User talk:Xerographica/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Xerographica. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Preference Revelation
I have been WP:BOLD and moved this to User talk:Xerographica/Preference revelation. Link to it, refer to it, user-essay it, finish it as a draft... whatever. Moved in the interests of moving on. Stalwart111 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
My To Do List
Undo/dispute/RFC unconstructive edits to the following entries...
- Information for inclusion was supposed to be examples of the concept while not mentioning the concept specifically. RFC / talk page discussion should be started on the benefit of including such examples. Would suggest encyclopaedic prose supported by inline citations would be a better bet.
- An extremely common theme is disagreement over whether the topic of the entry is the term itself or the concept. Should the entry focus on the origins and usages of the term or focus on the idea of people wanting more for less?
- Well, both. You need to demonstrate that it is a notable concept and that the title used is at least a common way of referring to it. As in, by more than one or two people. The term needs to at least be arguably notable, in my opinion, and the concept then covered extensively. But that coverage would need at least to define it as a concept in its own right, even if it uses other language.
- An extremely common theme is disagreement over whether the topic of the entry is the term itself or the concept. Should the entry focus on the origins and usages of the term or focus on the idea of people wanting more for less?
- Information for inclusion was supposed to be examples of the concept while not mentioning the concept specifically. RFC / talk page discussion should be started on the benefit of including such examples. Would suggest encyclopaedic prose supported by inline citations would be a better bet.
- Issue seems to be the inclusion of a particular quote which may/may not adequately illustrate the subject. Article doesn't even have a talk page on which to discuss these concerns, so that would be a good start.
- Well...no quote on its own can adequately illustrate the subject. But in the absence of editor prose, if it's relevant and high quality then it's better than nothing. Starting talk pages hasn't worked out too well for me...exhibit A and exhibit B...in terms of preventing the removal of any and all content.
- Sure, but a quote with no context doesn't help much either. Its almost useless in the context of an encyclopedia which is, arguably, all about context. If I walk into a mall and shout, "A bucket or pump!" it will mean nothing. On a sinking boat, however... Time to put your prose-writing hat on.
- Well...no quote on its own can adequately illustrate the subject. But in the absence of editor prose, if it's relevant and high quality then it's better than nothing. Starting talk pages hasn't worked out too well for me...exhibit A and exhibit B...in terms of preventing the removal of any and all content.
- Issue seems to be the inclusion of a particular quote which may/may not adequately illustrate the subject. Article doesn't even have a talk page on which to discuss these concerns, so that would be a good start.
- AFD was closed with redirect as the result. This should be taken to WP:DRV for discussion if the redirect target is considered to be incorrect. If DRV has already been done, then the matter should be raised on the talk page of the current redirect target suggesting an alternate target. Title can always be taken back to DRV later to request recreation if more adequate sources can be produced.
- DRV hasn't already been done.
- Well then...
- DRV hasn't already been done.
- AFD was closed with redirect as the result. This should be taken to WP:DRV for discussion if the redirect target is considered to be incorrect. If DRV has already been done, then the matter should be raised on the talk page of the current redirect target suggesting an alternate target. Title can always be taken back to DRV later to request recreation if more adequate sources can be produced.
- The dispute seems to be over the inclusion of bare quotes without additional context or explanation. This could probably be resolved with some discussion about context-giving prose. Bare quotes, like bare links or bare lists of products without context, are considered by many to be unencyclopedic, because they are not presented in the manner of a regular encyclopedia. Suggest some proposed wording be shopped around on the article talk page to see if the content, presented a different way, can gain consensus for inclusion.
- Again, "better than nothing".
- A bucket or pump! Have a crack at redrafting it as prose.
- Again, "better than nothing".
- The dispute seems to be over the inclusion of bare quotes without additional context or explanation. This could probably be resolved with some discussion about context-giving prose. Bare quotes, like bare links or bare lists of products without context, are considered by many to be unencyclopedic, because they are not presented in the manner of a regular encyclopedia. Suggest some proposed wording be shopped around on the article talk page to see if the content, presented a different way, can gain consensus for inclusion.
- The original article had major problems - chief among them was the fact that the article lacked inline citations and the article itself was a basically a series of parts (by way of bare quotes) that purported to confirm a synthetic whole. Factually accurate or otherwise, a collection of disparate quotes does not an encyclopaedia entry make. Proper citation of relevant claims with RS would help. Suggest starting a userspace draft which could be proposed as a replacement of the current redirect.
- The original article was a stub...and now it redirects to a completely irrelevant topic.
- It was probably more than a "traditional" stub, but you can take the original text as a starting point for a draft. Then discuss from there.
- The original article was a stub...and now it redirects to a completely irrelevant topic.
- The original article had major problems - chief among them was the fact that the article lacked inline citations and the article itself was a basically a series of parts (by way of bare quotes) that purported to confirm a synthetic whole. Factually accurate or otherwise, a collection of disparate quotes does not an encyclopaedia entry make. Proper citation of relevant claims with RS would help. Suggest starting a userspace draft which could be proposed as a replacement of the current redirect.
- Not really sure what the "conflict" is here but I have a strong feeling that inline citations would help. A lot. There's no real indication of which sources purport to support which claims. Beyond that, RFC on the talk page for any contentious issues.
- I created the page for Friedman's specific concept of government planners being careless with taxpayers money. Then edits were made based on the term itself...rather than the concept.
- Yeah, again, you would need to demonstrate that it's more than just one person's idea, as above. You'll need more than just abstract quotes for that.
- I created the page for Friedman's specific concept of government planners being careless with taxpayers money. Then edits were made based on the term itself...rather than the concept.
- Not really sure what the "conflict" is here but I have a strong feeling that inline citations would help. A lot. There's no real indication of which sources purport to support which claims. Beyond that, RFC on the talk page for any contentious issues.
- The original version had major "quote farm" issues without proper context and the new version barely has any context at all. Suggest some prose to actually describe the content, supported by inline citations that actually discuss the concept, rather than providing examples of the concept that would need WP:OR to extract.
