| Revision as of 05:44, 31 July 2013 editStalwart111 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,939 edits →Re: Kitten: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:31, 31 July 2013 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →Re: Kitten: repliesNext edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| I've made no secret of the fact that despite coming to this subject area with ''zero'' prior knowledge, I've since come to the opinion that much of the Austrian/LvMI stuff here on WP amounts to a very insular (though large) ] (an essay I'm pleased you discovered). I will continue to push for that wall to be broken down. I also believe that many of the related articles (written several years ago) are/were incredibly complimentary, sickeningly so in some cases. That doesn't mean we need to go in the ''opposite'' direction but in many cases, balance is sorely needed. That's not a matter of "attacking" BLPs but I'll admit it can often seem that way to see an article transition from gushingly positive to ]. Anyway, I wanted to leave you a note with a couple of thoughts and left you an essay instead, but I hope you can see it comes from a good place. And thanks again for the cat. Cheers, ]] 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | I've made no secret of the fact that despite coming to this subject area with ''zero'' prior knowledge, I've since come to the opinion that much of the Austrian/LvMI stuff here on WP amounts to a very insular (though large) ] (an essay I'm pleased you discovered). I will continue to push for that wall to be broken down. I also believe that many of the related articles (written several years ago) are/were incredibly complimentary, sickeningly so in some cases. That doesn't mean we need to go in the ''opposite'' direction but in many cases, balance is sorely needed. That's not a matter of "attacking" BLPs but I'll admit it can often seem that way to see an article transition from gushingly positive to ]. Anyway, I wanted to leave you a note with a couple of thoughts and left you an essay instead, but I hope you can see it comes from a good place. And thanks again for the cat. Cheers, ]] 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :The talk page ban is for 3 people who kept coming here leaving me nitpicking (1) or hounding messages (2). I think the ANI vs. Specifico for leaving me so many questionable notices in a few days (after I left him a notice that following me to 4 different pages he hadn't edited before and reverting or commenting on me, all in less than thirty hours, was wikihounding) was justified and was going well til he finally showed up and made a bunch of accusations with little or no diffs at all. You can see how discouraging that might be. | |||
| :You are right I did misread as I replied to you. However, as I said, it did not change the impression given my one huge diff and many other statements that Steeletrap was getting his masters in economics and thus considered self an expert whose views had greater weight. | |||
| :First, walled garden is an essay. And the lead seems to be more concerned about "This can be a failure of linkage, or it can be an attempt to form a group of articles on essentially the same topic." So 14 articles on aspects of Austrian economics that should be merged into 2 or 3 articles would be a walled garden. | |||
| : However, WP:RS is the policy and walled garden can't be used to exclude credible WP:RS economists and authors as WP:RS just because they knew or admired an individual or held a certain view). (Steeletrap ] when he tried to assert this one on Murray Rothbard.] | |||
| :But I'm all for a variety of sources myself. And editors have been lazy. Why search deep into bowels of books google when there's so much from reliable sources on Mises and Cato and LewRockwell.com? But properly searching books.google does bring up a lot of material. But someone has got to do the work. The critics don't want to unless it's adding stuff saying or inferring they were incompetent or a bigot. Very problematic on BLPS and Bios of dead people as well. | |||
| :I've never complained about tagging or immediately removing primary source material if it's just redundant/irrelevant/etc. The problem is removing properly source neutral or positive material ''even from totally neutral/academic/non-affiliated WP:RS'' that makes the person look credible, while adding negative material from less credible sources. With coming up with insulting section headers like "Hoppe advocates using violence against gays" which was a totally WP:OR interpretation of two sources which ended up at ANI because steeletrap was pissed I pointed out this was a libelous statement. Ridiculous. | |||
| : And it goes on, and on until editors get disgusted and leave. If ten editors came to a page, opined something they were doing was totally against policy, and moved on, within 36 hours all the same material would be back in. The fact that I have bothered to complain about it on various policy boards (and sometimes SRich when even he can't take it any more) is the reason I get hounded. I did go away like a good girl for a few weeks because I do have better things to do than fight with these people. But I really can't see them trash Murray Rothbard and downgrade him from a professional economist (they took that out of the lead til I put it back) to a mere pundit. A couple other editors have come to talk page and said that as result of the ANI. | |||
| :The newest thing is claiming that 3rr is irrelevant and Steeletrap can revert back to his biased section headers because it's under "discussion"?? It's absurd. ] I again quit the article but I'm going to have to go to Talk:3rr to see if that's some new exception or they'll be violating 3rr on every article on that basis in no time. OI!!! | |||
| :Enough. Don't want to get the blood pressure up. '''] ''' 12:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:31, 31 July 2013
Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk Page of that Article if it is relevant to all editors.'
