User talk:Srich32977/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Concerning Howard Troy Comer....

Sorry to cause you more work now, but after weighing things like the time the article has been around, the COI problems, the length of the talkpage etc, I really think it is better to let this go through AfD. Cheers and happy editing. Keep up the good work. Lectonar (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

AfD is the way to go! I don't mind a bit. The little bit of work is not a problem at all. – S. Rich (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You said i made an entry.

I am sorry but I have never made an enty on wilipedia ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.202.48.125 (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

MRosch

Thank you for your guidance regarding my user page/subpage issues and the non-conformity of my /InternetForLawyers subpage. Those were created some time ago as I was beginning (but have since mostly abandoned) to explore contributing more to Wikimedia. I thought those were only in the sandbox and not visible externally. I will be deleting those today (any pointers to deletion protocol would be appreciated). (Hopefully I am responding to your comments in the proper venue.)

However, the link in the Lawyers entry that you marked as spam appears to clearly fit the description in the external linking guidelines for "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations," as the link pointed to a collection of links to the lawyer licensing databases in all 50 of the Unites States. A link to such a collection of licensing and regulatory bodies seemed appropriate for an entry with headings such as "Professional associations and regulation," "Mandatory licensing and membership in professional organizations" and "Who regulates lawyers".

I see now how as an employee of Internet For Lawyers my post(s) and some links constitute a conflict under the Wikipedia definition of an edit made by a company employee, but I hardly see how they can be construed as not reflecting a neutral point of view. For example, you removed a link I added to the Association of Continuing Legal Education (ACLEA) , the primary professional organization of continuing legal education professionals while a deep link to page on the ACLEA site (previously added to the Continuing Legal Education article) remains.

I believe that I know something about Continuing Legal Education. I have been a CLE presenter since 1999, written six books for the American Bar Association, 12 editions of a reference for another publisher, and served on the planning committees of numerous CLE events. I have also held various leadership roles in ACLEA and the ABA since 2003. That is one reason why I was confused when you removed a link and reference to the Internet For Lawyers web site (from the Continuing Legal Education article) when previously added links to organizations with less of a track record and profile within the CLE community like Continuing Legal Accreditation Seminar Services (CLASS, LLC) and National Academy of CLE, as well as a link to the parked domain of CLE-NJ are allowed to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrosch (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Mrosch (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)MRosch 03-20-2013

I've replaced the already existing ACLEA link on Continuing legal education with the simpler one you provided. (Generally one link per organization is acceptable). http://www.netforlawyers.com/ is not an acceptable EL as it is a commercial endeavor. WRT Lawyer, http://linkon.in/attorneylicense/ does not link to anything (so there was no way to evaluate it) and was placed in the wrong spot. If you wish to redo it, please do so -- subject to review and removal. (And I might take a closer look at those other links too.) Your gracious and forthright response is greatly appreciated. – S. Rich (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BEAR

Note, any further edits by you to Xerographica's talkpage will be considered harassment, unless they are valid warnings or formal notifications. You've done enough damage there already. See my comment here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Damage? I would disagree. In any event your admonition shall be followed. – S. Rich (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Calcium

hi

I think is important to add this details http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9285516/Calcium-pills-double-heart-attack-risk.html

to this article

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Calcium

kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenhabit (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Madame Curie / Tahquitz Falls

The evidence is a direct and careful comparison of the falls in the movie with known photographs, both my own and online. They are one and the same. There is no doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natesilverfanatic (talk • contribs) 17:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, such comparisons are WP:OR, so we can't use them. To add such info we must WP:V based on WP:RS. – S. Rich (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Redundant warning to Dick and dom?

Is there an edit you're seeing by Dick and dom (talk · contribs) that I'm not? I don't see where they've made any edits since I gave the level 3 warning, so I don't see why another warning is justified. —C.Fred (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, just that all five of the edits have been blatant vandalism. Just adding frosting to the cake. – S. Rich (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:

The page loads for me and verifies the edit. You should probably self revert in the absence of a source that supercedes the source cited. Tiderolls 03:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. An earlier edit with the name showed him as a golf guy. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, SR. My message was just a heads up; I know you edit conscientiously. Thanks for acting quickly. Tiderolls 03:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You are most certainly welcome. The complement is greatly appreciated! (No further reply expected.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fake Article discussion

Greetings Srich. I noticed that there's a discussion relating to a WP policy on which you did some research a while back here [1] in case you are interested. SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to defer on that particular discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Hello. Those are some of the open-proxy troll's comments with no responses. WP:DENY. --AVRS (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. A more specific Edit summary, like "remove open proxy troll comments", and not checking the minor edit box, would help. Go back and revert if you like. – S. Rich (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Danny "Frost" Madison

I found this and I wanted to know what can be done since the person here is NOT in the US Military.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Danny_%22Frost%22_Madison

Articseahorse (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a look and posted some stuff. Seems that Frost has some lofty aspirations. But it is not stolen valor, so I retitled the heading on your talk page comment. – S. Rich (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

How is it not Stolen Valor to claim that you were wounded in combat? That is hardly a aspiration. I quote:

"He first war is Iraq War and during the battle, he got shot Wounded in leg and arm. Medics bring Madison rushed to base and get healed."

