SRich32977 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Giving you something to munch on as you consider the CEE portal piece. And wondering if it is wrong, outlandishly or otherwise, in the layout. Best regards, truly. --S. Rich (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re: Srich32977
Hi, I can't help but notice that you sometimes get into a back and forth with Srich32977 and I'ld like to give some friendly advice. As far as I can tell, you are both here to improve the Encyclopedia, and are both open minded enough to see and accept good faith evidence and arguments even when it initially contradicts your point of views. Actually, as far as I can tell, the both of you have very similar world views, at least compared to the liberal pinko keynesian rule-ignoring utilitarian humanist that I am. So, I would just like to say, try not to revert each other, be excellent to each other and party on dudes! You agree with each other more than you know. Best regards, --LK (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice from a "liberal pinko keynesian rule-ignoring utilitarian humanist"? While I'm tempted to say "oxymoron" (in good humor, please), I will simply remark "Well said!" SPECIFICO has been most excellent to me, and I appreciate it. We are all here to build. Thank you, LK, for the encouragement. And thank you, thank you both, for your kind remarks. Such interaction makes this effort most worthwhile. --S. Rich (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, both. Nobody owns these articles. We just try to move them in the right direction. On that score which of you is going to prevail on Bylef to stand down while you reinsert the Austrian school inflation criticism? :)'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think all three of us agree that the critique is significant enough to be in the article, but Bylef and his horde seem determined to keep it out. I suggest developing a short section on the talk page with lots of cites to other economists who have made the same or similar arguments. When it's clear to even the most casual observer that the argument is well sourced enough to include, we'll pop it in and have an RfC if Bylef continues to be intransigent. I'ld start, but it's the start of semester and I'm a bit busy .... LK (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope those bolds were not interpreting as shouting. I was trying to give structure to long threads on the discussion, but now that you mention it I can agree that they could have the unintended inappropriate effect. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk17:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey SPECIFICO, Unbeknownst to you the sentences you edited were/are currently under discussion on the talk page. Personally I like your edits but if you have a moment please have a peek at the talk page where we are having a cordial discussion about the lead. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks will do.
Service Ribbon
We'll get Rothbard in the right place sooner or later. In the meantime, here's a service award for you:
The Novice lv 4, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 2 months 15 days and completion of 800 edits
You can post it on your userpage, leave here, or delete as you see fit.
Follow-up. The ANI has been closed without further action. I have been admonished to engage Xerographica directly about this, which I am doing now --S. Rich (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Signature links
Hi SPECIFICO, I noticed that your signatures on talk pages do not include any links to your user page or user talk page. You may want to review WP:SIGLINK. I'm not sure why the links are not showing up if you are using four tildes for your signature. You may want to consider using ~~~~ for your signature if you're not already. Just thought you would like to know. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I appreciate your taking the time to comment. I use the four tildes but I have formatted the text to be bold and checked the box to read it as markup. Maybe I need to add something to get the links that way. If you happen to know what I should add, I'd be glad to know. Otherwise I will try to look it up. Thanks. SPECIFICO 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belatedwelcome to Wikipedia, SPECIFICO. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
I have restored the contribution you reverted on Austrian School, adding Separation of money and state to the "See Also" section. Hayek devoted a book to the topic (here), as did Rothbard (here). So it is indeed a relevant link, which does not appear elsewhere in the article. It falls within WP:ALSO, which I recommend you review.
SPECIFICO: In your short time on WP, you have been warned of EW by ten different editors, and you were already blocked once. For two days now, you have been blindly reverting my edits on Separation of money and state, and refusing to engage in the debate I proposed, to answer my arguments or to acknowledge my explanations on the related talk page. You have been following me through my edits and reverting good-faith contributions while providing no credible explanation. This casts doubt on your WP:NPOV, consists of borderline WP:VAN, and is quickly approaching WP:HA.