 Green Line for Barnstars, Archives, Other Stuff
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Gender bias task force
Hi Carol, something here you might be interested in. Best, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
SPECIFICO
Many thanks for the notice. After the multiple bogus edit war warnings and wikihounding, yeah, I am very interested. --Abel (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Bad week to do an on SPECIFICO with people vacationing etc. and the issue being complicated. But already had one issue go stale, so thought I better do it anyway. Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to be able to deal with complicated issues any more and a lot of things that used to get responses don't. Editor drop off really taking its toll. Or maybe they all hate one faction of Austrian libertarian types :-( Among other theories. Frustrating. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 15:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Given that trashing of BLPs is not a big issue anymore, I do believe that Misplaced Pages eventually could face a class action lawsuit charging Misplaced Pages Foundation malfeasance if some creepy-assed lawyers ever decided to put one together with 30 or 40 aggrieved subjects of bios. All they have to do is search throughout the BLP policy, BLPN and its header, ANI and other relevant pages and they could do a real big case based on copious written evidence.
- At least I've figured out what my favorite Wikimedia essay is. User:Carolmooredc 12:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
reverted BLP edits?
If you can't remember what edits have been reverted, go to my edit history and figure it out. (In other words, don't make vague, unsubstantiated accusations!) Besides being off-topic as to the RfC issue, your comment insinuates that I don't know what is proper procedure or policy. That is hardly the case. In fact, in this particular RfC, I am trying to resolve the BLP problems in the North article. Read the discussion above and you will see that I am trying to get rid of the OR posted by editors who have an axe to grind. Please remove your post on the RfC threaded discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
CORRECTION -- It looks like I misread your comment about BLP reverts. You were referring to Steele. In any event, such comments about Steele's editing history are off-topic. In this regard they are PA because they do not advance the discussion at hand. Please remove the entire post, including what you addressed to me. – S. Rich (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I forgot to save this 1/2 hour ago, so I'll try again. Please do not post anything but official notices on my talk page. (And I assume they will not be frivolous ones.) I experience your constant chiding me to behave as you think I should as to be harassment, even if you are right 1/3 of the time. If you have a complaint or others do they can make official ones, or do it on the article talk page. Thank you. User:Carolmooredc 18:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Official notice on ANI on disruptive/insulting behavior
see: here. Steeletrap (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, if only.... User:Carolmooredc 06:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for diff. As I clarified to the closing editor here: My saying "Best to stay away from BLPs until whatever doesn't tick me off so much. Also I was not the one objecting to keepng it open, though it was getting rather tiresome.
- Best ANI yet on the topic of biased editing and brought a lot of people to bios needing attention.
- No response please, you are still banned from my talk page except for official notices, per the relevant ANI last month or two ago. User:Carolmooredc 19:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: Kitten
To begin with, I'm not sure who your talk page ban extends to, so if I'm posting here contrary to a specific instruction then I should say I'm unaware of it and my note here is amoral in that regard. Beyond that, thank you very much for the kitten. I'm not really a "cat person" I suppose, but I can appreciate cute things designed to lighten the mood.
I also wanted to apologise, in a manner of speaking, for the ANI stuff in general. I thought (and I said so at the time) that your "original" complaints against SPECIFICO and Steeletrap related to things that hadn't really reached the level that required administrator intervention. Likewise, in this instance, Steeletrap probably "went off half cocked", though he had a point about some of the comments. To be perfectly frank, I've been a bit perplexed by everyone's eagerness to run off to ANI as soon as a content dispute gets a bit bogged down and ad-hom stuff starts to creep in (which is the way I described it there). I'm not an economist (ha ha, yes, definitely my line) but I understand the POV and passion that people bring to the subject. But after God knows how many noticeboard threads, I can't see why everyone seems to think "it will be different this time".
