have been inappropriate for you to close that discussion. Since it has been re-opened, please leave it open. I don't think there's a need for anything else to be done here, but please take note that inappropriate closures of threads could lead to discretionary sanctions being issued in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. I consider this a sufficient response.

I will be keeping an eye on Rich's tendency to take the place of uninvolved admins and will not hesitate to report him. If he keeps it up, then I believe something stronger than a warning will become necessary. MilesMoney (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate the qualification "might have been" (truly). The effort was to deter them from WP:Asking the other parent. Alas, since the thread was "re-opened" the next comment makes three statements: 1. The thread should be closed. 2. With a clear ruling that there was no BLP. And 3. Editors are forum shopping. (Indeed.) Well, Mark, you now have 3 threads to resolve. I wish my effort had been successful in simplifying the task. You may end up envying Sisyphus before all is done. – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Call to block MilesMoney

Intolerable. – S. Rich (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm very disappointed by this. I agree with you that some of the older stuff violated policy. But he was a noob, and has made major strides. (one of the users calling for Miles' head, User:Carolmooredc, actually basically created a her own Wikipedia page for herself (an anon IP allegedly originally created it, but she added virtually all of the material) when she was a noob; it's really unfair to focus on policy violations of noobs who can't reasonably be expected to understand policy.) With Miles having learned the ropes and made major progress, why not focus your energy on improving the LvMI pages right now? Steeletrap (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I did not create that wikipedia article: carol moore. (As I commented here in the AfD which other editors verified.) It was created by an Anonymous IP. I did edit out all the stuff about my leadership of this and my followers who that, however... Anyway, please do not circulate inaccurate info. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc 04:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I clarified above. Whether or not an "anon IP" originally made it, you "created" the page in all but a technical sense, since you added all the content. I go off of the substantive meaning of terms. Steeletrap (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC) CarolMooreDC's edits – whether or not you have referenced them accurately – have nothing to do with MM's behavior. (Moreover, as Specifico is fond of saying, that is a strawman argument.) In any event, MM's behavior continues to speak for itself. Steele, you would do well to strikeout the comments (all of them) about Carol creating or editing an article about herself. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I disagree. They are factual assertions demonstrating a double-standard by a user. She by her own admission engaged in misconduct by a noob (authoring her own a page that, by her own admission, was full of OR and POV edits), yet says Miles should be banned for the same thing. I think we should accord tolerance to noobs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs) Srich, really on all counts, SRich. I have jpgs of several versions. What I did was remove the absurd commentary and add references to the five or six factoids that were correct. That's called editing, not authoring. But I certainly wasn't pulling all the disrutive numbers MilesMoney was pulling from his first week - and still don't. It took me two and a half years before I even took anyone to a noticeboard. If I had I would have been sanctioned early on too. User:Carolmooredc 04:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC) I'm just going off of your own words Carol. You previously stated you added OR and biased commentary to your own page. Let's not dwell on this; the point is to indicate a double-standard in your argument, and call for a more charitable treatment of Miles, not to call you out. (I was terrible as a noob!) Steeletrap (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Please reed more carefully. I just wrote that I removed OR and biased commentary and ref'd the factoids that were left. Geeez.... User:Carolmooredc 04:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC) @Steele, I took the liberty of adding delete and underline tags to your original comment after you refactored it. Simply deleting parts of comments after they have been responded to is bad form. You may revert me if you wish, but this is the proper way of doing it, just so you know. (see WP:Refactor) ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Can you please explain to me, in clear, calm language, why it is "intolerable" to discuss the past edits -- and remarks regarding those edits -- of other users? Steeletrap (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a former platoon sergeant, so clear, calm language may have a different meaning to you than it does to me. But I will explain. The remarks above may have started off with questions as to why I might post a history (or whatever) of MM's edits, but commenting about what other editors did early in their history is another matter. And I don't care to have it posted on this talk page! So back to the focus of my ANI comments – it is clear that MM has displayed a continuing attitude of confrontation. It continues now. MM's various comments are not in keeping with even the minimal standards of civility. (Yes, hyperbole, but my statement serves to underscore my point.) I and several other experienced contributors have had enough. And so I am confident that MM does not have much more future on WP. On the other hand, Steeletrap, I've often seen excellent edits from you. Recently you have made edits which truly promote NPOV and BALANCE. (And I feel that you've done so even though you'd like the material to stay.) So I urge you to cut your ties with MM – not doing cannot help your enjoyment of editing WP. – S. Rich (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I just disagree with you on Miles. Personal attacks are normalized on much of the Internet, and he was subject to quite a few himself, so it's not hard to imagine that he wasn't privy to the WP:PA policy. I do agree that some of his earlier remarks violated policy, but again, he was new (that many of us make mistakes when we're new was the point I was making to Carol earlier). And the general editing pattern for him over the past couple months has been one of progress. Steeletrap (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