Please refrain from reverting any further edits I post. I happily welcome any constructive discussion on any talk page. I always accept the editors' consensus. I gladly acknowledge mistakes when I make them, and trust that whatever I produce can always be enhanced.
So? How is that relevant? I (already have) readily acknowledge(d) I am a newbie-editor. Does that justify harassment against me? My contributions have consisted of reverting obvious vandalism, proposing arguments on AfDs, or contributing to articles as diverse as Air Rage and Monetary Policy. I don't think I can be accused of disruptive editing, or pushing a point of view. My record is impeccable. Please let me know if you disagree. Thank you. Alfy32 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alfy, I am puzzled as to the change you made to the text which appears immediately above this. You originally wrote "I (already have) readily acknowledge(d) I am not much older, and that I am a newbie-editor..." and then subsequently removed the words "I am not much older" with the edit note "erratum" [2]. Since you have remarked on my tenure at WP several times, I feel that it is appropriate to ask you the following: When did you first edit on Wikipedia, and have you participated under any names in addition to Alfy32? Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk14:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's with this edit? [3] You've removed material which has nothing to do with X's notice.--S. Rich (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC) The material's been restored by another editor, but I am mystified.01:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GregJackP. This was entirely unintentional. As you can see from the diff, I made some changes to a previous comment I had posted on that board and apparently it also affected some other text in other parts of the board. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention, although it would have been more helpful if you had pointed out the deletion to which you referred. Another editor, Srich, showed me what happened and apparently the content has been restored. SPECIFICOtalk01:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm glad to hear it wasn't intentional, and I can certainly understand that--I probably should have assumed that, but for some reason I did not. My apologies. GregJackPBoomer! 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC) PS, I've made similar mistakes without intending to do so, I'll strike my comment at ANI. GregJackPBoomer!02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my previous warning, you have continued to follow me through my edits and to vandalize Wikipedia by pushing your point of view.
The term monopoly is indeed notably used to describe monopoly over money issuance. Just google "monetary monopoly" if you remain unconvinced.
A paper from an International Monetary Fund economist, called "Current Legal Aspects of Monetary Sovereignty", is indeed a relevant source for the Monetary Sovereignty article.
Claiming that an article about a century-old political proposal to be undistinguisable from the "Goodyear Blimb" is fairly unconstructive.
As a friendly advice, may I recommend you focus on tasks you would be better-suited for, such as recent changes patrol? Or at least, contribute to articles you don't have such strong emotions about. Thank you. Alfy32 (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy excluding press releases from further reading.
And I'll quote from WP:Further Reading: "However, other sources may be appropriate, including: historically important publications." That is an acceptable link due to the fact that these ASIC chips will have a massive effect on Bitcoin mining. --Neoconfederate (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I suggest you post the above on the article talk page so that others can join the discussion. I disagree with your interpretation, among other reasons because this press release anticipates events which have not occurred. Let's move this to bitcoin talk. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk21:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of choice afd
I suggest you add your suggestion to the AfD talk page. Without knowing the technical details, I would think closing the AfD would be a necessary first step. Or the admin who acts on the AfD may be able to rename the article as part of the closing process. – S. Rich (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history 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.
I am not edit-warring myself. There was a consensus version of the article on February 11th. That is the version I propose we keep until the discussion on the talk page is resolved. Furthermore, I am going to ask for input other users to help with the issue of figuring out if a person that writes treatises on philosophy may be called a philosopher. -- Fsol (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I believe that you are mistaken. The February 11 version does not included philosopher or journalist. Please undo your change, according to the above, and return to the lede sentence as of Feb. 11. This will be resolved on talk, not by continuing to violate the BRD protocol. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk
Hello again, may be I am mistaken, and you may be right, but I think this is the diff by which the lead was changed on February 11th: [4]. -- Fsol (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That diff shows Carolemooredc reverting the change that day by an IP who un-did the established lede. That was not consensus it was an insertion by an IP with only one other edit in its history. Please undo your revert. Thanks for the response. SPECIFICOtalk16:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SPECIFICO. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
In my investment work...