- Same themes. 1. There's focus on the term rather than the concept itself. 2. The idea that no content is better than high quality relevant quotes from highly notable scholars.
- So as above, if it hasn't been covered as a concept on its own, specifically defined, then it may not be notable. At least some of those sources (from different people) would need to use the term and offer a reasonably consistent definition.
- Same themes. 1. There's focus on the term rather than the concept itself. 2. The idea that no content is better than high quality relevant quotes from highly notable scholars.
- The original version had major "quote farm" issues without proper context and the new version barely has any context at all. Suggest some prose to actually describe the content, supported by inline citations that actually discuss the concept, rather than providing examples of the concept that would need WP:OR to extract.
- An extensive "see also" list is a bit pointless if the purpose of the legislation isn't adequately explained to begin with. It's proposed legislation - shouldn't be that hard to source. Once there's some actual context, then go about adding "see also" bits.
- The legislation was adequately explained to begin with. Now it's not. I don't think the edit was an improvement.
- As legislation goes, it wasn't well defined, in my opinion, before or after. Needs work, full stop. Content nuances and style preferences can be dealt with later. Let's get the first bit right first.
- The legislation was adequately explained to begin with. Now it's not. I don't think the edit was an improvement.
- An extensive "see also" list is a bit pointless if the purpose of the legislation isn't adequately explained to begin with. It's proposed legislation - shouldn't be that hard to source. Once there's some actual context, then go about adding "see also" bits.
- Comments from people need sources, basically. We can't rely on our own interpretation of what someone meant, even if our interpretation is accurate. Get a source - this one's easy.
- Well...yeah...I know it's easy. That's my issue.
- So, a nice easy one then... Ha ha.
- Well...yeah...I know it's easy. That's my issue.
- Comments from people need sources, basically. We can't rely on our own interpretation of what someone meant, even if our interpretation is accurate. Get a source - this one's easy.
- This article is about the book, not about the author, the concepts covered by the book, other opinions from other people like those expressed by the author in the book or about the theories of others that closely resemble those expressed by the author in the book. It's a about the book. That's it. Conceptual stuff about concepts, generally, should be covered elsewhere with the book cited as a source (where appropriate). A book with an article here on WP can be cited like any other book. The article on the book Ice Station shouldn't include tracts of information from History of Antarctica. Yeah? Same here.
- Well...so where should the concept of "conceit" as Smith, Bastiat and Hayek have described it be covered?
- Not every idea, thought and concept needs to be covered here on WP, but if it's a notable concept, consistenty defined, significantly covered and it can be written about in an encyclopedic manner... go for it.
- Well...so where should the concept of "conceit" as Smith, Bastiat and Hayek have described it be covered?
- This article is about the book, not about the author, the concepts covered by the book, other opinions from other people like those expressed by the author in the book or about the theories of others that closely resemble those expressed by the author in the book. It's a about the book. That's it. Conceptual stuff about concepts, generally, should be covered elsewhere with the book cited as a source (where appropriate). A book with an article here on WP can be cited like any other book. The article on the book Ice Station shouldn't include tracts of information from History of Antarctica. Yeah? Same here.
--Xerographica (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Updated --Xerographica (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Second-level (::) responses from Stalwart111 05:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Third level responses. Thanks for taking the time to review the edits. Here are some of the themes that I keep running into...
- The obligation to pop out entries that are so fully developed that there's little room for improvement...which defeats the point of a collaborative effort.
- The focus on the term itself rather than the concept.
- The disregard for high quality relevant quotes. A high quality relevant quote by Joseph Campbell is removed as if it was vandalism. Prose with quotes is better...but quotes are better than nothing.
- --Xerographica (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Third level responses. Thanks for taking the time to review the edits. Here are some of the themes that I keep running into...
- Fourth is me again. Stalwart111 08:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
ANI notice -- Trolling
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--S. Rich (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Followup: My ANI notice has been closed. And I've been admonished (quite rightly) to engage with you first before posting an ANI report. That is fine with me -- I am learning. With this guidance in mind, I will make the following points/observations about your posting of a list of edits by SPECIFICO that you seem to disapprove of:
- The listing is directed towards a specific editor. In this regard, it is harassing.
- It is basically a "laundry list" of edits which you do not like. In this regard it is a WP:UP#POLEMIC. Furthermore, it is improper even if it did not specify SPECIFICO.
- You made the listing while under a block. In this regard it seems to be an attempt to get around/evade the block in order to post your criticisms of edits to particular articles. (By comparison, if you had seen an error on a page you could have said "I'm blocked at the moment, but could someone please correct the following on this-or-that page?") Because article talk pages are the tool we use to discuss improvements in articles, they are the proper forum to discuss the particular articles. (Discussing article improvements on non-related pages is often unproductive.) Compare: I think if an editor were making a comment about one particular page in an effort to improve it, it would be improper to add in complaints edits on other pages.
- With these factors in mind, I will urge you to remove/blank your listing of edits. And not just the reference to SPECIFICO. If you will please remove this entire section, including my commentary, I will be quite happy.
- I am not sure that your behavior constitutes trolling, so I have
strickenthe note. - Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)15:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Let me see if I can get this straight. If an article on my watch list is vandalized...then I can post the article on my talk page. But if an article on my watch list has recent edits that are not based on reliable sources...then I cannot post the article on my talk page? --Xerographica (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'll try something else. Here is the pertinent language: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. ... Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." [Emphasis added.]
- In this case, you are not recording a list of vandalism related edits, so the comparison is not pertinent. Indeed, by suggesting such a comparison, you are not WP:AGF as to SPECIFICO. You have said "he did this" and "he did that". You are improperly recording and posting perceived flaws when you say "he removed sourced content."
- And what would be the point of recording vandalism? WP:R Van provides guidance. The guidance does not include the compiling of laundry lists. (I will repeat that vandalism is not the issue here.)
