User talk:Steeletrap

Tu ne cede malis

		The Austria Barnstar of National Merit
		Presented to User Steeletrap. For tireless editing to improve difficult articles on WP SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. You really helped me get on the right track after losing my temper earlier today. (Hope you don't mind I corrected the spelling of my name to Steeletrap. Steeletrap (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving Hoppe

Hello Steeletrap. I am no longer contributing on Hoppe, because the harassment and personal attacks have made it too wasteful of my limited attention and intelligence. I just could not participate there in the current environment on edits and talk. Having worked a bit on Hoppe, however, I hope that editors will now muster the effort needed to undo the damage caused by the unfounded attacks on your edits in the recent past. This will require some real concentration to restore the best of the deleted content. I do hope that you are able to relax after having devoted so much energy to your defense. Good luck, and please do consider finding a way to add an email contact to your WP account. All best wishes. SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC) |

I fully understand your desire to avoid harassment, SPECIFICO. (Though I do hope you join me in celebrating the embarrassing defeat of the false allegations against us.) Regarding Doc. Hoppe's page I myself am less optimistic than you; I do not believe our improvements to the page will make a difference. That's because I believe the "movement" will revert all of the RS content we added and replace it with citations fron "Mises Academy", "Mises.org", "LewRockwell.com", "Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics", "Journal of Libertarian Studies", and other proxy publications run by Hoppe's co-workers at the Mises Institute. I expect that the descriptively accurate WP:Con sub-title invoking Hoppe's opinions on homosexuality will be eventually replaced by the descriptively inaccurate, non-NPOV "Academic freedom controversy" title.

While I emphatically reject the principles of libertarianism, this ideology undeniably has serious scholars associated with it, as does the "Austrian" School of Economics; however, the "movement"/"Pure Rothbardian Anarchism"/"Ron Paul for President" strain is (as my research indicates) viewed as disreputable even by mainstream libertarians, such as Tom G. Palmer, whose critical remarks of Mises Institute scholars are systematically cleansed from the pages of their scholars. Operating from a non-empirical, "rationalistic" "economics" framework and invoking (and distorting) dubious philosophical concepts like natural law in defense of their moral absolutism, "movement" libertarianism is little more than a dogmatic cult. "Movement" supporters in this regard are akin to Scientologists, insofar as they not only personally lack evidence for their beliefs, but are incapable of examining data which differ from their ideology and integrating it into their worldview. Their edits to "movement"-related Wikipedia entries should be viewed the same as Scientologists' edits to pages like L. Ron Hubbard and Lord Xenu.

Therefore, attempts to improve the pages of "movement" "scholars" such as those affiliated with the Mises Institute are likely to be met by irrational hostility and attempts to shoot the messenger. I am unfortunately resigned to the fact that the Hoppe page will soon be "restored" to indicate he has never said anything bigoted about homosexuals, that the UNLV controversy primarily related to whether professors ought to have academic freedom, and so forth. Steeletrap (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

At least the Scientologists make some great movies. Did you see Pulp Fiction? I don't think the Miseans can dance. Unless you count the Bunny Hoppe. You might consider linking the ANI to the talk page so that new editors can refer to the discussion on BLP policy and not feel intimidated if they are again attacked for violating misrepresnted and nonexistent "policy." SPECIFICO talk 13:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

On the issue of musical ability, Hoppe's intellectual admirers have adapted a Snoop Dogg rap to honor Argumentation Ethics, the "high IQ" society, and other Hoppe contributions. (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-33cuur-hTc). Is that notable Mises scholar Stephan Kinsella rapping verse two? Steeletrap (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

