Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 1 July 2013

This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 31 days

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

WP:ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Email

Hi SPECIFICO. I deeply respect your contributions to this encyclopedia and have enjoyed our collaborations, on Doc. Hoppe, Argumentation ethics, and other matters. I therefore want to take you up on your offer of exchanging emails. How do I do this? Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Guten Tag Steeletrap. I think you just go the "preferences" link at the upper right of the WP page and look for the section captioned "email" SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Interaction

FYI, I posted a message to certain editors to look at WP:IBAN. As they are repeatedly commenting about each other, it may be appropriate to propose one. – S. Rich (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not following the reference. Please let me know if there's an incident or other page you would like me to know about. SPECIFICO talk 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought you might look at my edit history, so I kept it vague. Here are the diffs: & . My note to you is just a FYI. – S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged. I don't look at others' edit histories. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you like for me to stop having WikiTalk with you? (Four-way or otherwise?) If so, please advise. I am happy to comply – in return I'd like an IBAN that covers (the) other editors. – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why on earth would I want you to stop talking to me? I am not following this at all. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, abstruse. (But you're pretty smart!) To explain, I'd like Carol & Steele to stop their pissing contest. An IBAN between the two of them would be nice, but you and I are part of the contest, albiet mostly as spectators. Carol has responded to my IBAN suggestion that it be a 4-way. So I am calling her bluff. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I stepped out of the Hoppe article and really hadn't been paying attention. Carol is living in her own world and it seems to be remarkably independent of the rest of the universe. Steeletrap is learning the ropes so I don't think he's likely to get into much trouble going forward. Anyway I have no reason to talk to Carol but I do like to talk to you and Steeletrap when the occasion presents itself, so IBAN or whatever would not interest me. Thanks anyway. SPECIFICO talk 03:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

3rr

On Murray Rothbard with 4th or 5th series of edits in less than 24 hours. Please revert last series.

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. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be requesting that I re-insert the unsourced lists of influenced and influences, not supported by article text or infobox citations. You endorsed this action when I proposed it on the talk page here: . There is no edit war on this article. Please do continue to share your comments and concerns on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Pardon. The undiscussed reverts in the last one or two series. I know it was four, just don't want to figure out if it's five. Also, the idea is to source some of them. But I'm sure sources can be found with lists and those lists then put in. Also, feel free to comment on my 6/1/ edits thread or I'll assume after a few days you agree with my comments. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Obviously there was a third revert there you must be aware of and of course there is the ongoing pattern. Just seems right thing to do. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor copyedits

The changes here are not minor copyedits. WP:COPYEDIT has more information. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jesus Huerta de Soto WP:OR.2FSynth

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jesus Huerta de Soto WP:OR.2FSynth. – S. Rich (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

A slightly less bold Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

In return for the Austria Award, I pronounce that you are eligible to display the

{{Journeyman_lv2_Ribbon}} . – S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Materialscientist

Please note that Materialscientist is one of the most stupendous prodigious splendiforious editors on WP. I'm not suggesting that you erred – purely a FYI. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There were large unexplained edits by one or 2 IPs which were only partially undone by materialscientist, so I went back to before the changes began. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Template messages

I regret that you have posted 3 template messages on that usertalk page. They are not well founded. I urge that both of you WP:IBAN each other. – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Srich. On the contrary they were simple to the point and well-founded. I have done nothing to provoke the torrent of personal attack, harassment, misrepresentation and stalking by carolmooredc. She has hounded me off of at least two articles and is working on a third. There is very little communication from me directed her way but I see no reason to limit any further statements I may feel are required. If you're contemplating an involuntary sanction, I strongly suggest you not initiate that discussion. I will either walk away from WP entirely or I will respond with some much broader issues which I have chosen thus far not to raise. I prefer to do neither. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Now I see that she has acknowledged the legitimacy of those warnings and has taken my advice to strike through the PA on user:goethean at Gun Control. So looks like she agrees with me and you're standing alone on this. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I don't give a fuck as to what particular messages are legitimate, acknowledged, retracted, valid, hostile, elephantshit, bullshit, mouseshit, or flyshit. (Am I standing alone? Perhaps. Aber, "Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders." (Martin Luther.)) The broader issue is the fact that both of you have an animosity towards each other, whether justified or not. Both of you make remarks on article talk pages about the behavior of each other. Is there equality between the two of you as to who is more disruptive? I could hardly measure. But overall it (the disruptive behavior) is there because the shit is showing up on talk pages, etc.. Carol has posted noticeboard discussions which were not well founded, and you did well by refraining from commenting on them. She's made other remarks that other editors have disapproved of. And I have commented on her remarks. (Don't be picky-unie about what I'd seen and commented on.) At the same time, you are showing a thinskinned attitude about her comments. I'd hate to initiate a discussion on a noticeboard about the disruptive interaction between you two, because I have better things to do. Again, the only reasonable solution to this nonsense is to WP:IBAN between the two of you. – S. Rich (talk)