Articseahorse (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

He says he's 15. This is a kid. It's fantasy, fun, frolic. – S. Rich (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And what happens when he continues this behavior as a adult. What happens if he continues this route later in life? Better to stop this now then let something likethis happen later. Because if he keeps pretending he is going to get a call like this one.

Articseahorse (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The phonies come out in middle age, and do so because of other problems/inadequacies. This kid has got 30 years before such a risk becomes real. If it happens, it happens. Until then, I wouldn't worry about it in the least. He's pretending, playing, just being a kid. For us, as Wikipedia editors, we get involved if he makes bad or disruptive edits or if his userpage goes too far. (I've got the kid on my watchlist and will check his edits from time to time.)

The LAST thing I'd do would be to sic Don Shipley on this child. (Also, if Shipley were calling people from California, without revealing that he's recording the calls, he'd be liable for a $5k civil penalty payable to the callee, per call. (I don't know what the law says in Virginia, which is where Shipley seems to be based.)) The kid's parents should be looking after him. We are not his nanny. – S. Rich (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by ComancheDoc

I will not just leave it. I am a Soldier who has served overseas and have been shot, along with being a medic who has treated real casualties. His frolicking good natured boyhood ambitions are a joke and make mockery of those who have served, both living and dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComancheDoc (talk • contribs) 02:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been there too, for a lot longer than you. WP is not the place to WP:RGW. He's a kid. Let him play. If you get upset over this triviality, then you've got a lot of learning to do. -- – S. Rich (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

been there too have ya? seems doubtful at best. What I've learned is that its the details that matter, the big things handle themselves. His given birthdate is 1997 that makes him what, 16? Hardly a kid and since his bio states he joined at 17 its a straight out lie and to be a SFC SEAL and wounded. Nothing about his profile is helpful to WP in any fashion, it reads like a social media page which is generally against the WP policies if I read them right.ComancheDoc (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup. EM & officer, active & reserve, OIFII & OEF-HOA, and I lost buddies in IZ & AF, good people I worked with. Just WP:AGF and accept what I say. WRT your concern and SV, please recognize that Danny's page is obviously not a real article and the character he portrays is not a real person. The page is tagged as a userpage, a no-index template will help assure that Google, etc., does not index it, and none of the links he has actually go to his userpage. It'll just sit there unnoticed. I'll watch it for inappropriate edits that you or others may make to it. And I'll check to see what kind of edits he makes. But if you make inappropriate edits, you will be blocked from editing. And you'll be blocked if you are a WP:SOCK. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Since when was it completely fine to use multiple accounts like that? Sure, I have another account that I use out in public, but he is creating multiple accounts just to post stuff made up one day. I don't see how it is helping us at all. It actually seems to be causing a ton problems with other editors. I feel very tempted to MfD that page, but I am waiting to see how this all turns out. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 06:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Having the multiple accounts is not the problem, especially for a new user. It is the WP:ILLEGIT usage that is a problem, I don't see any of that occurring. Like you say, let's let the SPI run its course. Then we can MfD the extra page(s). And I'll support such a move. For now, though, I'd also let the Stolen Valor warriors to get unwrapped from the axel. – S. Rich (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by extra pages? Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 16:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The additional username(s) – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right. In the meantime, I'll be looking for more accounts. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 16:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

[2] – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Year 2038 problem - in 2013 already...

Hi Srich32977,

Can you explain this recent edit in the Year 2038 problem article: [3] ;-)

I have already fixed it in the article, but since you seem to act bot-assisted please check your other edits carried out with the same config, and please take care that this or similar errors won't be introduced elsewhere. Thanks and greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, auto ed did nothing to the actual Google book page rendition of the reference. It saw the weird "página= 49" and took out the 49 value for "página". Then it had the left over 49, so it saved it as an "unused data". I generally review the finished page after using auto ed, looking for citation error messages. Nothing showed up. Each of the page versions produced the clickable link. So I really don't see where an error was created. Glad you caught it though. . – S. Rich (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

LevelBasis

On January 17, 2013 you wrote "suspected sock" in your edit summary, pertaining to LevelBasis. I'm trying to run down possible remaining sock of the sock complex of User:Knowalles: [4]; [5]; [6].
This user always gets into edit wars in articles on economics and on the Jewish/Islam (Israel/Palestine) topics. I see the same with LevelBasis and also the term "NE" used by him, which is common parlance on nl.wikipedia which is Knowalles' home base. I wonder if you have any insights to further confirm or deny that LevelBasis may be a sock of Knowalles et al. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 17:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No insights other than what I saw on the talk/user pages of the editors involved. E.g., I think I saw "Category:suspected sock of xyz" on the edit history or on the edit history of other articles. Sorry I can't give anything more definite. – S. Rich (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this WAS very helpful. I found those notes/category on his talk page (earlier editions), and the suspicion did indeed arrive from his editing on the JDL page and concerned the same sock puppet complex. I have now requested this user to be added to the WP:SPI. Thanks for your help, _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 18:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update

Thanks a lot S.Rich! But I think I will give it a pass. I'm getting too impulsive with the CSD and AfDs. Sorry for the goof-up and I hope this won't happen again. Please send me a WP: Trout if I ever do such a thing again... And this is a formality of mine: You are now officially my Wikibuddy! The Wikimon (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL for the trout suggestion and Wikibuddy! There was no goof-up at all. . – S. Rich (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You see I'm a joker and you'll occasionally fund me going crazy with stupid things like this! Good that you're my Wikibuddy, I can stalk you openly... :-) The Wikimon (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Srich32977. You have new messages at ChaseAm's talk page.
Message added 00:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ChaseAm (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please discontinue userpage vandalism

" Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of alberto1989 of another user may be considered vandalism. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you." --Alberto1989 (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

 I appreciate the correction. {{cheeseburger}} on me. --Alan^(T)(E) 02:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Srich32977 has eaten your {{cheeseburger}}! The cheeseburger made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cheeseburger}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat a Cheeseburger with {{subst:Cheeseburger-munch}}!