NPA is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS and we aspire to rise above "normalized" Internet behavior. MilesMoney had many reminders over the months and many chances to straighten up and fly right. But did not. My "cherrypicked" table of 80 diffs could have continued on for 2 more weeks to today. I did not include the diffs that dealt with me, personally, except in a very few circumstances. Progress? Hardly. Even now MM's comments now are WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. MilesMoney is WP:NOTHERE. – S. Rich (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Jack Hunter

I notice that virtually all the material on the page is OR, apart from the allegations of racism stuff. The latter obviously has to stay, and should be prominent, since it's (by far, and owing to Hunter's having had an official position with Rand Paul) the most RS coverage he's ever had. But I think some WP:Aboutselff discussion of his views should also be added. Unlike the Mises people, I have very little background knowledge of Hunter, but I thought perhaps you might. Steeletrap (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I know about Hunter is what I read in WP. I'd never heard of him before until I saw what you posted. (Likewise, I'd never heard of Mises.org until I saw the article.) At first glance (a very quick glance to be sure) I think your OR evaluation is correct. People don't go around saying "I'm a paleolibertarian." And the prominence of the race remarks needs evaluation. (When Hunter's career ends and people are reading this article 5-10 years from now, what will they see & think?) Also, when did he say this stuff and in what context, etc.? Is he known for these remarks or is the media commentary simply sniping? All in all, I simply don't know. (And I can't say I want to investigate this article much more.) But I do thank you for pinging me on this. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The race stuff received a ton -- and I mean a ton -- of national media coverage (it was, for instance, the lead story on Rachel Maddow) because, fairly or not, the media was trying to tie Hunter's past writings to Rand Paul. I added some of that stuff because it was vetted by literally dozens of high-quality RS (all of the major news publications covered the story, from the trad media, to the major online publications, to mainstream conservative media, and basically everyone agreed the writings were racist). I do think that more overall balance is needed on the Hunter page. The problem is, apart from the controversy (of which there are copious mentions of him in RS), he lacks coverage in independent RS. But we can link to his own writings (not on race, since that's covered extensively) to detail his views. Steeletrap (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Patting myself on the back, I feel you are actually consulting me on this issue. At present, though, I'm worn out from the Mises.org brew-ha-ha. WP:BB, Steele, and strive for balanced, npov edits. Do your work with the Ideological Turing Test in mind. – S. Rich (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Mises ANI

I suggest you withdraw your table of examples of @MilesMoney:'s edits. It gives an inaccurate picture of his behavior over an extended period, and without thorough exposition of the context and content of each diff (which you did not provide) it appears to be cherrypicked wikilawyering. If you feel strongly about banning Miles, I suggest you open a separate ANI thread with clear and complete evidence to support your theories. If editors examine your table at ANI and determine that it presents less than the whole truth, that would undermine your standing as a good-faith contributor here. SPECIFICO talk 03:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