Go ahead and as I said to "carolmoore" yesterday, there's no need to flail away on talk pages. Just make the ANI if you wish. I have largely ignored that user and have generally commented only where policy is at stake or where she disrupts editing of important content. Her attack on goethean yesterday offended me, so I asked her to strike it. She did strike it. Your intervention was unwarranted. She should not be allowed to harass editors to such an extent that they depart articles or depart WP. She has a history of that behavior.

If you wish to initiate the process that will end with a full scrutiny of her history on WP, it's your right to do so. I have no interest in starting that discussion, but I will reiterate my recent statement: If you begin such a process, I may respond by walking away or I may decide to present a massive and decisive account of that user's conduct. I can't say which I will decide to do. It depends on how I feel that day, but once the conversation has begun, it may be wide-ranging. I do not make statements that cannot be substantiated, and I am careful not to speak without evidence. I've observed it sometimes takes a few rounds for you or "carolmoore" to understand it, but if you would like to start the process, that is your decision. Cheers, and maybe try to calm down. It's not like you to come out in public with angry cusswords and the like. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

AS changes by ...

I suggest you look at User talk:DemitreusFrontwest and related links. – S. Rich (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy Friday. SPECIFICO talk 15:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Kinsella

Hi mate! Not sure why it was still on my watchlist, but it was, and I noticed your edit. I have no problem with the content removal (as in, I have no opinion either way) but I thought I should query the {{cn}} tag. That line (I think I might have added part of it? Not sure, must go back and check) is just a summary of the stuff we then go on to list as stuff written by him. Do we really need a citation for "he writes books about law" when we then go on and list a whole bunch of his books about law? Just seems counter-productive and a bit contradictory. Otherwise, just change it to, "he has published the following books and articles about..." and then list them. It's just something to think about - I'm going to take the article off my watchlist anyway. Cheers, Stalwart111 05:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed it, Stalwart, but I reverted the edit. As you say, the list of legal publications is right there in the subsection. As well as two of Kinsella's 'libertarian' writings. – S. Rich (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I did miss it, because I took it off my watchlist before leaving the note here. Others are free to argue it out but I thought I'd note it. Cheers! Stalwart111 06:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You are indeed a stalwart. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please be aware of possible Wikihounding

Per Misplaced Pages:Harass#Wikihounding which doesn’t have template and recommends WP:Dispute discussion before WP:ANI, I am bringing this here.

In the last 30 hours you have followed me to 4 articles and/or talk pages which were not on current noticeboards and where you have not edited before. There you mostly either reverted me or left a negative comment. (As it happened we agreed on Neoliberalism). Just too much of a coincidence.

See, , , .