– S. Rich (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rich

Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country on your sandbox?

United States: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:

Nope, no personal attacks on anyone. This other user was under some mistaken impressions and I corrected them.

They also seemed to think I was being "hostile" and again, I corrected them.

That's it, that's all. BBB76 (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User BBB76

Hi, are you offering assistance? If you look at this user's talk page and history page, you'll see that there's a history of edit warring and refusing to cooperate even after many attempts to explain correct procedure -- very frustrating. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You posted a warning about vandalism. Editors can't assist unless they know what the difs are. I don't even know what article you are referring to. (I've found that Twinkle works well, it gives the vandalism template warning and allows you to specify the article.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to retire from editing 19 Kids and Counting and remove it from my watchlist. I've done so much work on it, and have protected it from a few different idiot editors over the years. I'm just tired of it. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a reply on your talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Huell Howser

Hello,

I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts to be a diplomat and calm things down. Thank you. The temptation to escalate and get in the last word is strong, but you've set a good example here. I am grateful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Tough Mudder

Hey - I am sorry but I've never edited wiki before so I dont mean to cause any inconvenience. A friend of mine died over the weekend at the tough mudder event. The incident was reported by the media but at that time the condition of the participant was listed as serious as he was transported to the hospital. He died yesterday and so far no media outlet has covered it. I know the family and he has certainly passed away. Tough Mudder knows and have yet to release a statement. I am looking to see if any media outlet covers this. For now, how would I go about listing this fact on their wiki page? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.217.192 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your friend. Regardless, you've got to realize that Wikipedia is not a news source -- it is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit, but we've got lots of guidelines that must be followed. I've left a message on your "IP talk page", with links that will explain the editing process. One important step for you as an editor is to learn the actual process. Try taking the WP Tutorial to learn more. – S. Rich (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much. It seems like Tough Mudder just released a statement. I went ahead and reedited the page and referenced the press release by Tough Mudder. I hope that would suffice for now. I will take the time to review and take the tutorial. Once again, thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.217.192 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it! That works for now. I'm keeping my eye out on the news. Now that Tough Mudder has released a statement, someone might cover it. If they do, and if more details are mentioned, I will update the page appropriately and only with facts that are verifiable through the source. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.94.217.192 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You may note I've already edited the material. We gotta stick to what we see in the source. Personal knowledge does not belong in WP. (At least we try to keep it out.) I do urge you to create a user account. – S. Rich (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

On Your "Original Research" Criticism of Me

The problem with going after me for "Original Research" (which, incidentally, I don't believe I have done in any of my recent edits to LvMI related articles (with the exception of one I personally removed within minutes, and you had to dig through the record to pin me on)) was summarized well by user SPECIFICO. I have reproduced a point he made below, and encourage you check out his comments in full on my talk page.

"there's a bit of a problem here. Many articles cut the Mises Institute fellows a lot of slack, using primary sources, straightforward OR paraphrases of their blog posts, and repeating some of their self-serving characterizations of their own work. Then we get strict about OR, SYNTH and off-topic information that is added to the articles for the purpose of providing balance. There is a real problem with this because naive readers may come to WP, read some fringey stuff by one of the lesser Mises Institute fellows, and be seriously misled as to some serious academic, political or historical issue."

Steeletrap (talk)`

I've replied on your talk page. (Also, as I brought up the topic there, that is the best page to continue the conversation rather than bouncing back and forth.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please delete the false, speculative insinuations (in my view, personal attacks) about me personally attacks you have posted to my page? You can keep your substantive OR criticisms (though I would suggest revising your false claim about there being no sources for my claim that the responses to Argumentation Ethics largely come from Colleaguesand/orfriends), but the other stuff is really inappropriate. I don't think our interactions (as opposed to mine with the other editors I've learned from) have been or will be positive, but I still don't want to get into an "editing war" by deleting it myself or going to a third party.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

Take a look at WP:OWNTALK for guidance. (And I have replied further there, before you added the above comment.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

National Debt as Moral Hazard

Although none of the other entries on the Moral Hazard entry are sourced - mine now is. Please inform the other editor to apply source links for his/ her material.

BTW - Every one of those Melissa Rauch entries was properly sourced BUT were rejected by that editor for personal reasons so those should be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magickallwiz (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

LewRockwell.com entry

Please see the talk page as to why I think your recent change is misleading and mischaracterizes the nature of the criticism (which is about the controversial editorial background of LRC's editor-in-chief, and only tangentially relates to Rockwell personally). Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the comment. (Thanks for the heads-up.) Two quick observations about the sub-heading: 1. Changing it to a better version is certainly welcome. 2. Keeping it as a subsection -- with the banner (for now) -- serves to focus talk page discussion on that particular topic. – S. Rich (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would kindly ask that you assume good faith.