In my investment work, I do indeed look at a "market cap" of various securities and it is often referred to as such even if it is just a financial instrument and not a company. It is often necessary to look at the total nominal value of any type of financial asset whether it be an option, future, bond or stock. I know academia is a little more prudent with this terminology. In this case, I will go with the consensus. As always, thank you for your work. --☥NEO (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I much appreciate your collaborative attitude. If you come across a citation, I would be interested to see a WP:RS that refers to market cap of a bond or derivative. I have never seen that either in academic or financial markets circles. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk03:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lew Rockwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blogger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you truly believe the issue is closed, I will gladly remove my proposed edit. However, I reserve the right to say "I told you so" if the edit war resumes.
Actually, Crane was an executive. See: [5]. My basic reason for reverting was the VisualEditor result. My experience with it is aggravating. It adds <nowiki></nowiki> markup, and you don't see it until the change is saved. Then a second edit is needed to fix the markup. I'll go back to make the change on FEE. (Although the WP article on du Pont redirects to DuPont.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, I have been unable to get comfortable with the visual editor. Also, moving or copying a citation doesn't seem to work in the visual editor. I also find the bundled citations and alternate citation style in this article cumbersome. I had never seen it before editing FEE. RE: Crane, my thought was that it's kind of SYNTH to suggest, or prompt some readers to infer, that because he was at some senior level of DuPont, although we don't know exactly what his role was, that the company DuPont had a role in the founding of FEE. Thanks for catching that. SPECIFICOtalk16:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, there have been a lot of complaints about how VE adds the nowiki stuff. Also, it misplaces the brackets for wikilinks. I complained about these problems when it was in beta (but hardly expected much of a response). Now that it has gone live, more complaints are coming in. I've disabled mine in my preferences. That way I don't have to backstep and re-click what I need to IOT edit exactly what I want. – S. Rich (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LvMI tag
Based on your edit summary for this tagging [6], it looks like you read the sources. With that in mind, I'd think that re-writing the sentence is the better solution. In the alternative, {{failed verification}} tags for the two sources would be a more appropriate tag. The {{who?}} tag works better for statements that say "according to some" (etc), but lack sources. (These various tags get indexed, which allows various editors interested in cleanup to access and then focus on areas that they are interested in.) Also, the infobox has Right-libertarianism (redirected) for the focus of LvMI. Is that an accurate description? – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Not being an economist, I am not the one to chime in on this. When I used to be involved in such matters I considered the JEL codes to be comprehensive and authoritative, but that was in the last century. SPECIFICOtalk13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It only leads to personal attacks and namecalling. Anyway it's irrelevant so I am no longer an economist, and I have no gender. SPECIFICOtalk16:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When somebody hassles me for that, I will disavow it as well. If you think PA and harassment makes one stronger, you're on the wrong website here. Cheers. SPECIFICOtalk17:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I have no education in social sciences, and my (newly minted) graduate degree is not in a social science. I am no more a social scientist or economist than Docs Hoppe, Rothbard and North. Steeletrap (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, I've got both of you beat! Several degrees from Thunderwood College, quite a remarkable institution, adorn my wall. But I'm sorry to say that Chancellor Dunning does not provide any degrees in Economics, which is why I was asking for assistance. – S. Rich (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sourced material