- You have the guidance -- quoted -- before your eyes. Please follow the guidance and my suggestion -- remove this entire section.--S. Rich (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- I changed it to my to do list. --Xerographica (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like a good solution to me - in the spirit of WP:FOC. Stalwart111 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well done. On both your parts.--S. Rich (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like a good solution to me - in the spirit of WP:FOC. Stalwart111 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Autoblocked for an additional day?
My block was set to expire around now. But now it says that I've been autoblocked and my block will expire tomorrow. Can anybody please explain what happened? Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Dispersed knowledge -- Balance
Would you please, please please craft your edits to make them useful. Here: [1], you add "Arthur Pigou (Neoclassical economics) ... It must be confessed, however, that we seldom know enough to decide in what fields and to what extent the State, on account of the gaps between private and public costs could interfere with individual choice. - Arthur Pigou, Some Aspects of the Welfare State." But your edit does not tie-in Pigou's remark into the subject of the article. It is simply soapboxing. E.g., it says "This quote is important and I want you to read it and you can figure out for yourself how it is connected to the topic (and if another editor comes in and changes what I've said I'm going to be upset)!!" Moreover, you do not add page numbers, ISBNs, other useful data. You are not meeting your WP:BURDEN when it comes to making this Pigou (and other) quote useful to the article or WP. Previously, you got into trouble due to remarks about other editors. But I fear that your POVs are the next problem. Russ Roberts (on Econtalk) frequently talks about his biases and confirmation bias. Can you? Once you do so, and because you do so, can you edit WP with balance in mind? I urge you to do so.--S. Rich (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you don't understand the relevance of a quote, then all you have to do is post your question on the talk page. As it stands, you have not shared a single concern on the talk page. Rather, you've decided to post your concerns on my talk page.
- Regarding bias...of course I'm biased. But all my contributions are based on reliable sources. If you feel the need to develop the criticisms sections in any of the entries that I contribute to...then please...DIY. As long as your contributions are based on RS...then I will have absolutely no issue with you doing so. --Xerographica (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Don't you see? I'm a fairly intelligent person, and I can look at a quote that you post and figure out how it might fit. But that is not what we are doing here. E.g., we are not scattering about cogent quotes and letting readers fill in the blanks. We are here to compose and craft and edit. Something like "Pigou talked about dispersed knowledge when he said ...." But you are not doing this.
- And you are missing the point about the talk pages. They exist to improve the article. Something like "The Pigou quote does not support the article because...." Then you can come in and say "Pigou talks about 'XYZ' which is ..." and defend your addition.
- Regarding RS, when I come in and remove something and justify it by saying "this quote does not have a book or article title or page number or is talking about a different topic or concept", I am meeting my WP:BURDEN. Removing it is not an issue of RS. That is, I don't need RS to say "This quote is not helpful because it is not properly cited." That fact is self evident when the quote lacks a book title, page number, etc!
- Xerographica, I am talking about your pattern of editing in general, not just in the DK article. Adding all of these quotes simply because they exist and are interesting is not a good or helpful method of building this encyclopedia. You've got to go beyond your desire to advocate (e.g., posting quotes based on RS) your thoughts. Build this encyclopedia. Brick by brick. And don't get upset when someone says "how does that brick fit?" and take it out. They take out the brick because it is misplaced. Not because it lacks RS.
- It's time for me to do other stuff now. I'll look forward to your answer tomorrow. --S. Rich (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, great so we can talk about each other's "pattern of editing in general". Rather than simply take 2.5 seconds to find a quote's book title...you remove the quote. You could simply tag it with "reference needed" if you're not willing to make the effort of looking up the book title yourself.
- And if you think a quote is irrelevant...then post in the talk page and say that a quote is talking about "Concept A" but the entry is dedicated to "Concept B". Except, you've never once done that. Rather, you wanted to turn Other people's money into a disambiguation page rather than make the effort to simply create a disambiguation page. Perhaps you thought that Milton Friedman's concept was the exact same as the film or novel?
- Regarding where I add bricks...I add relevant quotes from Nobel Prize winning economists. If it's your priority to paraphrase them...then awesome...DIY. Except, well, perhaps you should post your contributions on the talk page first.
- Here's my problem. Where are your bricks? Where are ANY of your bricks? You removed all my bricks from actions speak louder than words and put your money where your mouth is...but then you never added any of your own. How is that a "good or helpful" method of building an encyclopedia? Show me how to build an encyclopedia by developing those two entries. Don't just talk about building an encyclopedia...for once just do it. Then, and only then, will I consider the possibility of giving any weight to your feedback. --Xerographica (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Tax Choice Tag -- Notability
Please revert your deletion of the notability tag on Tax choice.