As WP:AGF is one of our primary tenets on Wikipedia I would as that you extend me that courtesy instead of making snide comments on other editor's talk pages [7] accusing me of making things up. See Page 57 of the 1930 USCG Uniform Regs it shows a ribbon bar for the Cardenas Medal of Honor in the list of awards. I believe that constitutes a reliable source. EricSerge (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right. And I do apologize -- when I saw the "own work" attribution on the description of the ribbon, I got worked up. As I've got a few household tasks to attend to at the moment, it will take me a little while to go back and strikeout my intemperate remarks. But it shall be done by the end of the day. Please accept my apology. – S. Rich (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries sir. I got a little worked up too, but all is well. I used the {{own}} since I just eyeballed the colors since I could not find a spec sheet. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: SPEC

Sorry, mate, didn't even see your note. Will do so! Stalwart111 05:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mate?! I am indeed complemented! Unreservedly true regards. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, I'm Australian - everyone is my mate! I've boldly non-admin closed the later thread (for which I may receive a nice fish dinner) and have moved my comments to the earlier one. Stalwart111 06:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Buddy, I figured you were somewhere over on the "other side" of the IDL. Me -- I've been on this WP mania (off-and-on) for much of the day, and it's time for bed. Thanks for tweaking that ANI, and have a great day! – S. Rich (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Tucker edits, etc.

This debate is not welcome on 'my' talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You've raised concerns about my past work for LvMI as a COI. I think the whole COI red herring is at odds with WP:NPA, and I don't believe in judging contributions by who the contributor is. Contributions should be judged by verifiability, NPOV, etc. Furthermore, this particular idea for exclusion of interested contributors solely based on previous employment and not merely affinity would mean that those most knowledgeable of a particular article subject would not have a seat at the encyclopedia table but even the most active critics would. This presents a new obstacle for achieving something approaching neutrality in our articles. With that said, I do not have nearly as much time to contribute as I did several years ago, so you're not likely to have much COI to worry about from me, either real or imagined. I am concerned though, that User:Steeletrap, a recently created account, is working almost exclusively on the task of inserting controversial claims about living persons, citing blog posts and other sources that don't meet WP:RS/WP:BLP muster, in order to promote his anti-Austrian School, anti-Mises Institute POV. I would very much appreciate it if you would dedicate some of your attention to these clear violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines by a single-purpose account. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC) You should be judged by your contributions. I have never said anything otherwise. But, according to Wikipedia rules, your employment background constitutes a WP:COI (I quote from that page, "Paid advocates [of an organization] are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question." This is just a matter of reading the rules, and does not constitute an accusation of bad faith. Also, while I am biased against the Mises Institute, my changes have been motivated by a desire to restore NPOV to some of the LvMI articles where it is clearly lacking. There were some objectively absurd offenders, such as the insinuation that "Argumentation Ethics" had received a serious response by mainstream philosophy. Also see the claim that allegations of Lew Rockwell's role in the Ron Paul newsletters are dubious speculations, absurd in light of the fact that he has admitted to working for them (only denying writing), is physically listed as "editor" or "contributing editor" on numerous newsletters, and a plethora of people (including a former Chief of Staff and a former Campaign manager to Ron Paul) have publicly accused him, in notable publications, of writing them. Also note that Gary North's Wikipedia page made no mention of the fact that he has written in support of stoning to death male homosexuals and children, before I made that note. I will continue to shore up the failures of NPOV on the Mises pages, and welcome your help in doing so. Also: Single Purpose Account is defined as " is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose." I have spent a ton of time on edits not related to the Mises Institute(even if those are in the majority), so I don't fit. Steeletrap (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Note on Murphy page

I do not want to get into an EW. But your reasoning for changing my title on your previous post ("predictions cannot be "false" or "true") was just flatly false. Predictions can be true or false: when Dick Morris predicted Romney would be elected last year, that was a "false prediction"; describing it as merely a "prediction regarding election 2012" would be descriptively inadequate. Look at the dictionary or google this. The term "false prediction" can and is used in a NPOV fashion if the prediction was indeed unambiguously false (as Murphy's 10% CPI prediction was); I don't know of anyone who disputes this. Because your rationale was obviously false, I reverted the change. If you have another rationale for changing the title, please discuss it on the talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

My response is on the Murphy talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Moral Hazard

Perhaps you can explain how the French Bank and Yonhap news agency are not neutral sources of economic information, at least in comparison to almost all of the other economic THEORY on this page - some of it is more like theoretical economic OPINION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magickallwiz (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of cookies

I really appreciate the gesture! I deleted the thread with the cookies because of a glib joke you made about an issue which (though I'm sure you didn't know this) am remarkably sensitive about. I am certain you didn't intend to offend! Steeletrap (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Here's a listing of veggie related userboxes. Post one on your userpage -- it'll signal others as to topics you are interested in (or sensitive about). WP:Userboxes/Food. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't apologize! You could not have known, and it is certainly not a salient moral issue in the eyes of most people. An encyclopedia, of course, is not an idea place for moralizing; we have to try to be value-free in our edits to the best of our ability. I just wanted to let you know. :) Steeletrap (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