It is quite interesting that you've recently removed primary sourced material from the Rothbard article [9]. Will you do the same with North? (Or if you will not, will you support me if I remove it?) – S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As I've said on the article talk page you have not made a policy-based case for the removal of the North text under discussion. I just saw that you removed it and I think that's unfortunate in light of the ongoing discussion in which your view has not been supported by any other editor. In addition, your removal might give uninvolved observers the impression that you are focused unduly on editor Steeletrap's work while ignoring the hundreds of other articles in which similarly sourced material is used. SPECIFICOtalk16:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed the essay I posted on the North talk page -- specifically, Wikipedia:Party and person. Books written by someone are just a primary as "Speeches given by politicians or activists about their views and goals." But given the fact that you removed primary stuff from the Rothbard article, giving the justification of "Primary sources", you are certainly aware of the policy. User:MilesMoney is aware of the policy too, hence the comment about adding secondary material. Once (and if) that secondary material is found and posted, it will then be acceptable to post the primary material. Until then, there is only one more thing for me to say: – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeatedly mis-citing and mis-applying various policies on several articles over the past month or two. From the repetition in many of your remarks, it appears that you have not fully considered the policy-related and content-related discussions in several venues in which both involved and uninvolved editors have made comments from which you could benefit. Your choice of course. I don't know what the smiley is about, but if you're losing your temper again I suggest you take a breather. Cheers. SPECIFICOtalk19:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tag removal and Primary Source deletions
So it's okay for you to flat out remove primary sourced material from Rothbard [10], material that was not tagged, much less discussed – but you think that my tagging sections and opening discussion was improper? You say I am not following policy when I remove the primary sourced material, but I did so after you did the exact same thing on Rothbard. You don't see an inconsistency in this? And you accuse me of disruptive editing! – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've lost your temper on this page for the last time. In my opinion you misunderstand the nature of this community. Over the past many weeks, you have behaved in an increasingly adversarial and disrespectful manner to many editors. Your attitude also strikes me as strangely authoritarian, as if you were a magistrate or arbiter rather than a peer working within WP policies. Your outbursts are disruptive and discouraging to other editors. Do not post here on this page again. SPECIFICOtalk03:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jesús Huerta de Soto deletions
Hi Specifico, I noticed you deleted all my contributions. I don't really understand why because all of them are true. You deleted quotations which have a direct source and anyone can check it out whenever they want. In addition, you deleted the contributions I made to Huerta de Soto's education and honorary degrees. He has two PhD's, one in Economics and one in Law, you can perfectly check it out at his web page. Also, the master he did in Stanford was an MBA and nothing to do with Actuary, from where did you get this information? I am Huerta de Soto's close familiar and I believe he is very annoyed with the lies that ae being written in wikipedia. I am just trying to introduce some facts which are absolutely true. Please tell me what specific references you want for all the information you are writing and I will put a source and a reference for all my new contributions, but don't automatically undo all my contributions because they are true facts. Also, what's wrong with the quotations I added? I would like to get to a consensus with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcocapitalista austriaco (talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Anarcocapitalista austriaco (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Anarcocapitalista austriacoAnarcocapitalista austriaco (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AA. There are various policies and guidelines which govern the use of sources and the statements which may be included in Wikipedia articles. Among these are the following which you can review by clicking on WP:VERIFY and WP:TRUTH and WP:PRIMARY. In the case of articles about living persons such as Jesus Huerta de Soto, there are additional policies and protections discussed here: WP:BLP.
The reasons for my reversal of your edits were given in the edit summary, for example Kirzner is not mentioned in the cited reference, so that text does not conform to the above policies. Other of the text you added is not verified by WP:RS even though you may know or believe it to be true. Similarly, the information about JHdS' actuary MBA was taken from the announcement at the Moscow Finance University and cited to that document.
I see that you again re-inserted your edits, and I would ask you to undo that insertion. Then please go through them point by point on the article talk page giving references and reasons for the changes, supported by the policies and guidelines I have linked above, so that appropriate and conforming edits can be incorporated in the article.
Finally, if you will forgive me for being direct, you appear to be speaking for Huerta de Soto in this matter. Are you Prof. Huerta de Soto himself? If so there are various remedies discussed at WP:BLP for material which the subject of an article feels is inappropriate.