The tag does not indicate that a conclusion has been reached. Many editors have expressed concern as to the notability of the subject and this issue will eventually be decided through WP process. The removal of the tag is disruptive. Please replace it. SPECIFICO 19:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was just decided through WP process...Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tax_choice. If you have any concerns with an entry...then please utilize the entry's talk page to voice your concerns. --Xerographica (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was decided that the article does not qualify for deletion. There are other issues and resolutions depending on its notability. It currently has no RS citation. You can help resolve the issue by providing encyclopedic content with in-line citations from RS. Meanwhile please replace tag. Thank you. SPECIFICO 19:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The reason that the article did not qualify for deletion was because there are more than enough RS that support the notability of the concept. If the community decided that it was not sufficiently notable then the entry would have been deleted. --Xerographica (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It was decided that the article does not qualify for deletion. There are other issues and resolutions depending on its notability. It currently has no RS citation. You can help resolve the issue by providing encyclopedic content with in-line citations from RS. Meanwhile please replace tag. Thank you. SPECIFICO 19:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I said that in my close, so don't make assumptions like that. This article CAN be AFD'd again, if needed. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- And I don't think I even mentioned what you said in your close. Did I? Well...I did mention the "community"...so I guess it's perfectly understandable for you to assume that I was referring to you, and only you, when I said "community". Sorry about that. --Xerographica (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Other people's money for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Other people's money is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other people's money until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. LK (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Heterogeneous activity
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Heterogeneous activity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-RS cited material on Benefit Principle
Please do not continue to re-insert the unsourced assertions and opinions on Benefit Principle. These statements require in-line citations. As noted, the litany of goods paid by user fees are not even public goods. Please find citations per WP policy and cease to make disruptive edits. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop using my talk page to discuss specific entries. If you have concerns with content that I've added to a particular entry then use the entry's talk page to express your concerns. --Xerographica (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- I am addressing you here out of courtesy because I am afraid that you may be headed toward an unpleasant outcome with these disruptive behaviours and I earnestly encourage you to desist. However I acknowledge your request and I will not continue to communicate with you. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm engaging in disruptive behavior by adding content that is supported by RS? It's not disruptive when you engage in the wholesale removal of content that is supported by RS? Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if I WAS the one who was headed towards an unpleasant outcome while you, the person who actually IS engaging in disruptive behavior, suffered absolutely no negative consequences. --Xerographica (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Heterogeneous activity for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heterogeneous activity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterogeneous activity until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. LK (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Tax choice unsourced material
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Tax choice. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OR is not the big issue (although it may exist). More importantly in this case it is improper to add material without citing where it came from. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide the references. You can meet that burden by providing citations. WP policy is to provide in-line citations. You are not complying with policy and this can be considered disruptive. Furthermore, you have been reminded of this policy on numerous occasions. S. Rich (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith by adding citation requests to any material that you believe to be original research. --Xerographica (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Your discourtesy
It is just amazing that you would edit Tax choice while I had posted an {{Inuse}} banner. (Banner posted here: [2]. Your edit, made while the banner was in place: [3]. My reverting, with a note asking that you respect the inuse banner: [4]. Your edit, made despite the banner & my request for editing courtesy: [5]. And then you continue to edit despite the banner: [6].) Your edit summary "request" that I not remove unsourced material does not support such disruptive, indeed outrageous behavior. --S. Rich (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
3RR warning
Your recent editing history at Tax choice shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. If you've already been warned (which I can't confirm), you will be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- A complaint has been filed at WP:AN3#User:Xerographica reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Tax choice protection
Xerographica, instead of having Tax choice protected, I propose this: Neither of us edit on tax choice for 5 days (which will free up the article for other editors.) In fact, I'll not edit any of the pages on your "to do list" for 5 days. If you'll agree, I ask the admin to unprotect it. (Whether s/he will do so is another question.)--S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- No thanks. SPECIFICO has no problem removing content that is supported by RS...dollar voting --Xerographica (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the copyright violations you have incorporated in your edits by excessive quotes, you now may be violating copyright of the Wikipedia articles, unless (1) none of the material is from other Wikipedia editors, or (2) you properly credit the other Wikipedia editors in edit comments. They probably will violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines, unless brought into a usable state within a month or so.
I won't bring this up on a noticeboard, unless you reply with more attacks, but I may still comment if someone else brings it up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. --Xerographica (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- As usual, you have no knowledge of relevant Wikipedia policies. Userspace drafts are allowed, (and, in fact, encouraged in an essay which doesn't point out the Wikipedia policies it potentially violates), but
- If you copy material from the existing Wikipedia article, and it was edited by another editor, you need to note the ID of that editor in an edit summary, or you're violating their copyright. (Other modes of acknowledging the contributions are suggested, but may not actually be allowed under the CC-BY-SA license.)
- If the base article is deleted at AfD, you might be required to delete your copy, if the result is delete and not userfy, rather than just delete. The closing Admin (which will not be me) will note that.
- If the drafts have any "fair use" material, they may be subject to deletion under WP:NFCC. This probably includes your "passages", even if not copyright violations and/or plaigerism.
- If the drafts have any categories, they need to be commented out (as [[:Category:Economics]], rather than [[Category:Economics]]).
- Material not allowed anywhere in Wikipedia, such as WP:BLP, WP:NPA, and WP:COPYVIO violations, is not allowed in userspace drafts.
- If there is a mainspace article, the draft may be considered a WP:POVFORK.
- I thought there were other restrictions on userspace drafts, but I can't find them. My apologies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- As usual, you have no knowledge of relevant Wikipedia policies. Userspace drafts are allowed, (and, in fact, encouraged in an essay which doesn't point out the Wikipedia policies it potentially violates), but
The article Unnecessary war has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- WP:SAA: it is hard to see how this could be anything other than "advocacy and controversial material". Each of the entries is someone's opinion that particular wars were unnecessary. And then the list would go on and on and on. (Too bad we do not see Pig War listed.) To balance the article, other peoples' opinions would have to be added to say "no -- that war was necessary." If the article is intended to talk about war as an unnecessary event in general, then pacifism and anti-war are available to cover the subject. It won't work to say "'Unnecessary war' is a concept that should have its' own article -- look at the RS that use the term." They only use the term because the RS is advocating their views about those particular wars, and not about unnecessary war as an overall concept.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. S. Rich (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)01:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Other people's money (disambiguation)
Hello, Xerographica. You recently removed two links from Other people's money (disambiguation) with the edit summary, "One blue link per bullet". You are quite correct that disambiguation pages should have only one blue link per item. In those two cases, though, the links you removed were the only blue links – as opposed to red links to currently non-existent pages. I have restored the links to Kathryn Adams, an actress whose bio page mentions the 1916 film, and Justin Cartwright, author of the 2011 novel whose page contains the red link. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- My bad. Out of curiosity...what's the logic behind the policy? --Xerographica (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the idea is that by including a blue link along with the red link people landing on the DAB page can find some information about the topic, even if the article doesn't exist yet. Cnilep (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
January 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Unnecessary war. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you had actually read the notice then this is what you would have read...
- You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it.
