Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) at 15:44, 23 May 2013 (→Please explain: Steeletrap:If you want to discuss substantive issues, please use article talk pages; stop posting on my talk page; thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user wants to see everything in its place. Green Line for Barnstars and Other Stuff
Barnstars/Kittens/et al My Cheatsheet - My Sandbox - /My Sandbox 1 - /My Sandbox 2 - /My Sandbox 3 - /My Sandbox 4 Archive I: 2006-2007 - Archive II: Jan-March 2008 - Archive III: March-Dec 2008 - Archive IV: 2009 - Archive V: 2010 - Archive VI: 2011 -Archive VII: 2012 - Archive VIII: 2013

Link to Newsletters I Need to Read

Gender bias task force

Hi Carol, something here you might be interested in. Best, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Snyder on Hoppe

You had added the Snyder comment on the Hoppe/UNLV controversy. How about adding some Hoppe talk page thoughts on expanding Snyder's quotation? – S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone challenges it. But obviously leaving out half of what he says and then criticizing it is problematic under WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You put it in, I added another sentence, SPECIFICO reverted (and I re-reverted -- shame on me). I feel the second sentence is pertinent because it is in context and explains further why academic freedom applied in that particular case. (The discussion with SPECIFICO is fairly focused.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't find the diff in question so not sure what you are talking about. The second half of the Snyder comment on academic freedom that I removed since first part really is most relevant? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jesús Huerta de Soto may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 ""s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jesús Huerta de Soto may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Protection policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Silly jokes

Silly jokes are fine with me -- anything to lighten up the discussions. Also, I personally allege to have been sent by The All to keep things straightened out on Misplaced Pages, so if editors allege lower ranking credentials, that's fine with me too. . – S. Rich (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Being an anti-Imperialist I sometimes see {word left out, use our imagination} in even silly jokes... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain

Please furnish the dif to which you refer on the ANI, where you believe I do not "bother to find correct references." It's not ringing a bell here. If you are referring to my statement that Hoppe is an "academic," please state whether you believe a citation is needed for that statement. The text which Sageo was repeatedly inserting included uncited assertions that Hoppe is an economist. Please explain whether and why you think there is equivalency between these two texts as inserted. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Just to try to keep this as simple as possible: The fact that Hoppe is an "academic" is amply documented in citations throughout the article including the discussion of the UNV disciplinary action. Consequently, if it turns out that you made that statement about me warring uncited content with respect to diffs 108 and 109 in error, I'd appreciate it if you would strike the accusation about me at the ANI. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about academic. I didn't even follow that carefully. I'm just saying you too could be sourcing information, not nitpicking everybody else's edits, so that is part of the annoyance of the edit war between you two on it. I was busy sourcing other things on other articles so never got around to that. By the way I DID somehow confuse Bell Daily with a UNLV school paper which is why I initially supported it as a source. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, the details are unimportant but I really do not want to have an untrue statement on the ANI about me with respect to those diffs or me adding any unsourced content. I appreciate your forthright response, and I would appreciate it if you'd strike that specific and erroneous accusation about me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you get that interpretation from the below so can't really explain anything.

There's no doubt that Sageo's edits on 108/109 have been part of an annoying edit-warring pattern over the last few days on that issue where neither Sageo or Specifico bother to find correct references. (Mea culpa myself on not doing that, in part because of confusion on the nature of one reference.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to say it another way. Sageo was inserting unsourced content. I did not insert unsourced content. Your statement on the ANI appears to me to say that I failed to provide proper citations for content which I inserted or reinserted. The phrase that I didn't "bother to find correct references" suggests that I did the same thing that Sageo did, inserting unreferenced or non-RS referenced content. However, that's not what happened. For that reason I am asking you to remove that accusation about me from the ANI. SPECIFICO talk