Thank you for your answer SPECIFICO. I am not Huerta de Soto himself, and I apologize for my words because I didn't intend for them to look like a threat. I am just trying to introduce some facts and to learn Wikipedia rules in order to contribute and enrich this article about Huerta de Soto. I will introduce all the changes I support on the talk page and I will reference all of them so that you can see they are true. Thank you again.--Anarcocapitalista austriaco (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Anarcocapitalista austriaco[reply]
In order to begin that process, it would be helpful if you would undo the remainder of your edits to restore the pre-existing text. Then let's begin to work on the content on the talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk17:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Murray Rothbard seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. In this text removal you have incorrectly removed text that can be reliably sourced. The proper action is to look for reliable sources, or ask for others for them.Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. That text was not reliably sourced and its notability or significance is not apparent. If you have secondary RS sources that indicate the importance of this material, by all means include them in the article. Without RS, this text primary sourced and does not appear to be particularly significant nor to contain any theoretical or empirical content that has been of interest to other thinkers. I suggest you furnish secondary references or remove the text. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk00:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bink, primary sourced material can be cherrypicked to either trash a thinker or elevate her stature far beyond what is warranted. That's why Wikipedia advocates that we find independent (in Rothbard's case, this means *not* sourced by LvMI publications, which are written by colleagues/coworkers/personal friends of Rothbard) secondary sources. Please refer to WP:OR. Steeletrap (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is where you are wrong. If you think books by notable authors, published by the Mises folks, are not good sources for Wikipedia, please feel free to take the matter up at WP:RSN. They will most likely disagree with your interpretation that Mises Institute books are not appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Binkster. This is really not a matter of pitched camps dueling about Rothbard. Why not just use the article talk page to propose the specific content and sources you would like to add to the article. To address your general concern about Rothbard's notability as an economist -- if you examine the WP articles of noted academic economists, you will find that their economic writings are published by a variety of peer-reviewed journals and discussed and are broadly cited by diverse other academics. If you have information which demonstrates this to be the case for Rothbard, that would be a valuable contribution to the article. Thus far, what's been found of his writing as economist is not original or widely cited and doesn't fit WP's criteria to call him a notable academic economist. On the other hand there is much material that calls him a notable figure in the libertarian movement. When Rothbard died, his obituaries in sources as diverse as the NY Times and Lew Rockwell's blog called him first and foremost the pioneer of the current-day libertarian movement. That is the background for the RfC on the order of the words in the lede, which I believe began before you started to collaborate on the Rothbard article. SPECIFICOtalk13:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I got an alert that you reverted my comment on the Noticeboard but I guess you put it back? Have second thoughts? NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk22:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would not have been appropriate. I think that my mouse strayed over my TWinkle tab and grabbed your text. Please come join the Rothbard talk page if you would care to. Regards. SPECIFICOtalk22:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the invitation but I see myself as more of a facilitator (or I try to be). I'll read up a bit more on these figures to educate myself but I think I'll keep away from in-depth discussion. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk23:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. The current discussion on talk relates to the use of an RS which has repeatedly been deleted -- how to apply policy on sources. Not much economics content, per se, although one item on the agenda for Rothbard is to see whether we can uncover any contributions he may have made to economic theory or analysis. SPECIFICOtalk00:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cato Board Members