MM was kind enough to post a link to my old sandbox listing of the 80+ diffs. (Indeed, I pinged a thank you for that posting.) The listing could have gone post October 8. It could have included his remarks to me. The diffs, in that single segment of MM's "contributions" told the story, and our courageous Admin based his decision on the diffs (not the "lynch mob" of editors who have been sickened by each new snide comment from MM. (I do not know if TP read my sandbox listing.) In each table of diffs, editors can go backwards and forwards to test the accuracy of what I posted. As I told Steeletrap, MM is WP:NOTHERE. His post mortem clearly says what he thinks of WP. Can he defend himself in light of it? And in light of his "fuck WIkipedia", I wonder how (or why) you might defend him. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I examined the first few lines of your matrix of diffs. They are not what you claim. There's no smoking gun there. You've taken things out of context, you've omitted relevant facts, you've misrepresented the data. Frankly, I think you acted lazily and didn't check whether your rough compilation was ready for prime time. You'd really do well to consider whether to leave that table up or to remove and fact-check it while preparing narrative to support it. But in any event that should happen at a properly formed ANI, not a lynching by a mob who happened to have met on a different subject. SPECIFICO talk 04:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You, Steeletrap, MilesMoney, or anyone else is welcome to comment here about inaccuracies. I will be happy to examine and respond and make corrections and say I was wrong (if I was). Overall it speaks for itself. More importantly, MM's own comments speak for themselves. So I look forward to your specific commentary. – S. Rich (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I came here with friendly advice in order to spare you the consequences of detailed scrutiny of your mishap. I have no interest in your matrix any more than I'd want to wade through uncompiled census surveys. I know you sometimes get overly emotional and lose perspective on things, particularly when one of your "mentees" disappoints you and you lose control. In my opinion this is another one of those times, hence the advice. SPECIFICO talk 04:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't back off and give excuses. Don't seek to "spare me" anything – I can handle whatever you dish out. The re-opened thread on MilesMoney is there on the ANI, so defend him. Point out the problems and turn the tide of community sentiment in MM's favor. But don't expect me to do your work for you. And keep your pop-psychology about my emotions to yourself. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Rich, without getting into this personal feud between you and SPECIFICO (which I have no interest whatsoever in), I have to also express substantive agreement with SPECIFICO's view of Miles. I agree that some of the old conduct was bad. But I would challenge you to ask yourself -- are there other users who acted as bad or worse as noobs, or even after being here for several years, who you haven't held to such a standard? I just don't think a six month topic ban is the appropriate response to all this old stuff. The sanctions are very strict and if Miles violates policy in the future, he'll be quickly subject to them. Given this, and his positive general trend since registering late in the summer, why jump to advocating what is effectively a permanent ban from Wikipedia? Steeletrap (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The real "general trend" was that more and more editors were getting fed up with MM's comments. And MM put the final nails into his WP coffin with his (repeated) "fuck Wikipedia" commentary. That other editors might have had similar (or worse) editing records does not excuse MM (or them). Nor does it justify having MM around to disrupt community editing at every turn. Defend him if you like, I see virtually no future WP role for him. Given that MM has renounced WP, I expect the reopened ANI to close quickly, and then editors can get back to building this project. Steeletrap, I thank you for your thoughtful comments. Truly. But your concern for MM is misplaced. S. Rich (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Western State

Hi S. Rich! Our discussion on the Western State College of Law at Argosy University Talk page has been quiet for a little while, so I wanted to make sure you saw the note I left for you there last week. I've updated my draft based on your feedback and explained my edits on the Talk page. Let me know what you think when you get the chance to take a look. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Happy Halloween! Steeletrap (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Srich, I see you've been forum shopping this morning to try to mitigate your warning notice on the Sanctions related to Mises/Austrian topics. The intention of these Sanctions it that these are signals to moderate one's behavior. You appear, to me at least, to be in denial about this and to be pursuing various strategies to ratify your denial. The 3RR episode yesterday was just one example of this. Please step back and consider, maybe take a break from editing these articles which frustrate you. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, yes — forum shopping. Here's a link that you omitted: WP:ADMINSHOP. – S. Rich (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I would just get over the notice thing, Rich. It's not a big deal, just a friendly reminder. But maybe you know it's nbd, and just feel lonely being the only person there. :) Steeletrap (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@srich Well good, I think that's your manly way of acknowledging that you understand now. Just take a breather and come back refreshed, like your old self of 6-9 months age. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Srich. I'm not understanding why you have changed the fomatting of my message twice. That message is addressed to you with a single indent beyond the post of yours to which I am responding. You are indenting it so as to make it appear that I was responding to @Steeletrap:, which is not the case. If I misunderstood your admission that you were Admin shopping, then my mistake. At any rate I do hope you'll consider my advice. I've seen you be a good contributor last winter. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The indents simply separate the comments for the benefit of any other readers who happen this way. It is clear that your comments were to me. (I hardly thought that you were addressing Steeletrap when you said "manly".) And I'm not keen on seeing editors discuss one another on a third person's (e.g., my) talk page.

You do misunderstand when you think I was admin shopping. And your characterization of my statement as an "admission", implying I was doing something improper, is ..... As you know, I posted a note regarding the notice Mark had given me, and I did so only after repeated mentions had been made about the notice.

Frankly, the mentions were repugnant. They did noting more than say "You shouldn't do such-and-such to X because only S. Rich has gotten a notice." The two admins I contacted had direct involvement with the notice, and I contacted them at the same time and I referenced the contacts to each. Bbb23 was a logical and proper admin to contact because Bbb23 had removed my comment. Mark is a logical and proper admin to contact because he gave me the original "might have been" slap on the wrist and posted the notification.