OK, I'll put in correct new references and that will make my point clear. I mean you did remove rather obvious descriptors that can be inferred from much of the text like: libertarian philosopher and an Austrian School economist who describes himself as an advocate of (anarcho-capitalism link) It should not be that hard to find refs for most of the terms and I was annoyed that the two of you who were arguing about it would NOT just find better refs. Collaboration doesn't mean one person always hassles the other to do the work while they just nitpick. That in itself is a form of edit warring. On a lot of articles I find it easier to just find a better ref myself than fight with someone, remove the material, go to WP:Edit warring etc. Or maybe I should go more into my thoughts on all of the above. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That is way far afield of the subject of reverting these specific edits. My point which I stated on edit summaries and talk is that I cannot find a RS that calls Hoppe an "economist" so I can hardly be accused for having failed to find one. There is absolutely no equivalence between the conduct of me and of Sageo on this article. After his second revert I disengaged, as you can see from the history. I have not found any RS that calls Hoppe, trained in Philosophy and teaching at an extremely marginal Business School, an "economist." Please consider removing the accusation about me and help avoid further straining cooperation on this article. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That was one of several descriptors; did you look for any of the easier ones? I'm just describing my annoyance. I doubt you'll get blocked for it. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol I understand that you are annoyed with me, that's no problem at all. But to enter that expression of annoyance in the context of an uninvolved Admin's factual evidence file where the Admin will be trying to get up to speed on the situation and to consider all views, I do not think that was appropriate. That is why I am so cordially asking you to strike it out. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, since you brought the edit warring complaint and totally ignored the WP:BLP violations issues, I probably could have brought up your lack of interest (at best) in that issue. But didn't want to confuse things. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You're choosing not to respond to my very straightforward request. I have not violated any BLP rule, in fact it was I who rescued Habermas from the BLP violation. But at any rate, a simple 3RR report is not the occasion for you to try to think up any complaint you might insert into the file. This is the last time I'll ask. Please strike through what you now acknowledge to be your incorrect statement about me RE: Unsourced Content. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidently you haven't seen my clarification. Anyway, in my opinion you have been edit warring and not editing collaboratively. I only alluded to that in the most general way. I doubt it will have any real negative impact. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I will set the ANI record straight myself if I see that you've chosen not to do so next time I look at WP. I had thought I was extending you the courtesy of my forbearance while I asked you to do so yourself. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, your repeated arguments of "BLP" violations are meaningless because they are completely vague and unspecific. Like your numerous PAs, they have nothing to do with upholding WP policy and all they do is squelch debate. Steeletrap (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read the numerous postings at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe and re-read WP:BLP. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Vaguely saying "read WP:BLP" is meaningless. Your claims on the talk page consistently fail to single out specific text/claims in the article which violate WP regulations. To repeat myself for the 32nd or so time, your claims are not constructive unless you can point to specific text/claims in a piece, and specifically explain which criteria of BLP (or NPOV or whatever WP regulations you're appealing to) are violated by that text. You just broadly cite such regulations in an indeterminate, unanswerable manner that serves to choke debate. Steeletrap (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap: I find that your postings on my talk page are just harassment. Please don't post anything besides noticeboard alert type things. If you want to discuss substantive and specific issues, please use article talk pages. Thank you. (I'm not banning Specifico at this point, as he's banned me, though his/her postings are getting quite annoying too.) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Libel accusation

Hello Carol. Repeating your false accusation of libel against me has no purpose on the discussion re: the behavior of SAGEO. Why on earth bring this up?

The accusation is also false. To remind you of your mistaken reasoning, note that I was accused of libel by you for saying Block accused Hoppe of advocating coercive violence against homosexuals. I don't know the extent to which (very much or not at all) you have been trained in formal logic, but as someone who is extensively trained in this regard, let me assure you that my "libelous" statement is logically entailed by two true statements documented in RS: 1) that Block believes all violations of libertarianism equate to coercive violence and 2) That Block believes Hoppe thinks Hoppe's proposed treatment of homosexuals (the diddy about "physically removing" the gays from society) is a violation of libertarianism.

I believe you know that both of those statements are true, but if not, you can easily confirm that with a little Googling. Since you've accused me of libel, you should at least take some time to back it up. If you don't understand the above reasoning, then please talk to someone who has some background in formal logic. She or he will tell you that if the two claims referenced above are true (and, as you know, they are), my "libelous" statement, as a matter of logical necessity, has to be true. Also note that WP:SYN (which I do not, incidentally, believe my "libelous" edits entailed) is not the same as libel. Steeletrap (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Just looked up Libel and it lead to Defamation. Better word to use because it carries the correct emotional connotation. Obviously there are degrees... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol, please explain where my argument demonstrating that I did not commit libel is wrong, rather than continuing to repeat your false accusation without giving a reason. If you don't see how the two premises necessarily lead to my conclusion, contact someone with training in logic (e.g., someone with a philosophy degree) and she or he will tell you. Steeletrap (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI reads: Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest.

Those who throw around their alleged expertise/professionalism/etc outside Misplaced Pages to try to put in material that is against policy, and additionally bullies and belittles other editors who defend policy, already are getting into conflict of interest territory. But then several of us already had several long discussions of your strong negative POV against certain academics and your possible COI with your thesis and advisor which are contained in this deletion diff. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not belittling anyone. I am assuming that you don't understand the argument, since it's (as a matter of logic) true and if you did understand it, you'd acknowledge that and withdraw your charge. It is not "PA" to cite one's training in logic, any more than it is PA to cite one's training in science. You have been documented making numerous PAs on WP and I am happy to compare my record in this regard with you. Finally, your remarks above betray yet another misunderstanding: I have not cited this expertise to argue for any content additions to WP, but merely to argue against your false claims of libel. Steeletrap (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum on the Hoppe page and I have answered your objections repeatedly. The material is not in there the way you wanted. I consider further discussion here to be harassment.CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You're Invited: Smithsonian Field Notes Edit-a-Thon, Friday June 21

The Field Book Project, a joint effort of the National Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian Institution Archives, invites you to an edit-a-thon on the scientific field diaries held at the Smithsonian on Friday, June 21, 10am-5pm. Activities include new editor orientation and a behind-the-scenes tour of the Smithsonian’s Russell E. Train Africana Collection. Participants will also be invited to preview and test transcribe field book materials using the Smithsonian’s new digital Transcription Center. Coffee and lunch generously provided courtesy of Wikimedia DC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaleffie (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)