On your threats to block me/false accusations of PA

Please see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Baseless_allegations_of_PA.2Fthreats_to_block_from_user_S.Rich Steeletrap (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Srich, I guess we'll see who gets there first with which diffs making our points and then the second one can delete any unnecessary overlap. CarolMooreDC🗽 22:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I got a plugged up garbage disposal to fix. (Shall I send pictures for WP:V?) So it won't be till tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ho Ho Ho. Don't worry about it. I still don't feel like reading all his edits and doing a blow by blow analysis so I gave a pretty general reply. Let's hope he reforms. Yeah, I'm trying to decide tomorrow between mowing the lawn and plugging in that big doggie-dug hole with some left over old clay. Also made a nice copy of his talk page for time stamps in case I need to find the relevant diffs. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Cadet editing

Hi Srich32977, I noticed you just edited the page of Cadet. For your information and with all due respect, the section I just edited is about the Cadet training in the Philippines, specifically those for high school and college students. I am a current COCC officer in an academy in the Philippines and I do know how such activities work. If I'm not mistaken, you lived at the United States, your cadet performance may have little differences to those in the Philippines. So, with all due respect, I'm more knowledgeable than you think, especially that you are dealing with someone who just simply adding general information in his motherland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.32.105 (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It is true that I'm in the US. But who is where is not the issue. Wikipedia needs and requires reliable sources for its information. That means items published in books, magazines, newspapers, academic journals, etc. Please take a look at the WP:5Ps and learn more about the project. I think you will find it interesting and helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Srich32977

Dear Srich32977, Thank you for removing the links I posted on the Pi page. I read the COI article and it's quite obvious that there is an apparent COI in what I posted. I really do believe that the student activities I posted are beneficial to students and teachers but a lot of the page to which the link was directed was promotional. I have placed new links to the student activities as direct links to the Microsoft Word documents. There is no advertising and no promotion involved. The school where I teach and the side business I have are not mentioned or referred to in any way. These free resources might be very useful to people interested in learning more about calculating Pi using polygons. However, if placing these kinds of resources on Wikipedia still contravenes its guidelines I will remove them (if you don't remove them first). Thank you again, Spiro Liacos

PS. I must admit, I don't really know the best way of communicating to other users of Wikipedia. I simply clicked on the link to "leave me a message on my talk page". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiro Liacos (talk • contribs) 09:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, Spiro. While your links might be useful, the COI rules are there. Also, you might look at WP:SELFCITE. Now if someone else were to post the links, they might work. Even so, we want to avoid creating a WP:LINKFARM. – S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fringe science thing

As you can expect, I don't agree with what you're saying, but I appreciate your last posts to the thread and your attempt to get on topic. The problem is that my original prompt has been flooded with all of this text, much of it related to off-topic allegations relating to my personal conduct from another user; as you know, this sort of thing tends to crowd out responses (and we have only had two, both of which expressed support for some aspect of what I was arguing for). I propose that I 1) repost my original concerns to another forum and 2) You express your argument against my proposed changes and then 3) we let other editors hash it out for awhile before responding. What say you? Steeletrap (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've responded at User talk:SPECIFICO. – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've created a new discussion. See: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Concerns_on_WP:Undue_regarding_AIDS_Denial_and_LewRockwell.com You are encouraged to comment, but I ask that you keep them concise and limited so as to not recreate the flood of text that derailed the last thread (I know I was bad in both of those respects!) Steeletrap (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Why not get a little wiki-tipsy!? Steeletrap (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the ostrich comment. That obviously wasn't a personal attack (especially when speaking to an animal lover!) so it showed a particular desire not to inflame. You are making a good effort to move past last Saturday's heated arguments and I appreciate it. I soon plan on shifting my attention from LvMI related to other wiki subjects (I want to pick less contentious ones to save time (which I've wasted far too much of the last few weeks) and energy! And I think I've already made my mark for the better, in many of the ways that I wanted to.) But even if our interactions are more limited from now on, I want them to end on a positive note. Steeletrap (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome! You must've discovered I participate in the WP:Drinking game.
  • I had added ostrich under the mistaken impression that it gave some pertinent advice. While not on track in your case, it does contain advice in general that is worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Austrian hat

Hi. I moved the hat up a notch as explained in my edit summary on talk:Austrian school. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 05:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Cabazon Dinosaurs

Maybe you can make the Huell Howser video link a little more prominent so that visitors to the page will be likely to watch it. It is only 19 minutes long. pechaney (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be moved up the list and the citation format changed. I'll take a look later today.-- – S. Rich (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from IamSwitzerland