– S. Rich (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the use of indents in a "threaded" talk page. Please check. Anyway, it's not worth all this fuss. I happened to see you've gone to an admin to complain about me posting here. Much simpler just to tell me not to post here, and of course you are free to delete the thread. I'm gone. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Take the bier with you. You could have done the right thing and apologized for making the off topic comment on the notice board. Even better, you could have generated some genuine good will by supporting my request that the "notice" be removed. No, that would be too much for you -- you had had to characterize it as a "warning". – S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Mises quiz stuff

I think that the pair of you need to stop now and discuss. Let's not have another bout of specious fiddling around. Agree some wording on the talk page and then apply it. - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There is not a problem with "describes" or "states", which is why I cited WP:CLAIM when making that change. I'm cogitating on the additional King stuff and will post something on the talk page, as you suggest. Indeed, that is often my practice, as you can see from where I initiate the threads. (Look for "(BRD)" in the section headings.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There is quite enough going on on the talk page at present. Plus there are other unresolved notice board threads & talk page sections that need settlement. So I will leave the King piece be for a while. Indeed, I'm going to let the whole pot boil without my stirrings. – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the whole subject area is a mess and it is one mostly of borne of pedantry. You'll note that I left exactly the same message on Specifico's talk - I was even worried about causing offence regarding where I left it first, so stupid has this become. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Gulp! The dreaded "who gets this stupid message first" consideration!! I've had the same thoughts at times. My solution is to have both talk pages open for editing, look at the clock, and then you have 60 seconds to paste the exact message on each page so they have the same time stamp. – S. Rich (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please be constructive

There are at least 4 editors engaged in discussion at Hoppe. If you wish to contribute your thoughts on content, that's fine. However a comment which says only that you think we are wasting our time is not constructive and could be viewed as uncivil. Better just to ignore threads where you have nothing to add. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Specifico, your bullshit comment did help in one small regard. I realized my earlier comment only added to the off-topic remarks in the thread. (And you might note I have stricken it.) The issue of the thread remains unanswered – Bruenig & Demos are of questionable RS and this nonsense about DTGTF does not address that question. If you were concerned about disruptive editing, you would address the fact that the "discussion" fails to help resolve the original RS question. My latest comment on the talkpage was a simple request to get the discussion back into focus. Your comment here is bullshit because it accuses me of incivility. – S. Rich (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Steeletrap re fringe category

Rich, I am concerned with your "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude. You accused me of imposing my view on economics by adding the "fringe" tag to LRC, when in fact this was WP:Con for years, and is based on the AIDS denial/vaccine denial that RS show are promoted by the website (not econ). Steeletrap (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My reply is on your talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI I've mentioned LRC on a thread regarding AIDS denial on the fringe noticeboard. (You were also pinged). Steeletrap (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The ping came through. – S. Rich (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Inmate_parent

You seem to have misunderstood the WP:IC. Please revisit Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Inmate_parent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I simply removed because the stand-alone sentence did not have a footnote; and, a semi-colon tying in the next sentence for citation purposes might have worked better. But whether IC was followed at the end of the paragraph is, IMO, a less important issue. I think TOPIC as a concern/policy should be followed. E.g., why add the fact that his father is in the grey-bar hotel? There is a certain amount of sympathy, negativity, or other off-topic implication involved in posting the fact. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Harassment