Hi. I was wondering why you removed the list of board members from the Cato page. It seemed unnecessary to take away information from the article. True, there may be a list of the board members on Cato's website, but you didn't replace the section with a direct link there. Eight of the 16 board members - fully half - have Wikipedia articles of their own. I think this adds a lot of value. Anyone researching the Cato Institute would then have direct links to bios and information about the board members from a neutral source (Wikipedia). The list included information about where they work or what other organizations they are involved in, another factor that I would think help users by answering the question of what type of people serve on the Cato Board. So, why is it that you think this information isn't relevant? I also don't understand your reference to WP:RS - what is unreliable about an organization listing its own board members? Are you expecting them to lie about who's on the board? Anyway, I hope you will treat these as honest questions. I've been editing on here since this spring, but I'm still learning my way around the rules and trying to get a sense of what other editors have to say about things. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, I've just noticed you deleted several other lists with information about other people involved with Cato. I'm wondering why you are doing this... you haven't made any edits that add information to the article, just removed it. How does this help future readers of the encyclopedia? HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Historic, thanks for the note. Actually, I have both added and removed material from the article. With respect to the undue lists, copied or sourced from Cato's website, my view is as stated in the edit summaries. They are related but different in each case. Certainly the list of Laureates is from a Cato page that is promotional in tone. Because the article is about the work of the Institute, I think it's more informative to cite specific Cato-related contributions of notable scholars rather than merely to list their affiliation. If you remain uneasy about this please open a thread on the article talk page and we can read the views of other editors. SPECIFICOtalk13:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining content-removing edits
Hi SPECIFICO, I see that several other editors have already expressed concern about the quality and accuracy of your edit summaries when removing information from articles. To add two more examples:
Here, you removed a statement as "unsourced" even though it was supported by a footnote (it just needed a trivial fix to the URL)
You described this edit as a mere copyedit, even though it was deleting several cited statements (and adding a different one).
Hello. Please state your concern in terms of the edits, the content and the sources instead of citing other links or editor comments out of context. Please document specific concerns and let's discuss either here or on article talk pages. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk
Money creation
Where does money come from? by Andrew Jackson,Richard Werner,Tony Greenham,Josh Ryan-Collins (12 December 2012) produced by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) based on documents supplied by the Bank of England, claims that the growth in money supply in the UK was based on commercial banks willingness to lend up to 2007 (before the start of the financial crisis), and that interest rates and the reserve requirement had little effect in restraining lending between 1997 and 2007. Banks increased their lending, and then sought the reserves afterwards.
What's not to like about this Specifico ? If you don't like it, don't just delete it, but say why. It was posted under alternatives and criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandsby (talk • contribs) 13:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss this on the article talk page. You should be able to find a clearer and better-sourced discussion of content you feel is appropriate to add in this section. Please see this link WP:RS. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk13:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are censoring this Specifico, when I have given a link to the contribution I make. I presume you are from the USA, so what is your experience of UK banking and money supply ? Likewise I am not qualified to speak about US banking. I am a new user to Wikepedia and I find the commenting quite clunky, but Wikipedia is supposed to reflect a variety of views (supported by research and evidence), not be subject to censorship which we might expect in other parts of the world like China or Syria. I would appreciate it if my contribution could remain on the page where it was, otherwise we might as well burn all the books as they did in Chairman Mao's China and keep people ignorant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandsby (talk • contribs) 14:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for September 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ludwig von Mises Institute, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Murphy and Julian Sanchez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. 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.