On the issue of posting/discussing the BLP results on the talk page to contextualize Carol's dozens of false accusation on that page, I did this and was -- to my great distress -- falsely accused of a personal attack by another user. Said user then proceeded to "hat" my remarks on the talk page. None of this makes any sense whatsoever, since there was no PA and the BLP issue is clearly of substantive importance to understanding the context from which Wikipedia's "encyclopedic" entry on Hoppe sprang. (The full post for which I was condemned was: "Throughout this page,user:Carolmooredc has repeatedly alleged that my proposed talk page remarks/edits to the Hoppe page "violate BLP" by virtue of being libelous, defamatory, OR etc. Her charged and damaging accusations have been rejected at an ANI she filed, where, in a remarkably quick fashion (half a day) and with the approval of literally all editors who read both her allegations and my responses, no BLP violation was found (See:the ANI here)." Steeletrap (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Further to our discussion of ways to flesh out the article, I the youtube link would be an excellent addition, in a “reception” or “public reaction” section similar to other biographies of important figures:

[1] [2] [3] [4] Who says academics can’t also be fun? SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a slight reminder not to raise the temperature....

I will just leave you with a link to this, and it is about your templated warning on User talk:Srich32977. Imho, and I watched the Hoppe article and all the resulting kerfuffle from afar, it did accomplish nothing except raise the temperature by another degree. There is no need to take the discussion to the individual users talk-pages when you have an article talk-page to use. Take care, and keep up the good work, but please assume good faith and even the assumption of good faith. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Lecontar, you should know that the template-posting was in response to a previous (spurious) template-posting by user Srich, in which he accused me of making a personal attack for claiming another person's claims were false. You are right that I should take a breather. Steeletrap (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As unbelievable as it might seem to you, I noticed that, but we do not live by an eye-for-an eye here...... but I also noticed the rising tension allover, and users being on the edge. Every template, every sniping at each other, every post to the involved users talk-pages and vice versa....does not make thinks better. What I wrote above was not a warning, just as I said: a little reminder. And perhaps you also noticed that I reminded both Srich and SPECIFICO to let go a bit, some days ago, on Srichs talk-page. Take care. Lectonar (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

de Soto AfD comment

I rolled back the comment mainly because you removed a colon from Sageo's signature. I'm sure it was inadvertent, but it created a redlink. You can certainly re-post your remarks, but I suggest you revise them. Consider, did the other editor intend to imply bad faith? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the other editor didn't intend it, but that was the effect. It would be bigoted to regard everyone as non-notable who has had an article published by LvMI; this is what she or she accused me of. Steeletrap (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was unclear. You said "imputes bad faith" and I said "imply". The differences are subtle, but I think my concern applies in either case. That is: "Did Amanski intend to impute bad faith?" Or "Did Amanski intend to imply bad faith?" Either way, I think an objective standard should apply. That is, if Amanski said "The only reason Steele wants to delete the article is because Steele is prejudiced against all Mises Inst. authors and ... blah, blah, blah" we could say, fairly objectively, that Amanski is intentionally commenting on your supposed bad faith. But that is not the case. You had said Mises Inst. is "ideologically driven", and you are the OP. Amanski was fairly commenting on your rationale for the AfD. Compare, suppose Amanski had said "The fact that his writings appear in ideologically driven publications is not a sufficient reason to ... delete." If another editor does not intend to imply or impute bad faith, then we assume good faith and let it go. We don't let our reactions and feelings about these matters determine if bad faith by another editor is at play. – S. Rich (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Rich, my comments do not entail bad faith, or the claim that Amanski intended to impute bad faith. An observation that a comment may be read as failing to AGF does not itself equate to an accusation of bad faith (or bad intentions). I don't know where you're getting this notion from. Steeletrap (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You had said "This comment imputes bad faith onto me, and I ask that it be crossed." And it followed Amanski's comment which included your name. It seemed that you were concerned about Amanski had said. Besides, who else but Amanski would be the proper person to strike out/cross the comment? – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It clearly related to Amanski. It was addressed to him (duh). I just don't know where you're getting these notions of intention from. People can say things that come across as imputing bad faith without intending to do so. His remarks were inappropriate, but I do not make any statement about his intentions. Steeletrap (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Do I read this correctly? Amanski was commenting on the merits of the AfD and you were commenting about Amanski? The best place to address concern's about Amanski is on the Amanski talk page. Comments about contributors themselves, in AfD or article talk pages, tend to distract from the main topic. – S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Academic controversy compromise proposal