- Please stop wasting my time. --Xerographica (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- You may delete {{PROD}} notices, but not WP:Article for deletion notices. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies. That's exactly what you did. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Unnecessary war
I served in Iraq – while there 2 of my friends died and (Tim Vakoc) suffered his wounds after I had attended a service with him. Another unit member of mine suffered severe injuries, but she recovered and later invited me to her wedding. Three more unit members of mine died in Afghanistan (one of them I'd served with for years). I'd like to say that all war is "unnecessary" in one sense or another – but doing so would only add to the bitterness of their sad deaths. Does the world become a better place because we write an encyclopedia article titled "unnecessary war"? Compare – we could put up articles titled "wasteful war" or "ironic wars" or "glorious wars" or "stupid wars" or "successful war" or "necessary war" or "smart wars" or "bitter wars", etc.--S. Rich (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- How could the world NOT become a better place by sharing with readers what numerous reliable sources have to say about an extremely notable and important concept? Unused highways and bridges to nowhere and any other unnecessary public projects...like unnecessary wars...waste the lives of a nation's citizens. --Xerographica (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Given the history of humankind, it is not surprising to see war as part of every era, civilization, society, etc. We live in mondo cane. For better or worse, fewer and fewer Americans are participating in war. (12,000,000 wore a uniform during WWII, single battles resulted in thousands of casualties.) So as war becomes less and less of a burden on the public fisc or body public, it's un-necessary-ness becomes less and less significant. Will we change things by beating our chests and shouting "That war was unnecessary!"? I don't think so. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a place were we can WP:RGW. We have articles on the ethics of war, the numbers of casualties per war, the rules of engagement, the law of war, etc. These articles serve to inform readers so that they can make up their own minds without our telling them that war is unnecessary. You are spinning your wheels with many of these notable and important concepts because your POV is driving your edits and article creation. And you are spending more of your time on talk pages rather than on article development. (That proportion will change as your articles get deleted.) Importance and notable are not the be-alls and end-alls of encyclopedia building. There are WP:FIVEPILLARS you must consider, and follow. You are doing much better in terms of civility (and I thank you for that); but please consider the other fundamentals. But each time you seek to point out how there is government waste, stupid policy, loss of freedom, etc., step back and consider what is the counter-argument to your opinion. You will find the exercise challenging, interesting, and worthwhile.--S. Rich (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)21:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
==NPA==
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. This edit [7] with its' "VDE" acronym, looks like a revival of the personal attacks with resulted in blocking. I urge you to desist. You can make some progress by self-reverting or by striking out the offending comment. S. Rich (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- When have I recently used the VDE acronym? --Xerographica (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
::Don't be cute. The link is right in front of you. --S. Rich (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is what I recently posted...
- When I created this entry I added numerous relevant topics to the see also section...but they were all removed. It would really help improve this article if any editors could recreate the see also section and add some relevant topics to it Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- It does not contain the VDE acronym...so why are you accusing me of personal attacks? --Xerographica (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is what I recently posted...
I apologize. I was wrong. I did not look carefully at the time-stamp. I have stricken my comments.--S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
About the article "Unnecessary War"
Hello there, I see that somehow you feel like the community in general has engaged a war against you and your ideals. Lolz, the case is, Wikipedia must be neutral and any original research or thought must be avoided. I would be sarcastic or hypocrite if I tell you "I know how you feel", because I truly don't know how you are feeling about what is going on, but I've passed through a lot of discussions on wikipedia regarding neutrality, notability and other things, and what I tell you is, fresh your mind and if what is going on here becomes a matter that inflicts any personal anger on you, take a break. The subject on the article which you are writing is clearly notable, but the thing that is going on is the neutral aspect of the facts. So ask yourself, how can I write something that the reader would read and make up his mind either neutral, positive or negative. If you can keep it up to this level, I'd join you building this article up. So take it easy. Regards Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like the entry will be deleted...so I moved it over to my subpage...User:Xerographica/Unnecessary war. You're certainly welcome to have at it. Regarding my neutrality...regarding original research vs research...well...if we collaborated on building the article up...then you'd certainly be able to come to your own conclusions. As they say...the proof is in the pudding. --Xerographica (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Userpages
I've added the {{userspace draft}} template to your various subpages. This will have the same effect as the __NOINDEX__ template. (Same thing, basically, that I did on January 17.) I think the template will avoid WP:UPNO problems. – S. Rich (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Military SMEs needed
Are you a military-topic SME? As you have mentioned IO experience in AF and 11B background, the WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active is always looking for contributors and could benefit from your help. Lots of articles in their AO and AOI need attention. I say this sincerely. Your present COA in econ does not seem to be (rather, is not) productive. Assess your efforts and use the MDMP, remembering that MDMP is a cycle. When it turns out that our efforts are not effective, we re-assess and refine out plans. If you are inclined to non-conventional/unconventional warfare, consider the SOF Imperative to Understand the Operational Environment. In your case, you must consider that the operational environment of WP -- it is not built by people who thrive from "abuse" as those people are not cooperating in the effort. Such people either give up or are pushed out. From the IO perspective, you are not considering your target audiences -- e.g., fellow editors and the cultural values of the WP institution. (Also, you should consider these people/editors to members of a targeting cell. When fellow cell members tell you something, you should consider what they say -- especially if they have much more experience than you.) If you'd apply MOEIs, you'd see that your edits are weighted toward talkpage discussions, which indicates ineffective article editing. Again, I urge you to focus on (and in) an area where you can contribute more effectively. – S. Rich (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)01:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
January 31 – not assuming good faith, and more