On a personal note (if I might give some completely unsolicited advice) - please be careful to read diffs and discussions and perhaps read them 2 or 3 times, especially if things are getting heated. The issue that finally prompted me to join the ANI discussion could have easily been prevented had you carefully read the diff in question and realised that the quote you were attributing to someone else was actually mine (though I would also note that the qualifications I do have are completely irrelevant here, as are yours and Steeletrap's). Case in point is this edit where it seems you misread something I wrote and wound up professing support for something that both on the North talk page and the Geller talk page had been rejected by most of those involved, and something you previous railed against. I'm inclined to think it's more a matter of trying to rapid-fire replies to multiple threads in multiple places and not having time to read into the context of previous discussion. So its probably just a matter of being a bit more careful.
I've made no secret of the fact that despite coming to this subject area with zero prior knowledge, I've since come to the opinion that much of the Austrian/LvMI stuff here on WP amounts to a very insular (though large) walled garden (an essay I'm pleased you discovered). I will continue to push for that wall to be broken down. I also believe that many of the related articles (written several years ago) are/were incredibly complimentary, sickeningly so in some cases. That doesn't mean we need to go in the opposite direction but in many cases, balance is sorely needed. That's not a matter of "attacking" BLPs but I'll admit it can often seem that way to see an article transition from gushingly positive to neutral. Anyway, I wanted to leave you a note with a couple of thoughts and left you an essay instead, but I hope you can see it comes from a good place. And thanks again for the cat. Cheers, Stalwart111 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- The talk page ban is for 3 people who kept coming here leaving me nitpicking (1) or hounding messages (2). I think the ANI vs. Specifico for leaving me so many questionable notices in a few days (after I left him a notice that following me to 4 different pages he hadn't edited before and reverting or commenting on me, all in less than thirty hours, was wikihounding) was justified and was going well til he finally showed up and made a bunch of accusations with little or no diffs at all. You can see how discouraging that might be.
- You are right I did misread as I replied to you. However, as I said, it did not change the impression given my one huge diff and many other statements that Steeletrap was getting his masters in economics and thus considered self an expert whose views had greater weight.
- First, walled garden is an essay. And the lead seems to be more concerned about "This can be a failure of linkage, or it can be an attempt to form a group of articles on essentially the same topic." So 14 articles on aspects of Austrian economics that should be merged into 2 or 3 articles would be a walled garden.
- However, WP:RS is the policy and walled garden can't be used to exclude credible WP:RS economists and authors as WP:RS just because they knew or admired an individual or held a certain view). (Steeletrap got shot down when he tried to assert this one on Murray Rothbard.]
- But I'm all for a variety of sources myself. And editors have been lazy. Why search deep into bowels of books google when there's so much from reliable sources on Mises and Cato and LewRockwell.com? But properly searching books.google does bring up a lot of material. But someone has got to do the work. The critics don't want to unless it's adding stuff saying or inferring they were incompetent or a bigot. Very problematic on BLPS and Bios of dead people as well.
- I've never complained about tagging or immediately removing primary source material if it's just redundant/irrelevant/etc. The problem is removing properly source neutral or positive material even from totally neutral/academic/non-affiliated WP:RS that makes the person look credible, while adding negative material from less credible sources. With coming up with insulting section headers like "Hoppe advocates using violence against gays" which was a totally WP:OR interpretation of two sources which ended up at ANI because steeletrap was pissed I pointed out this was a libelous statement. Ridiculous.
- And it goes on, and on until editors get disgusted and leave. If ten editors came to a page, opined something they were doing was totally against policy, and moved on, within 36 hours all the same material would be back in. The fact that I have bothered to complain about it on various policy boards (and sometimes SRich when even he can't take it any more) is the reason I get hounded. I did go away like a good girl for a few weeks because I do have better things to do than fight with these people. But I really can't see them trash Murray Rothbard and downgrade him from a professional economist (they took that out of the lead til I put it back) to a mere pundit. A couple other editors have come to talk page and said that as result of the ANI.
- The newest thing is claiming that 3rr is irrelevant and Steeletrap can revert back to his biased section headers because it's under "discussion"?? It's absurd. Talk:Gary_North_(economist)#Edit_war I again quit the article but I'm going to have to go to Talk:3rr to see if that's some new exception or they'll be violating 3rr on every article on that basis in no time. OI!!!
- Enough. Don't want to get the blood pressure up. User:Carolmooredc 12:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)