tiresome nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yesterday you posted on carolmooredc's talk page. That's the third user talk page on which you've recently posted after having been banned from doing so. Please respect your peers and consider your actions in the future. SPECIFICO talk 13:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Sorry, did I forget to publicly mention that Srich was UN-banned because he stopped nitpicking me as much? Thought that would be obvious from my lack of complaint. After all his nitpicking that got particularly annoying in August was not personal attacks and it was not on top of what I consider questionable content editing, etc. User:Carolmooredc talk 14:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC) I searched and found no evidence of any such un-ban. Was it ex ante or did it just occur? SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC) [Insert: did it occur to you that maybe it really isn't your business how and why it happened? User:Carolmooredc talk 14:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC) I really wonder whether you are able to control your authoritarian and controlling intervention and function as a peer here in the WP community. This is categorically inappropriate. Please take time to consider the feedback you've received in this regard from so many editors over the past several months. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Oh, bullshit, Specifico. "Categorically inappropriate"? Spare me. "So many editors"? Who the hell are they -- you and who else? "Community of peers"? Your friend Steeletrap seems to think "competence" trumps cooperative editing and you, with your PhD, have had a high-handed attitude about these articles for months. Here you are, above, attempting to fecklessly chide me for posting on Carol's talk page. What good did it do you? (And now you are seeking to drive a wedge between us -- to what end?) I could go on, but ..... – S. Rich (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC) My message linked to your intervention on Mr. Binksternet's talk page, and is not a continuation of the CMDC matter. By what authority do you intrude and refactor the talk pages of your peers? In the future, when you choose to reply to a post, please follow the links first so that your response will be on-topic. SPECIFICO talk 04:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Yet more bullshit from you, Specifico? You didn't see that I reverted my comment? (Which included the remark that I thought Binksternet could reply on his own terms?) You didn't see that MM responded with a "lawyer" comment about diffs? Just where am I "intruding"? Compare, here you are, posting nonsense – on this usertalkpage – about comments I had made to Carol. "On-topic"? Expect a forceful and appropriate and on-topic replies here whenever you post something. – S. Rich (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC) It's good that you reverted yourself, but you should never have presumed in the first place that you were allowed to remove notices from someone else's talk page. That is entirely beyond the pale, made worse by your refusal to accept that what you did was wrong. You're not his lawyer and you certainly don't have power of attorney for him. Please behave like an ordinary editor, without imagining that you have special rights. MilesMoney (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC) And by what authority does SPECIFICO intercede in a matter that is between me and SRich and another between Srich and two other editors? Seems like SPECIFICO is harassing SRich on his talk page. User:Carolmooredc talk 14:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC) CMDC, if you are using the term "harassing" to refer to WP policy, you're incorrect. Of course Srich is free to ban others from this page if he so chooses, just as you, I and several others have banned Srich from ours in the past. WP policy is very clear that except in dire circumstances, which did not apply in this case, Srich did not have the right to refactor User Binksternet's talk page and Srich did not have the right to delete User MilesMoney's comment. Any editor who observes such violations can and should point it out. In the case of Srich, it appears to me to be yet another in a pattern of what one user called "pseudo-admin" behavior, such as closing noticeboard thread in which he was an involved editor, and other actions which it's pointless to repeat at this time. I'm glad that you and Srich have worked out your differences -- presumably off-Wiki, which is fine. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Specifico is incorrect. WP:TPOC provides for the removal of "harmful posts". MM's post was, lacking evidence and including an allegation of guilt, was such a harmful post. (And adding the diffs later did not justify the allegation.) Specifico's "pseudo-admin" characterization has no meaning in WP. It is simply bullshit, posted here as a slur because I closed a thread in which I had not participated. – S. Rich (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC) The term pseudo-admin is not mine, Srich as I presume you know. The term is what an uninvolved editor called your actions in his critical disparagement of your behavior patterns. By the interpretation of policy you propose here, you would have removed half the talk page messages on the Mises-related articles over the past several months. Take this to the appropriate Noticeboard if you believe that this is the meaning of WP policy or if you intend to continue this kind of behavior. That would be a constructive sanity-check for you to resolve the issue. I do not believe that your interpretation will be sustained by the community. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Srich: Hatting documents your denial and refusal to consider diverse, well-founded, and reasonably stated concerns of your peers here. Please consider the alternative -- a careful re-evaluation of your goals and interactions on WP. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Rothbard

more tiresome bullshit
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please use talk and observe the BRD cycle. You know perfectly well that these articles are under GS and are likely to foster disputes. Please revert your reinsertion of the Bold, Revert material. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC) No need to revert. The discussion has already been started. WP:BRD says the editor who first opens the discussion is the one who best uses the cycle. So CarolMooreDC has you beat in that regard. More importantly, NPOV policy requires the present version. Your edit attempted to spin the opinion into fact. Clearly not acceptable, so I await your justification on the talkpage. – S. Rich (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC) That doesn't justify EW and if you continue this behavior. You apparently have no trouble convincing yourself of these convoluted interpretations of policy, but if you continue your behavior you'll need to convince others as well. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Go make your report at WP:AN3. As for the edit you want to defend, you've done nothing to convince others. Posting on this page 12 times in the last 24 hours hasn't been very productive, has it? While I await your BRD response or AN3 report, I'm gonna do some productive editing. – S. Rich (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Talk about disruptive editing! You [1] paste "You should read the article history before posting. Anybody who reviews the history will see that either (A) Carol was Bold and I was Revert, or else (B) Carol was Reverting and mine was EW. But in either case, your re-insertion, Srich, after my invitation to the talk page, was clearly EW and, given GS, your EW is conspicuously disruptive of community efforts to dial down the drama here. Whatever your opinion on the article text, edit warring with transparently false and self-serving chatter on the talk page is not helpful. I have placed a warning on your talk page." What? Posting a message to me here was not enough for you? Why go and repeat your off-topic remarks at Talk:Murray Rothbard#Kirchick's opinion piece allegations even supportable? The comments about my behavior did nothing to advance the discussion about Kirchick. – S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Please, given your tendency to hat, delete and ignore corrective feedback, it is not odd that he would mention your misbehavior on the article talk page and on yours. Despite your actions, you are not actually an admin, and you don't seem to have a good grip on policy. MilesMoney (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Actually, both you and Specifico fail to grasp WP:TPYES. "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." (But you feel that commenting on this user talk page is not enough, go ahead and say something about me personally on any the article talk pages. I doubt that you'll get positive feedback.) Also, if you or Specifico provide any constructive feedback, I certainly shall pay attention. I await. – S. Rich (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC) I've offered you constructive feedback many times, to no effect. When the issue is your behavior, there's no way to avoid talking about you. MilesMoney (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC) You can talk about me all you like. Bring me up on the noticeboards or wherever. If you feel that you must ignore TPYES and put bullshit on the article talk pages, do so. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Loyd Little