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Foot voting. Thank you. This edit [8] and the one preceding, with your "But if you're genuinely interested in improving this article..." comment, improperly questions the good faith of User:Volunteer Marek – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 03:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. 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. Would you please just stop with these snide, uncivil, disruptive remarks? Specifically, "Have you ever considered reading what the reliable sources have to say about the topic?" WP:AGF that Rubin has read the material, and keep your opinion as to whether he has or has not to yourself. – S. Rich (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you truly believe that it's a personal attack to ask another whether they've read the material then update the policy accordingly. --Xerographica (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sadly, you are missing the point. Each time you question whether another editor has read the material, you implicitly deny the good faith of that editor. When you say another editor arbitrarily removed material, you deny the good faith of that editor. (And by commenting you are conducting a personal attack on that editor.) Consider, Rubin has tens of thousands (76k+ as a matter of fact) of edits. Out of those thousands of edits, is he picking on yours in particular? Or does he fail to read material and arbitrarily edit as a matter of habit? Certainly not. If he did, other editors would complain and Rubin would be properly admonished. In your case, Xerographica, you brought up the issue of edits by me, Rubin, and SPECIFICO on the noticeboard. Not only did you fail to get support for your contentions, you have an administrator (who has 30k+ edits) telling you that you are about to be blocked. (Your latest comment on the ANI page may be enough to accomplish that!) My gosh, you are banging your head against the wall, and that wall is not coming down. Please consider my suggestion in the following section. The Military History WikiProject is not confined to historical subjects. You ought to sign up, work on their stubs, develop articles, etc. in another realm. (Information Operations (United States) needs a lot of work.) On your present course you are about to crash & burn. – S. Rich (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits on Tax Choice
Hello Xerographica. I am disappointed to see from your recent edits on Tax Choice that you appear to be disregarding the guidance you recently received on ANI. I now ask you to revert your re-insertion [9] of the unsourced WP:OR text in that article and to follow WP policy in your efforts to improve this article. Please take this as my only warning that I may file an ANI complaint concerning this behaviour. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Again, as I've told you countless times, if you have concerns with content, then please post your concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Tax choice. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. As I was composing a complement to you (above), you posted this stuff about Famspear: [10]. (This is disappointing.) If you have doubts about someone's GF, keep them to yourself. You are NOT the only one doing any building. Stop saying things like "[You are] tearing down." – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Content categories
Your user page User:Xerographica/Tax choice, by reason of its contents, was accidentally included in a content category. It has been corrected for you. For information about this, please see the guidelines about the categorization of user pages. Thank you. I believe the inclusion was accidental. In any event, I hope the guidelines will clarify the rationale about removing the categories on the subpage. – S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- You (Rich) are doing the sort of things Alan was blocked for. I commented out the categories, rather than removing them. Even though the majority are wrong, and I would have removed them if they were in mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- OH! I see what you did. (And I missed the colons that you added, so I added comment out markings.) I certainly was not trying to be disruptive, and that is why I added the Twinkle template message above, plus the added note. I will go back and remove my comment out markings on this and the other pages. -- – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Article creation break?
AfDs take away time and energy from everyone involved that can be better devoted to other things. Given that consensus has been pretty clear recently about the quality and appropriateness of the articles that you have created, I'ld like you to consider slowing down and not creating new articles for a while, and instead focus on improving existing articles, including the ones that you have already created. If you would like to start a new article, it would be better if you started one in user space first, and tried to make it a pretty good article (at least a 'C' class article) before posting it into main space. That would lead to less stress and work for all involved. LK (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- If a concept is notable and supported by numerous RS...then I'll create the article. If editors who haven't edited a single economic entry don't think that the concept is notable...then that's on them...not me. Clearly a consensus of editors does not mean a thing when it comes to determining the notability of economic concepts...concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. When notable economic concepts are deleted...then it's no wonder that editors with knowledge of economics see little value in making the effort to contribute. --Xerographica (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that's a productive attitude to take. One shouldn't be be too certain that one's views about issues are correct. That's an underlying principle of Wikipedia, that we work collaboratively, sharing reliable sources to determine collectively what should be included. We don't trust editors to know what is right and proper for the encyclopedia to contain, and so we look to external authorities (academic journals, textbooks, major newspapers) to guide us. If you wish to productively contribute to the encyclopedia, you have to follow the common principles and practices here. LK (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your argument would work if it was just me, on my own, saying that concentrated benefits and diffuse costs is a notable concept. But that wasn't the case. There certainly are more than enough reliable sources to establish the notability of the concept. But it was deleted anyways. --Xerographica (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that's a productive attitude to take. One shouldn't be be too certain that one's views about issues are correct. That's an underlying principle of Wikipedia, that we work collaboratively, sharing reliable sources to determine collectively what should be included. We don't trust editors to know what is right and proper for the encyclopedia to contain, and so we look to external authorities (academic journals, textbooks, major newspapers) to guide us. If you wish to productively contribute to the encyclopedia, you have to follow the common principles and practices here. LK (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- LK is not saying CBDC is not notable. He's suggesting a more productive method of editing WP. One that will benefit all editors. You know the article The Logic of Collective Action. You added a link to the page. This article is a stub and needs work. You could be the editor that works it up as a useful article, and thereby make CBDC a more presentable concept. I suggest you go to WP:BOOKS and look at their guidelines. They have templates, article guidelines, links, etc. that you can use to develop the article. Look for book reviews that discuss the book, or other authors who have cited it. HighBeam Research may be a useful source. Follow the 5 pillars as you work on the article, keeping in mind that the no OR and NPOV guidelines are most important. When you run into difficulties, look for help with the "help me" links. They will attract other editors who will be happy to assist. Your goal, as an editor of WP, should be to create a WP:GA. For real ambition, see if you can work up a WP:FA. – S. Rich (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Other people's money listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Other people's money. Since you had some involvement with the Other people's money redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Xerographica. I saw your posting on Bbb's talk page, which I have on my watchlist. I looked at the article in question, and I'm unimpressed by your behavior there. SPECIFICO is allowed to challenge content not supported by an inline citation, and he explained his reason for reverting in his edit summary. He is not required to do more, or to post on the talk page about his concerns. The burden of proof is on you as the restorer of the material to support the information with a directly cited source, and as such, you are responsible for starting the talk page discussion, not him. You are not allowed to just revert him blindly; that's edit-warring, and you need to cut it out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- If he wants to challenge the content then why doesn't he add "citation needed" tags? Isn't he failing to assume good faith? --Xerographica (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, he's not. Citation needed tags are an optional intermediate step. Summary removal in cases like this are appropriate with an explanatory edit summary (which both editors had), and it has nothing to do with AGF. As you've