I am not a new user. I have been editing here for years and never dealt with such aggressive behavior as you are employing. I may have forgotten a few things but I appreciate you helping me to look like a complete loser. That is pretty awesome of you. I put two words on a page and you attack. You even took down edits to preexisiting issuese that were corrected. IamSwitzerland (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(Not much help was needed.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I have to ask that you cease making personal attacks. Implying that "not much help was needed" to make user IamSwitzerland look like a loser is not an acceptable remark. Steeletrap (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil, perhaps. IamSwitzerland exhibited incompetent editing and I left polite (template) messages about how to do a better job. The response about not being a "new user" and my "aggressive behavior" and my "attack" is just bullshit. Perhaps a simple would have been better. Stick up for Switzerland if you wish. I don't mind. But don't go about accusing me of PA on any pages other than this one. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC) PS: However, you or Switzerland certainly may post an ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not personally familiar with Ms./Mister "Switzerland," nor do I know about her or his work on behalf of this encyclopedia. However, knowing from experience how deeply you care about calling out users who make "PA", I thought you should know that you clearly made one above. Unlike those of other users I have encountered, your PAs have not been consistently disruptive, nor material to substantive edits, so I am fine with not mentioning this on other threads. It is something to watch for the future, however. Steeletrap (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Huell

You're fast! I was just about to revert my own edit after discovering that the {{FAG}} template led to Find-a-Grave.  :) Not the best choice of template names... Anyhow, good looking out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Huell Howser has been a favorite of mine for years. Chapman University has an archive of his videos, which I've been incorporating into WP lately. Mainly his Palm Springs stuff. BTW, there has been some talk page controversy about whether he was gay. No RS supports the rumors. – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm on board with the need for RS for something like that. And for establishing relevance for its inclusion. Typically the only time people feel the need to include sexuality in articles is when the person is not from the prevailing camp. We don't, for example, have an infobox field for sexuality. And Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's article doesn't say "...and he is a heterosexual." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe

I'd have expected you to use talk if you disagree with my revert of the quote, not to reinsert. Please self-undo and use talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 04:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is underway on the talk page. My gosh, the important part of BRD is the D. We've both stated our concerns -- now's the time to wait and let other editors weigh in. The rationale for leaving that very short sentence there -- for now -- is set forth. (Remove it if you wish, I will not consider it as EW. But please do leave the lopsided tag so that it can attract other editors to comment.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your reinsertion of the Reverted content was not BRD. It's not B-R-R-D. The important part is not only D but restraint from R-R. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I said remove it if you wish. So, just go and change the stinking page. Why expend these precious bytes over such a small issue? – S. Rich (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Added comment -- strike out remark about changing the page. Why bring up this trivial issue when Steeletrap has already made the change? There was no edit warring going on, which 3R/2R seeks to discourage. Simply a disagreement, which is posted on the talk page. 00:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the talk page thread only started after the EW was underway, right? Next time consider not undoing the revert? At least Steeletrap took the bull by the horns. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

EW? I don't know what EW you are talking about! Double cheers back atcha - one for each revert. – S. Rich (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

When an article has a history of contention, if an editor reverts some text, you can expect that reinserting it prior to discussion is going to put further strain on the process. That was my prediction and that's what happened. Next time, consider talk first. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Regarding your restoration of my post at Talk:Fractional reserve banking (as opposed to the other editor restoring the post and apologizing at my request): thank you; I appreciate your effort to mediate. I didn't know what brought this on until I went back and read the interaction between me and the other editor on that talk page. The genesis may have been what seems to me to have been a relatively mild disagreement back in mid-March -- hardly what I would call a "hornet's nest" that should result in "bitterness." I didn't realize that he had taken our discussion so hard. Yours, Famspear (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gaming the system

I told him to read the policies about, for prevention of attitudes against consensus, I was clear about this attitudes could come from no-comprehension of notability policies confused with "credentialism" (I'm not talking about bad faith, a person could sabotage consensus without the will of been evil). I put the comment not by BLP issue, but by economist/philosopher issue and editions. I could change the line if you told me a better way to say someone not to commit a fault about sabotage consensus. I'm from Spanish language Wikipedia, here there are variants in some policies that I'm not acquainted (little diferences, I guess). --Sageo (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am herding cats with different editors all admonishing (scolding) each other about BLP, PA, NPOV, etc. in these various libertarian article talk pages. Bringing up "gaming the system", which is an editor behavior issue, was not appropriate for the talk page. It was like another cat breaking out of harness. (Because it explicitly refers to bad faith.) If you like -- or will permit -- I'll remove that sentence. (And if you have personal advice about consensus, etc., post it on the editor's talk page. Doing so on these article talk pages only makes things worse.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If that is the recommended practice in this Wikipedia talk pages, I have no problem.--Sageo (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe section heading

Furry's entitled to revert the heading without getting undone. I think it would be best to let Furry's edit stand and go to talk, not to appear to OWN the article or be edit-warring deviations. I suggest you reinstate Furry's edit. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Furry's edit was Bold. My edit was Revert. The next step was Discuss, not a re-reversion. But the first two edits are OBE. I opened a section on the discussion page and Sageo has re-re-reverted to the original (more recent) section heading. In any event, please see my rationale in the discussion section. – S. Rich (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