A question was raised about using Wikipedia to sell my book. Not true. My novel has been out of print for nearly 20 years. Thank you. Loyd Little LittleHarryLoyd (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I did see it listed on Amazon with the old cover. Still, there is a problem with listing it. The whole listing in War novel, where you added it, is problematic & I removed the whole list. I may remove it from the SF article too. For more info, see WP:WTAF and WP:SELFCITE. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC) I've tweaked the listing in the SF article. To keep it listed you need to get us a citation for the PEN award. Thanks young man.15:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Two mistakes.

1. WP:DTR.
2. Your unique but incorrect interpretation of WP:NPA is noted. If only you had been present when this occurred so that you could have reigned in your friend.

That's all. MilesMoney (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You ain't no regular Miles. Don't kid yourself or others. You, again, fail to understand TPYES and you pollute discussions with snide, rude, unhelpful, smug, disruptive, etc. bullshit remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The irony here is that dismissing others' remarks as "bullshit", which both you and Bink are prone to do, is itself a textbook example of WP:TE. In any case, unless you are officially required to use a template on my talk page, do not do so. In fact, unless you are officially required to comment on my talk page, do not do so. Consider yourself notified. MilesMoney (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Both of you- quit it already. Sick and tired of this BS- and, yes, your behavior is just that. You are acting like children.

S. Rich, you should have known better already, since FAR before Miles came along. Yes, Miles is... difficult (and I'll address him in a moment). But you have probably made more edits to your talk pages than Miles has period. (Don't quote me on that... I didn't actually look.) You are an experienced editor. The ANI and other discussions about both of you should have long since been enough. That goes for you too, Miles.

Miles, you have been a fog since you started. Citing policies you don't understand. When we correct you, you use them against us. S. Rich knows a lot about WP than the two of us combined (whether he cares to show it or not). He can teach you. You should respect him and all other editors. (Not just the ones that side with you in your little disputes.) Every discussion about you, every single one, has led to you escaping severe punishment by the skin of your teeth. Learn. Now. Or you will risk another topic ban or worse!

Both of you- you understand the policies. If you don't, I'd suggest reading them. This has gone too far and it isn't just affecting you two but every other editor who works on the same articles you do and much more importantly every reader of Wikipedia. You are becoming the reasons WP is not trusted. Please- I ask one more time- be respectful. Be courteous. You don't have to love each other. But, remember, if you can't say something nice, don't say ANYTHING at all! PrairieKid (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fag listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Fag. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Fag redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Fiddle Faddle 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on DiLorenzo

time to close another tiresome bit of nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. 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 stop. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Bullshit, Specifico. I restored the undue tag that Steeletrap improperly removed and I removed contentious BLP material, with an explanation on the talk page. Bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Edit warring at Liberty University And again at [2] -- this time in tag-team after it was quite clear the reverts needed to stop. No editor endorsed or supported your actions on talk. I'm particularly concerned that you appear to have followed User:Milesmoney there and hadn't previously touched this article in over two years. I am going to inquire as to whether your action falls under the Sanctions relating to Austrian School given your recent denigrations of MM and attempt to have him site-banned. Please take a breather and consider your patterns of interaction on WP. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC) More bullshit, Specifico, simply more bullshit. Three editors (the "tag-team") agree in their edit summaries and on the talk page that the material is inappropriate, so it is simply false for you to say "no editor endorsed or supported your actions on talk." Yes, I do look at the edits which you, Steeletrap, and MM make. And the three of you, I gather, look at mine. So go right ahead and make your inquiries. Make your reports. Do what you like, including the posting of bullshit on this page. I will label it as such when appropriate. – S. Rich (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Please familiarize yourself with the definition of "revert" in the context of 3RR On the talk page of User:Carolmooredc you wrote this. Your statement there appears to show that you do not understand {WP:3RR] and the definition at {WP:RV], which differentiates between "edits" and "reverts". I ask you to review those pages in order to avoid repetition of your unwarranted accusations in the future. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC) And I note that Carolmooredc has refuted your characterization of 3RR. – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC) As a matter of fact, she confirmed 5 reverts. Please read policy 3RR is a bright line test. Also note that rather than open a 3RR report, I have asked her politely to self-undo. SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Actions speak louder than words