gone right up against 3RR in this, consider this a final warning for edit-warring; don't revert the article again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- But how can I know what needs to be improved if he doesn't use the talk page to specify his concerns? For example, do I need a source to support the statement that war has an opportunity cost? --Xerographica (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Their concerns are specified in their edit summaries; you don't need a talk page post to read them. "remove sections which consist entirely of bald statements and quotes, with no explanation of why the quotes are relevant to the topic" "Delete WP:OR Please find RS treatments of this subject matter if you believe it is relevant to the article." They think it's original research, and that the quotes need an explanation of why they're relevant to the article. Food for thought: why do we care what Eisenhower or Hitler thought about tax choice? Neither of them are economists or financial experts. Just being "famous" or "important" doesn't give their opinions on this subject any particular weight. If their opinions (not just opinions similar to theirs, but specifically theirs) have been analyzed by experts in reliable sources, then it's reasonable to include that analysis, backed by inline citations of course. But until that happens, including and juxtaposing their opinions like that is analysis that you're doing, not a reliable source, and so it's original research (and specifically synthesis) for it to be in the article. That's their objection as I see it. And again, the burden of proof is on you as the restorer of content to prove them wrong, not for them to prove themselves right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject. The thing about "original" research is that there needs to be something "original" there for it to be considered "original research". What am I saying that is not supported by the primary sources (their own statements)? That entire section is simply an explanation of the opportunity cost concept...which is why I asked you whether I needed a source to support the statement that war has an opportunity cost. As far as I can tell...it's not "original research" if an editor supplies his own example to explain the opportunity cost concept. If possible, I'd prefer to have this discussion on the article's talk page so that other editors could benefit from the discussion. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- That is original research. By providing an example, you are implying that the example is representative of the whole. That implication is original research, unless it's backed by a reliable source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is it original research to say that a war has a cost? --Xerographica (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- That is original research. By providing an example, you are implying that the example is representative of the whole. That implication is original research, unless it's backed by a reliable source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the subject. The thing about "original" research is that there needs to be something "original" there for it to be considered "original research". What am I saying that is not supported by the primary sources (their own statements)? That entire section is simply an explanation of the opportunity cost concept...which is why I asked you whether I needed a source to support the statement that war has an opportunity cost. As far as I can tell...it's not "original research" if an editor supplies his own example to explain the opportunity cost concept. If possible, I'd prefer to have this discussion on the article's talk page so that other editors could benefit from the discussion. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Their concerns are specified in their edit summaries; you don't need a talk page post to read them. "remove sections which consist entirely of bald statements and quotes, with no explanation of why the quotes are relevant to the topic" "Delete WP:OR Please find RS treatments of this subject matter if you believe it is relevant to the article." They think it's original research, and that the quotes need an explanation of why they're relevant to the article. Food for thought: why do we care what Eisenhower or Hitler thought about tax choice? Neither of them are economists or financial experts. Just being "famous" or "important" doesn't give their opinions on this subject any particular weight. If their opinions (not just opinions similar to theirs, but specifically theirs) have been analyzed by experts in reliable sources, then it's reasonable to include that analysis, backed by inline citations of course. But until that happens, including and juxtaposing their opinions like that is analysis that you're doing, not a reliable source, and so it's original research (and specifically synthesis) for it to be in the article. That's their objection as I see it. And again, the burden of proof is on you as the restorer of content to prove them wrong, not for them to prove themselves right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- But how can I know what needs to be improved if he doesn't use the talk page to specify his concerns? For example, do I need a source to support the statement that war has an opportunity cost? --Xerographica (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, he's not. Citation needed tags are an optional intermediate step. Summary removal in cases like this are appropriate with an explanatory edit summary (which both editors had), and it has nothing to do with AGF. As you've gone right up against 3RR in this, consider this a final warning for edit-warring; don't revert the article again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
If any editor challenges an edit claiming OR, then you would need to find a source to backup that statement. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you are correct that these editors are genuinely interested in removing OR regarding the opportunity cost of war...then why haven't they made any effort to remove this section... Cost_of_conflict#Opportunity_Cost or this section Parable_of_the_broken_window#The_opportunity_cost_of_war? Maybe they didn't know of those sections? Well...now they do. Let's see how sincere they are at removing OR when it comes to the opportunity cost of war. --Xerographica (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with those articles, but if you believe that they contain unsourced assertions, I urge you to find Reliable Sources or in the alternative to delete the OR content. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Given that you deleted the section on the opportunity cost of war in the tax choice article...clearly you believe that you yourself are sufficiently qualified to discern whether an assertion is unsourced or not. So why are you now asking me? You sure didn't ask me before you deleted the sections on tax choice. Yet, here you are now asking me about articles that I didn't spend hours and hours of my own time on. Although, I'm sure somebody must have sacrificed a good chunk of their own time to contribute to those articles. Like I said, if you truly are concerned with OR regarding the opportunity cost of war...then why would you behave any differently with those articles? --Xerographica (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I responded to your post on my talk page. I'm not going to comment on the details of the discussion in this thread, but I echo Writ Keeper's warning about edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, again, can you please help me understand why you deleted the opportunity cost of war from the tax choice article but not from those two articles that I shared with you? Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Given that you deleted the section on the opportunity cost of war in the tax choice article...clearly you believe that you yourself are sufficiently qualified to discern whether an assertion is unsourced or not. So why are you now asking me? You sure didn't ask me before you deleted the sections on tax choice. Yet, here you are now asking me about articles that I didn't spend hours and hours of my own time on. Although, I'm sure somebody must have sacrificed a good chunk of their own time to contribute to those articles. Like I said, if you truly are concerned with OR regarding the opportunity cost of war...then why would you behave any differently with those articles? --Xerographica (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with those articles, but if you believe that they contain unsourced assertions, I urge you to find Reliable Sources or in the alternative to delete the OR content. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in debate
Dear Xerographica
Your recent posts suggest you might be interested by this ongoing argument.