EW ANI

You appear to question Steeletrap for citing the "malicious" comment but you fail to mention that the cited word is only one of many personal attacks made by Sageo over the past week or so. Perhaps you might consider a more balanced statement or revision of your comment on the EW page? SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think Sageo has made PAs, then you or Steeletrap should post it. Steeletrap brought it up the "malicious" comment, and I provided a comment to put it in context -- which serves to balance out Steeletrap's comment. You brought up the section heading matter in the EW ANI, and I made commentary about it. If it was such a trivial matter, why did you bring it up? Seems you don't like it when the evidence is against you. Well, consider, 50% of the people in trials don't like the results when the judge or jury makes the final decision. – S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I raised the title because it is a revert and the EW complaint lists excessive reverts. You would be well advised to strike through the personal attack on me in your message above and to refrain from sarcasm in future talk page messages. You are among peers here. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And now you accuse me of PA? And you accuse me of EW here [8]? Worst of all, you attack my integrity by accusing me of making false statements! – S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, one approach would have been, once you learned that you'd inadvertently undone Furry due to a false edit summary justification, one approach would be immediately to apologize, set the record straight, and self-undo your error. Then nobody could ever question your motives or evenhandedness (not that anybody has done that, just sayin' -- since it seems to concern you.) SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

picknick99

thanks for message. But I'm afraid I don't really understand it.Picknick99 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you did this note correctly by putting it down here at the bottom. (The other one on Barrister was posted at the top of the talk page.) And the heading you added "No way Jose" really doesn't tell readers what the over all subject of your comment is about. – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

HOPPE -- AGF

You wrote "his discussion should not be a back-door or a run-around effort to get the homophobia material into the article."

This appears to suggest that you believe other editors are not acting in good faith, and may be construed as an unwarranted personal statement, particularly on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for interrupting you (and this goes for Srich32977 and SPECIFICO), but I think you should both perhaps stop this, let's just call it teasing, and do whatever helps you relax. And no, it does not matter who is correct. Lectonar (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I said "This discussion...." not "his discussion". I was not referring to any particular editor or editors. If an editor wants to skin the cat a different way, that's fine. But the academic freedom heading issue is not a good way to try. – S. Rich (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's right, "this" -- cut and paste truncation error. My comment stands, and you have not responded to my concern. It seems likely readers will understand that you are making the statement because you are concerned that the particular editors who are advocating this wording are not acting in good faith. Otherwise, every thread would be prefaced with that remark. Please consider. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Steeletrap

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Steeletrap. If you continue you may be blocked from Wikipedia.

You accused me of making a PA, alleging that I said, without evidence, that another user had made a personal attack. This was a false statement, as I had loads of evidence for this claim, which you have seen on numerous occasions. (either through your participation in conversations where she attacked me, or in my and user SPECIFICO's personally relaying to you the PAs; please see my talk page for a brief sampling of the PAs.) Note that, per WP:WIAPA, false accusations of PAs such as yours are themselves personal attacks. Steeletrap (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you believe holding "loads of evidence" is justification for repeating, again and again and again, your charges of PA in various postings? How many such accusations on various talk pages would be enough? Or, do you think you have an unlimited right to complain about the PA? At the very least, this demonstrates a lack of good faith. – S. Rich (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in the event that such conduct continues, as it has. I am glad that you are backing away from your assertion that my claim of PA had no evidence; an assertion which, per WP:WIAPA, was itself a PA. Steeletrap (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I will caution you again that your belief that you have justification to post repeated (unlimited?) complaints of PA is completely wrong. If there fresh instances of PA, then post them. But holding a history of past PA is not a justification. Moreover, I am not backing away from my assertion in the least. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, please note that nothing in WP:No_personal_attacks#Responding_to_personal_attacks justifies repeated accusations of PA. In fact the guidance says "Avoid responding on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. [Emphasis in original]" – S. Rich (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe reversion

Hi Rich. I think you agree that we don't want an EW on the title thing, so I don't plan on reverting until this is sorted out. But your justification for your reversion strikes me as erroneous. The consensus (3:2) is in favor of the reverted version. And we have made extensive arguments in favor of it on the talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm posting an RfC at this moment. (It's the first one I've ever done, so I'm not sure on the technical details.) Preserving the existing section title is needed because the RfC, thus far composed, refers to that particular section and the talk page we have been working on. As for the count, Furry has not weighed in on the discussion. (And I'm sure you realize that we don't settle these things by voting.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not necessarily proved by numbers, Steeletrap, however I'm so very distressed to see edit-warring behavior by Srich in this matter. There's no record to confirm Srich's insistence that this was definitively litigated in the past WP:CCC wp:DRNC WP:OWN and other policies apply. Moreover Srich, you keep changing your rationalization for the reverts. It's not in the spirit of collaboration. You haven't even waited to hear from Furry in response to your earlier remarks. I'm going to undo your edit, so don't rely on your EW version being intact for the RfC. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As stated -- the RfC that I have already posted refers to the section in question and the talk page section, that I initiated uses the term academic freedom. Please do not change because it can or may lead to confusion by editors looking at the RfC. – S. Rich (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Please get some assistance or rename the talk page section to a term such as Hoppe Controversy RfC. Please don't be offended, but it goes without saying that your difficulty is self-created and could have been avoided by leaving Steeletrap's heading in place. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What a pain! I revert and say I'm posting an RfC. I post the RfC and give reference in it to the talk page and particular section. I then ask that the section title be kept so that editors can see WTF we've been talking about. But you, SPECIFICO, have to go and change it back, and accuse me of EW. There is no stinking EW going on -- the section heading "was" the one that had been there for years and I'm the one who initiated the talk page and the RfC. How long are we supposed to wait for Furry to comment? Doesn't Furry have a watch list? I'm not changing any of my rationalizations for keeping the section heading as it was -- I am trying to explain the rationalization! Interfering with the section heading as you did after I explained the section heading change and initiated the talk page and initiated the RfC is WP:POINTY behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening a request for comment

Hello Srich32977. It appears you want to open a request for comment about Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is no need for you to post at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board. Instead, follow the instructions at:

• WP:Request for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues

You make your addition to the article talk page. Add the template {{rfc|blah|blah}} as described in the instructions. Then a bot automatically posts a notice in the central RfC list. Explain in the text of the RfC question what the issue is, and link to any talk sections that you want. It helps if you pose the question in yes-or-no fashion to avoid any uncertainty on how to interpret the !votes.