had been a founder. At the time, Rockwell was chief of staff for U.S. Congressman Ron Paul.<ref>[[John Berlau|Berlau, John] [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n5_v13/ai_19092301 Now
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ludwig von Mises may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Institute, 1988, p. 25.</ref> In his [[treatise]] ''[[Human Action]]'', Mises adopted [praxeology]] as a general conceptual foundation of the social sciences and set forth his methodological
Hello SPECIFICO. I want to tell you that I appreciate your insistence on raising questions of WP;Competence when appropriate. I think "are you competent"? is a very important question; one which every editor must ask her/himself. I am so happy that you feel the same way. Steeletrap (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is no coincidence that I posted this note of encouragement below an archetypal example of incompetence, or a preposterous misunderstanding of WP:3RR. I urge you to continue to call out incompetence when you see it. Steeletrap (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ludwig von Mises Institute, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. The reason you gave for removal here [11] is not valid. My edit summary referenced the talk page, which in turn references the RSNs. Either way, the citations are under dispute. Readers who are not following notice boards may wish to comment, and the SPS tags properly serve to alert them. Also, the tags put the article into Category:Accuracy disputes. Resolution of the dispute (on the talk page or RSN) is the only valid reasons for removing these templates. Please restore. – S. Rich (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Srich you have been told not to post on my talk page. Do not post anything other than required notices on my talk page. Your template appears to refer to something from several days which has already been addressed on the article talk page and elsewhere. SPECIFICOtalk17:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your notes. There was a time when I was more than happy, even eager, to get involved in such brawls, but it just ain't worth the hassle and now I just leave it to the admins to keep the kids in order. My rationale is that in the time it takes to write yet another reply on the talk page I can make at least half a dozen necessary tweaks elsewhere to improve this encyclopaedia. As I said on my last post at the talk page, I've seen consensus reached on far spinier issues, albeit usually following the removal, i.e., blocking, of the inevitable troublemaker that always turns up in such cases to sow discord among well-meaning editors. WP already has dispute resolution processes in place and not much will get solved by yet another editor, i.e., yours truly, getting involved. Hope you can all sort it out, and I wish I could use yer great Americanism regarding rain checks in this case, but I'm outta there. --Technopat (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent comments last week on ANI for User:Bink
Hi User:SPECIFICO; Your recent ANI on Binks has some other pages where he is edit warring, and where he continues warring. You may want to visit the Raging Bull page and The Departed page and see his Edit History for each of those pages. Also the Talk pages for each of them is currently active and you could look at them also.67.250.71.150 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Srich32977. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. None of your text was changed. Adding the space before the paragraph produces a disrupted layout. This was explained in my earlier edit summary. Your text simply repeats what you said before, and I do not intend to comment further on it. – S. Rich (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Ludwig von Mises Institute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.
I don't know/think that Specifico has engaged in EW. The edits involve different parts of the article. BRD has been initiated on them. I'd like to see his replies. – S. Rich (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, in view of this and many previous rounds of erroneous accusations against you, I recommend posting a warning on your page that accusations lacking WP:Competent reasoning will be deleted from your page. Steeletrap (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO knows the Wikipedia rules, & We can be sure there have been no fault from his site. I think one of the biggest Wikipedia problems is they do not have any strong policy against giving wrong warnings to Users talk pages. KhabarNegarTalk10:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. I don't mean any ill will toward you SPECIFICO and I'm sure your intentions are pure, but creating new sections/proposals and posting as frequently as you have in the ANI thread is working against your purpose. Adjwilley gave you some good advice, above. With all due respect, please consider adjusting your approach. - MrX00:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ludwig von Mises Institute, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. The BRD on this issue was opened today and has had a few comments. The law student issue has not been discussed. It is disruptive for you to follow MilesMoney [12] and remove tags here [13] based on your unilateral decision that there is consensus after 17 hours of discussion. (Personal attack removed) – S. Rich (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, I will do all I can to locate, and quote where possible, reliable sources so the Property and Freedom Society page can be accurately presented. Thanks for all your time and effort, I have today looked at most of your wokr and it is by in large exemplary. Keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.29.220 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You see, this sort of thing is something to which you seem prone. You spread a discussion across a wide range of talk pages, probably with good intentions but effectively dispersing the commentary and running the risk of being accused of badgering. I have no horse in this race but I'm not the only one who has previously mentioned this tendency. I really do think that you need to reconsider your approach. Once in a while would attract no great attention but this appears to be a habit and as such it becomes a potential problem. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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) 22:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop? There's no problem. Srich cited a policy with the concern that I used the word "claim" so I substituted a wording which is suggested in the policy while still making it clear that it was vMI's statement as to the substance of the quiz. You are projecting and this post really serves no purpose. There's just no behavior which needs your attention here. SPECIFICOtalk00:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts
Specifico, I've been wanting to exchange a few words with you for a while now. (I just got back from a 3 day trip for a funeral, so have been rather inactive lately.) You seem to be a pretty good editor, and your comments usually seem pretty well thought out, rational, and civil. But there's something that's been bugging me for a while, and it's been difficult to put my finger on it. I first noticed it at the SPI when you came down condemning it so quickly, and then lobbied so hard for it to be withdrawn, and I've continued to notice it as I've watched the various talkpage and noticeboard threads unfold. I think what's been bugging me is the partisan way in which you defend your friends and attack your "enemies". Every time someone makes a complaint about MilesMoney or Steeletrap, you're there defending them, excusing them, and pleading on their behalf. Yet every time someone makes a complaint about SRich or Binksternet, you're there piling on and condemning. While I totally support defending each other, I think it actually hurts your credibility when you are so partisan about it. As an outside observer looking in I've seen just as much or more disruption coming from your side of the proverbial aisle, and it makes me wonder if you are intentionally ignoring it, or if you are so involved personally that you are unintentionally blind to it. Please note, I'm not asking you to stop defending your friends, but I am asking you to consider the merits of not attacking your enemies. SRich and Binksternet are rational people and can be engaged in rational conversation if you and your friends would engage them. (If you can't see that—if you see them as irrational POV pushers or something—it might be a good idea to do a little introspection.) The way I see it, you are in a position where you could start making compromises, enforcing rational discussions, and even convincing people, if you chose to do that. It might not be quite as exciting as being an officer in this teacup-war, but it would gain you a lot more respect from your peers, would result in more stable and better-written articles, and would save the community a lot of time and headache. In the end, it's your choice, and nobody, least of all me, can force you to do it.
On a slightly related note, I was reading over the ANI thread under the Proposal, general sanctions heading, and it seems like you're trying too hard there. You have four "level one" bolded "vote"-like comments ("Oppose", "Comment", "Observation", and "REQUEST FOR INFORMATION") and you've bolded a bunch of "level two" indented replies ("@Sitush", "As a libertarian", "@Zad68", "THANKS CAROL") and you are the most frequent user of {{od}}, using it in several places where it wasn't needed (example). In a voting-like thread at ANI, I see this as being somewhere between a mild attempt to give extra weight to your own viewpoint, and WP:SHOUTING, neither of which is viewed favorably. ~Adjwilley (talk)16:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would pay some mind to Adjwilley's wise words, SPECIFICO. He shares them most likely because he doesn't want to see you blocked which is the direction this dispute seems to be heading toward.
In my limited time as an active Editor here, I've spent a fair amount of time reading over cases at AN and AN/I and when cases involving the same few people keep being brought there again and again, there comes a time when the regulars there get tired of hearing complaints and settling disputes which never seem to get resolved. The more often you show up on noticeboards, the more likely it is that the situation will boomerang back on you. It ceases being a matter of who is "right" and who is "wrong" and instead becomes an issue of who is being "disruptive" and, on the other hand, who is a productive Editor who can work well with others.
Do not bait others with provocative comments which are intended to inflict injury and belittle other Editors instead of resolving conflicts. This fighting has been going on since the summer and appears like it will continue indefinitely until some or all parties get blocked from editing. You are still at a point where you can get past this if you (and others) can get over this back-biting and filing of complaints against each other. That's a lose-lose situation and I'd rather have you around Wikipedia, contributing your perspective, for a long time. </soapbox> LizRead!Talk!20:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little disappointed that I haven't gotten any response here or seen any noticeable change in your behavior. I was just reading Liz's post above, and I agree with everything she says. This isn't a very good example, it's just your latest post which I stumbled upon a few minutes ago and had to read a few times to figure out what you were talking about. From an outsider's perspective, it looks like you are trying desperately to get in the last word - as if you're saying "We can get back on topic if you are admitting that you're wrong about this completely unrelated point". Please...try not to make things personal. It's possible to talk about the substance without the jabs. ~Adjwilley (talk)00:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