Alfy32 (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Change your approach
Unless you start to heed the multiple warnings you have received about assuming good faith, you will most certainly receive a one way ticket to blocksville. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You would do well to not accuse others of not reading sources anymore, and focus soley on the content, not the editor. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, can you please link me to the instance that you are referring to? Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty much everything here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you'd like to offer some clarification regarding what, exactly, constitutes a "personal attack"...then that would be awesome. Please share your thoughts on the personal attack talk page... Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Willfully_ignoring_reliable_sources. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- You obviously know what I'm referring too, which has been your general pattern of WP:Idht behavioir as demonstrated on ANI and the article talk pages you frequent. Here an wikipedia we try to AGF, however you are pushing the boundaries. Unless you change your ways it will be only a matter of time until you are indeffed blocked for disruption. If I had the tools, I would have blocked you for two weeks to let the message sink in. And this has nothing to do with the content of the articles you are working on, but your failure to work and play nicely with others. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- You obviously know what I'm referring too, which has been your general pattern of WP:Idht behavioir as demonstrated on ANI and the article talk pages you frequent. Here an wikipedia we try to AGF, however you are pushing the boundaries. Unless you change your ways it will be only a matter of time until you are indeffed blocked for disruption. If I had the tools, I would have blocked you for two weeks to let the message sink in. And this has nothing to do with the content of the articles you are working on, but your failure to work and play nicely with others. little green rosetta(talk)
- If you'd like to offer some clarification regarding what, exactly, constitutes a "personal attack"...then that would be awesome. Please share your thoughts on the personal attack talk page... Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Willfully_ignoring_reliable_sources. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty much everything here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like LGR was referring to my comments of January 31. In each of them I specified how your comments were improper. (Bwilkins has re-enforced the overall point by posting your entire editing history.) Xerographica, when you ask for "some clarification", you are displaying ostrich effect. On the other hand, it is refreshing to read your discussion below re BoP on Tax choice. Words like "thank you", "sharing", etc. work! The next step, I believe, will be for you to better understand, and follow the guidance on OR, SYN, etc. -- – S. Rich (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Again, Xerographica, I complement you on your most recent approach on various talk pages. Focusing on the content of articles and the merits of the edits is the only way to go. You may have noticed on the Unnecessary war AfD page that less than complementary comments were made about your editing history. I stuck up for you. Unfortunately, you first rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with the comments that resulted in the blocks. And then you continued on an ineffective path with remarks about people not reading the material, etc.. You did not win friends or allies. Your efforts were counterproductive, and as a result you will have a difficult time convincing people on topics of concern to you. Still, the only way to continue to progress as an editor is to consider carefully the remarks that others are making on the talk pages. These other editors are pushing you back into your lane as an editor. You may feel the urge to lash back when things don't go your way. But resist that urge. When you succeed, you will be a true contributor. Keep up the good work. – S. Rich (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Xerographica, just keep your inquiries as whether people have read stuff to yourself. In light of your editing history, you are clearly implying that they have not, as in the comment you made here: [11]. And in doing so, you fail to AGF. I've complemented you on what looks like a favorable new approach to your interactions with other editors, but I won't give you any leeway on comments that veer off course. You have one, well-defined lane to stay in when commenting on article talk pages. Stay in that lane. Confine your comments to article improvement and don't say anything about other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand how we can possibly have an informed discussion on a topic when you haven't read what the reliable sources have to say about it. It's really not that difficult. We both read what the RS's say and then we discuss how we can improve an article...based on what the RS's say about the topic. If you think that I'm trying to insult, or belittle you by asking whether you've read the RS's...then you're the one who is not assuming good faith. The reality is that I'm trying to collaborate with you. But collaboration isn't just me reading the reliable sources and you undoing my edits. It's both of us reading the reliable sources and then putting our heads together to figure out how to effectively convey the most important points in the article. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's true, to a certain extent, that reading the RS helps. But the issue was whether the particular see also links were appropriate. You have a history that is less than commendable WRT comments made about other editors. You were rude and insulting and your remarks engendered 4 weeks of blocks. And then you started questioning, sometimes in snide comments, that other editors (not just me) had not read material. Those remarks, coupled with my warnings, prompted LGR to advise you about the impending one way trip to blocksville. (An allusion that I especially like.) I've encouraged you WRT your constructive remarks about article improvement. But you dare not even hint in the slightest fashion that other editors have not read something. Whether they have read material or not does not matter, except to the extent that your inquiries are unnecessary and distracting. If you think there are particular portions of the RS which can be used in article development, then cite them. But your unfounded assumption that someone has not read material is one that you must keep to yourself. – S. Rich (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've asked other editors if they've read the reliable sources because their edits did not reflect what the reliable sources say about the topics. If you think it's a personal attack to ask another editor whether they've read the reliable sources...then change the policy to match your preferences. Because, as it stands, the policy does not state that it's a personal attack to ask another editor whether they've read the reliable sources.
- It's true, to a certain extent, that reading the RS helps. But the issue was whether the particular see also links were appropriate. You have a history that is less than commendable WRT comments made about other editors. You were rude and insulting and your remarks engendered 4 weeks of blocks. And then you started questioning, sometimes in snide comments, that other editors (not just me) had not read material. Those remarks, coupled with my warnings, prompted LGR to advise you about the impending one way trip to blocksville. (An allusion that I especially like.) I've encouraged you WRT your constructive remarks about article improvement. But you dare not even hint in the slightest fashion that other editors have not read something. Whether they have read material or not does not matter, except to the extent that your inquiries are unnecessary and distracting. If you think there are particular portions of the RS which can be used in article development, then cite them. But your unfounded assumption that someone has not read material is one that you must keep to yourself. – S. Rich (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think it's a personal attack when one student asks another student whether they've read the assigned reading for a class? Do you think it's a personal attack if the leader of a book club asks the members whether they've read the book that they are going to discuss?
- Do you think it's easy for teachers, students and book club members to identify the people who haven't done the assigned reading? Of course it is...just like it's easy for me to identify the Wikipedia editors who think they can make useful content contributions or cuts without even having to read a single reliable source on the subject.
- If you don't have any interest in reading about these concepts...then why not just focus on editing the concepts that you are interested in reading about? You trying to improve articles that you're not interested in is like a global warming denier working for the EPA. --Xerographica (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)