Hello Srich32977. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Actions speak louder than words, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's a redirect to a Wiktionary entry. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And I thank you! I am always happy to learn more about how the project works. The redirect to Wiktionary is new to me. – S. Rich (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mont Pelerin

Thank you for your note. I happen to know that the people I categorized as Mont Pelerin members are indeed such, but I do understand the desire and indeed need for substantiation, which I'm unable in most cases to provide. I do however note that there is evidence online for Richard Stroup's membership: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/author.aspx?id=15300&txID=3202 Thank you for your help. Best regards, Tillander 04:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've added the info to Stroup's article. And please feel free to WP:DIY as you see fit for other articles. The MPS category removal was one step that I wanted to undertake with the hopes that interested editors such as yourself would followup on. – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, and I'll endeavor to be more proactive in the future. Also, I wonder whether I might ask your opinion: do you think there's a neutrality issue with my George Leef article? I'm not sure I understand the problem, but someone seems to think that there is.Tillander 04:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Temecula unsubstantiated revert

If you are to revert without solid rationale then you have done the entire community a disservice. Please note what was written on my talk page and provide for such rationale before making such changes. I will revert and we will try to collectively come up with a compromise. In order to not enter into an editing war, leave the page as is until you can provide for such rationale and also attend to the response left on my talk page. Thank you. J. Carbonell, Ed.D. Norcounty (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed while looking at the revert that the descriptor for now should be placed within the economy section. I will do this while we discuss what constitutes promotional content. Thank you. Norcounty (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, discussion at Talk:Temecula, California may be helpful. In the meantime, Affluence in the United States might help in showing how the term "affluent" is difficult to pin down, and thus not useful for improving the article on Temecula. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

DiLorenzo edit

Now time to close. Take your editing concerns to the article talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Srich, Tom DiLorenzo wrote a book which elaborated his opposition to Lincoln at great length and in painstaking detail. Have you read it? Great book. Anyway, I suggest for your own good and for the betterment of WP that you re-insert the amply sourced mention of Lincoln in the infobox on Tom's article. Removal of valid sourced content is sorely frowned upon by WP elders. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Yes, and in Organized Crime he opposes Obama, and in the Jaffa debate he said he opposes Clinton. He opposed ACORN and all sorts of others through the years. None of these opponents are key points in the DiLorenzo's career. Also, there has been no removal of sourced content from the article. This is simply a question of proper article format. Look at the purposes of the infobox -- it is to summarize key points about the subject of the article. In this case, we are considering the biography of DiLorenzo and not the particulars of his various views. (Indeed, the Jaffa line is problematic as the debate was quite cordial.) If you think this is a key point, bring it up on the article talk page. (You might note that adding lousy material to WP (such as Clay) is frowned upon by the community too.) Also, Specifico, don't accuse me of TE. Your section heading here is bullshit and I have corrected it to provide non-confrontational language. – S. Rich (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC) If Tom was a baseball player, we'd talk about his batting statistics. Since he's an economist, historian and advocate, we should summarize his views in those fields, including his various opposition and support. Your hostility here is extremely counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC) There is an accepted infobox for baseball players. See {{Infobox MLB player}}. The key point about DiLorenzo's views is his libertarianism, which encompasses a lot of different opinions. The infobox is not the place to put a laundry list of views, either in an individual listing or by naming particular persons (such as Clay). So bringing it up on the article talk page if you like is probably a better place for that discussion. If you are offended by the "hostility" you see here, don't look. I think you are aware that when I see bullshit, like the accusation of "tendentious editing", I will respond appropriately. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Srich, I am repeatedly surprised by your displays of basic lapses in your familiarity with WP policies and conventions. The "economist" infobox which is on DiLorenzo's article has a place for "opposed" which is in every sense analogous to the ballplayer infobox place for the batting statistic. You spill a huge amount of ink on misrepresentation of policy, false analogies, straw man arguments, and outright logical fallacies. As editors dedicated to the improvament of WP, each of us must take responsibility to understand and adhere to site protocols concerning content, policy and interaction. Please take a step back from these articles on which you have repeatedly stated you are "frustrated" and consider your options. Perhaps other articles provide better outlets for you to channel your skills and knowledge. Please put Lincoln back in the "opposed" spot. DiLorenzo's principled and articulate opposition of Lincoln is his most notable achievement. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (e/c) These assorted pro/con views are, at least in Tom's view, an outgrowth of his libertarianism. Two concerned editors are bringing it up here because your behavior in specific is problematic. Your hostility is not limited to your own talk page, although it's particularly egregious here. The more you shout "bullshit" at people who bring up reasonable concerns, the less productive your behavior is. MilesMoney (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Western State