Please be aware this appears to be wikihounding and stop following me to new discussions you may have noticed my participating in through my contributions list. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not "follow you" to those pages. You can set your mind at ease by reviewing the stated policy and reviewing what's on all current noticeboards, and reviewing my edits. No hounding. Do not misrepresent facts, e.g. don't say I haven't previously edited articles which I have previously edited. Don't assume you know what's on my watchlist in areas related to my expertise and interest SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just experienced the same thing. Abel (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Id4abel. Doing so is a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. The trigger for 3RR is not 3 simple edits, but a back and forth series of edits/reverts. I urge you to remove the template. – S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Srich, there were 3 rapidfire reverts of my recent edits which were copy edits and well-explained improvements. In the context of what appear to be agitated comments on the talk page, I feel a warning was appropriate before the user violates 3RR. I think if you'll have a looksee at the history you'll see these were all wholesale undo's of recent edits rather than adjustments for well-founded reasons. Ironically you have just unduly templated me with a talk page message. Care to strike it? Smile. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that your last edit was on the 23rd. 3RR has a 24 hour parameter. One of Abel's edits added a quote, thereby resolving the tag. Another provided an archive link. Your templating of Abel was wrong, and only served to goad Abel. (And I have remarked to Abel that his/her edit summaries etc are inappropriate. ) – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not 24 hours from what he reverts. It's that there's under 24 in his reverts. Just to be clear, what may have encouraged his incredibly hostile and aggressive tone and personal animosity toward me could have been reading some of the unbridled (nice imagery, right) personal attacks and harassment by another editor on various talk and noticeboard pages. It does poison the atmosphere, particularly for a new editor such as Abel who is just getting his sea legs so to speak. At any rate, its clear to me that the purpose of the ew template is to help the editor to stand back and take a deep breath before breaching the limit. That certainly was appropriate. Nothing wrong about my template. Your italics are a bit over the top, but I've grown accustomed to your temper and at least you didn't use naughty words this time around. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are counting. Any 3 edits (not reverts) within a 24 hour period? In fact, your last edit (according to my time zone) was 20:27 23 June. Abel's first edit was 08:52 25 June. That's ≈38 hours between your (plural) edits. AND 2 of his 3 edits were fixing a problem. There were not 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. Your misplaced warning did not encourage him to exhale. (New editor? Abel signed on in 2007 & has 1,950 edits. Compare that to 9 months & 2,875 edits, or 4 years and 48k+ edits.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please check the edits. BTW, you could have found the Atlanta information and corrected the citation rather than further upset Abel with the tag. Sometimes one should just fix the problem. He still hasn't removed his angry accusation that I tagged the Atlanta thing. Please read the 3RR policy. Any reverts, not the same material. He just undid others' edits, appropriately explained in summaries, without discussion. Then he defiantly states he's posted his objection on talk therefore it's ok to proceed and undo without discussion? Really? Now you're right I checked. He's not a new editor, my mistaken inference from his behaviour. I should not have been quite so forgiving of his disruptions. Please review policy and chill. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You are misapplying WP:3RR. That tells use how to count edits/reverts. We do the count when WP:EW is apparent. Note that EW says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion ." Abel did not override the edits. As stated above, a quotation and an archive url were provided. (In fact, he provided two quotes). Abel does not have to "discuss" the addition of an archive url, or the addition of quotations to justify a citation. The only edit subject to BRD is this: , which I feel needs prosaic improvement. (Do I misread your logic about "any reverts"? I'm sure you don't mean any 3 edits.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Amigo, you're wrong. Read about whether the same or different. The editor to whom I showed the template was abruptly and grossly reverting, rather than showing concern over parts of the edits or misgivings about particular words or meaning. It was the epitome of e.w. You still haven't asked his foregiveness for your tagging of Atlanta, which he told 6 billion earthlings was my dastardly deed. Cheers. Chill. etc. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the article history at 23:24 on 23 June 2013 SPECIFICO deleted the paragraph "The initial headquarters of FEE filled two rooms at 737 Seventh Avenue on the 30th floor of the Equitable Building in Manhattan." with an edit description reading "What is a base." Given that the text "FEE provided a base" was a part of the Significance subsection of the History section and not a part of the Location subsection, not only did SPECIFCO (not S. Rich as SPECIFCO stated) perform the edit, the edit was performed with a dishonest edit summary. Abel (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have confused two different edits. Srich was the one who tagged the Atlanta office mention. Please try to remain calm and discuss the article rather than the editors. I mention the Atlanta edit only because you got it wrong. The other personal remarks are unfortunate but at least no civilians were hit in the line of fire. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in that Srich tagged the Atlanta office text. However, the dishonest edit summary was attached to an edit by SPECIFCO. Abel (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

1. Dodsworth 1995, p. 2. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDodsworth1995 (help)