If you are uncertain as to the best RfC question to ask, you can open a thread on talk *first* and ask others for comment. You could also post multiple proposed section titles in the RfC and ask for votes if you want. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance. Please take a look at what I've done, and if you would tweak as needed. I thought I had it down correctly, but SPECIFICO came on in and changed the article page so that more work was/is needed. (I am not happy about SPECIFICO's action in this regard.) And responding to both the article revisions and talk page comments, when I had said I was posting an RfC has not made the task any easier or pleasant. – S. Rich (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no conventional {{rfc}} template on the talk page. While you *can* use the 'Request Board' system it won't get the RfC listed in the usual places. Also the automatic notification bot won't invite others to participate. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As this is a BLP, should I or can I post {{rfc|bio}}? – S. Rich (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The tags you put in the {{rfc}} template are up to you. I suggest 'bio' and 'pol,' which you would write as {{rfc|bio|pol}}. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Got it. But the talk page comments are too much to handle right now. Maybe if Carolmooredc's most recent edit sticks for a while, this will blow over. (She's restored the version that was there for years. But I'm not too hopeful at the moment.) [[File:|18px|link=]] – S. Rich (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

New section

I'll be moving to have Steeletrap banned from the article in BLPN after weekend. Specifico's recent defamatory comments which I've hidden make him ripe too. The evidence that the POV of these two academic colleagues is far too much like a WP:COI becomes stronger every day. Even with all the nonsense I've seen on BLPs in the Israel-Palestine area, this is the worst WP:BLP assault I've had to deal with. They really hate him! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Hi. I think this needs to be posed as a question with a specific alternative, e.g. "Should ... changed to 'Controversy on Hoppe's views of homosexuality'" (or whatever Steeletrap's last version was.) Then editors know what they're voting for and against. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeking to post the most non-POV title for the RfC, not suggesting anything. Editors can review the remarks and say "Yes, change to ..." There may be lots of acceptable alternatives. Or they can say "No, ....". – S. Rich (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No uninvolved editor is going to understand that or take the effort to get up to speed. They just won't take the time and effort to come up with their own alternatives and if they do, you'll have a long list of alternatives with splintered vote. Apparently per a recent talk page comment, not even Carolmooredc has read the talk thread. It should have the specific alternative that you reverted or the else Steeletrap's alternative, but to have no concrete question in place does not focus the decision. Check with an admin if you have any further concern, but I feel the current form of the question will not be constructive. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich, please change the title of your question from the vague and unhelpful "Should the title for the "Academic freedom controversy" section be changed?" to "Should the title for the "Academic Freedom Controversy" section be changed to "Controversy over views on homosexuality"? Providing a concrete alternative will facilitate discussion and debate. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich, FYI, Steeletrap's request was made after my complaint about User:Specifico's canvassing.

I believe because of User:Specifico's campaigning to 10 wikiprojects with an inappropriate title, the RfC has to be cancelled. In any case, I have added the canvassing here to the ongoing WP:ANI on Specifico and Steeletrap. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No to both requests. WP editors are smart enough to figure it out. You can add your comment to the discussion that says "Yes. Change to "blah, blah, blah" because "......". The notice simply serves to say "There is a discussion going on over at..." The notice does not set the stage for the discussion. As I said above, adding a suggested title tends to skew the POV. My posting was NPOV. Re the canvassing, I believe tagging can remedy that problem. If the RfC is cancelled, then it'll have to be restarted or the lousy debate over the stinking section title will continue on the talk page. Fresh eyes are needed. – S. Rich (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2013 (U TC)

Insert: Not sure what you mean by tagging,but once I saw how many there were I sure didn't want to have to correct them all! I brought up invalidation cause saw it done once before, but not sure of correct protocol otherwise. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me there was something available to alert editors about canvassing, but I can't find it at the moment. (There is a tag for canvassing done with particular editors, but that does not apply here.) Perhaps I'll go to the various notices and post something that clarifies what the actual RfC title is. But then that might be objected to as an improper counter-canvassing. I don't know what the guidance is, so I won't do anything until I find out for sure. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich, my strong view is that they won't be willing to read all the surrounding context when such a vague and unspecific question is leading into it. My suggested title -- or another one which invokes homosexuality -- provides organization and clarity to the debate which follows. You claim that WP users are "smart enough to figure it out", but if my/Furry's/SPECIFICO's favored title (one which invokes HOppe's views on homosexuality) is inappropriate (as you allege) or "defamatory" (as Carol absurdly alleges), aren't they smart enough to figure that out too? Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)