S. Rich,

Are you comfortable enough with Rhiannon's draft of Western State? She asked me to publish the article, but it appeared that you may have wanted to do more to the draft. Tell me what you think.--ɱ (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed this message, so I am pinging it for you. I got the impression that Rhiannon wants to move forward with her work promptly.--ɱ (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, gosh. I've got too many irons in the fire. I'll try for a look later today. – S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, S. Rich, just wanted to check in here and see if you still wanted to take another look over the Western State draft. Don't worry, I'm in no hurry to move ahead, just want to make sure I don't miss any feedback if you're still planning on sharing more. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I came, I saw, I edited. – S. Rich (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much, S. Rich! Appreciate you taking another look. I replaced the citation you flagged with the original link that had been used, to the National Law Journal piece. Just to explain: I'd replaced that in my draft since it's only available via subscription and the content on the blog was more easily accessible, but since you feel the blog should be replaced with a more authoritative source, I think the National Law Journal one is best. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal comments on Thomas Woods talkpage

article improvement discussion belongs on article talk pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@SPECIFICO: Your single comment in the section that Carol opened had nothing to do with article improvement. It simply complained that BRD was not being followed, I was not making a personal comment about you, only about the addition to the thread that you made. But now you are going off track and making more comments directed at the editor (me) and not on article improvement. On other occasions I've see you disparage the addition of personal comments on article talk pages, using the very same article talk page! Duh? (Enjoy your flight. If you're in Coach, I hope you get bumped to First Class!) – S. Rich (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I don't fly coach. Thanks anyway. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Nor do I. More often as cargo. – S. Rich (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Try to shed the baggage when editing WP. You've not responded to my simple comment on Woods. Now, North to Alaska! SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Shed baggage? What about this garbage that you added to the talk page: "This is really very disappointing after you've been warned repeatedly about edit war behavior. My flight is boarding soon." Actually, I should say "bullshit". The "repeated edit warnings about edit war behavior" was the nonsense you posted on this user talk page. But you even have the effrontery to post such shit on the article talk page. It shouldn't be too difficult to stay warm – Anchorage is above zero and Fairbanks is only slightly below. If you haven't tried it at the average January temp of -16, you haven't lived! – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) While we're on the subject of "Coach['s] ... baggage", can we please re-add the link of him praising the LoS in 2005? Steeletrap (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-article talk page comments

@SPECIFICO: Here you are again, making comments about editor behavior which do absolutely nothing to further the discussion about article improvement. [3]. You've commented about editors making such comments on article talk pages yourself – I'd hope you could pay heed to your own advice and follow WP:TPYES. Please notice the word focused in that advice. It pertains to improving the article, not taking jabs at anyone. – S. Rich (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong, Sergeant. Carolmoore called a book review excerpt "ad hominem" when it was not ad hominem. That's a problem for the article, because it resulted in her making a bad edit decision based on her misunderstanding of ad hominem. Ironically, your comment above makes the same error. Do you understand the meaning of ad hominem? -- my remark was about her faulty rationale for her deletion of RS content from Masugi. SPECIFICO talk 04:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

At ease, Corporal. You used the term "you" and "your", and addressed CMDC directly 8 times in the remark. All-in-all, you did a lousy job of enlightening CMDC or anyone else. If you could discuss the editing rationale by using the third person, e.g., keeping the remarks focused on the rationale and not the editor, a lot of people would be happier. – S. Rich (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am a Conscientious objector I abhor violence. I'm severely jetlagged, and we'll be setting out at dawn, so you'll have to wait till tomorrow. SPECIFICO talk 05:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the jetlag. BTW, I think there is a good Thai restaurant somewhere in Wasilla – it's a great cure for jetlag. And mention me to Sarah or April if you see them. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)