I think your earlier proposal "Academic freedom controversy over views on gays" was closer to the mark. I'd prefer "Academic freedom controversy over remarks about gays". That would leave the door open for a section about his views on gays. In any event, the best place to post any proposed compromise is at the RfC, not inside a hatted section. – S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rich. The "hatted section" edit was an error on my part. "Gays" is better than "homosexuals" if used in a clear context because it's more succinct, and the section title is going to be a nightmare as regards concision in any case. Hoppe seems to endorse the views he stated in class, per his article about the thought police, so I prefer the first definition. Steeletrap (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I do see continuing comments in the RfC. I posted here because comments inside a hatted area are not visible. Also, sometimes discussions are labeled as "closed" in which case additions are improper. 17:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Say, on your posting ""Academic freedom debate over views on gays", .... Steeletrap (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)". Would you kindly put the proposed title in italics rather than bold. We generally use bold to indicate new comments at the beginning of remarks, but using bold for the proposed title looks like WP:SHOUTING. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Just changed it. Steeletrap (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was tempted to do so myself, but didn't want to rub you the wrong way. – S. Rich (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been herding cats and have managed to steer one your way

Srich32977 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Interaction

I am advising 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) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't view this as necessary if we can be more civil to each other. I certainly have a lot of improvement to make in this regard and plan on trying harder. Certainly it could be proposed if attempts to be civility fail, but I think it should be avoided if possible, since there tends to be overlap in the articles we edit. Steeletrap (talk) 14:32, 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) 03:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like the lamest four-way ever. You and SPECIFICO have been instrumental to my development as an editor; why would I want to cut myself off from you? Steeletrap (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

With your TG userbox (), I don't quite know how to respond WRT a 4-way! But I am quite liberal, so I do appreciate your response (). Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Steeletrap. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Your signature template -- possible error

On your "request for closures" posting, your signature had "Usertalk:Steelerap" which created a redlink. I believe you recently changed your preferences page, causing the non-link on the signature. I corrected the usertalk link on your posting, but I suggest you take a look at your signature preferences for copyediting errors. – S. Rich (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That's odd. Thank you for correcting, Rich. I will take a look at the reference pages to see what my mistake was. Steeletrap (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff where the error popped up: [5]. Looking at it more closely, I suspect the error occurred as you were editing the earlier remark. That is, it is not a preferences page change. – S. Rich (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinks within quotations

FYI, take a look at MOS:QUOTE. Links within quotes are strongly discouraged. I read this as pertaining to both block quotes & in-line quotes. (BTW, I've thanked you on occasional edits. When I do so, it for the particular edit I read, and I want to encourage more of the same.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this notice; I was not aware of this policy and your telling me about it will enhance my future edits. Steeletrap (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ad

For more info on the banner that I added to your userpage, see WP:BANNER. The page has a box with all sorts of ads. To remove the ad I added, just revert my change. (I will certainly understand.) If you like it, and need help in adding more please let me know. – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murray Rothbard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Left & Right (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

In further recognition of your service

This service award is presented in further recognition of your contributions to Wikipedia. – S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

gun control DR

There is a DR of which I have included you as a participant. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC) As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Quotations

When you use quotation marks and a cited source, the actual quoted words must be in the text you cite. You cannot take your paraphrasing and add quote marks. For more guidance see WP:QUOTE. – S. Rich (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I take this message to be very condescending and insulting; obviously I know quotation marks have to refer to a quote. While many of your tags are flagrantly erroneous, it is possible that certain quotes had their sources removed, either because of my carelessness or in the process of the numerous reversions that others have attempted of this article. Please show me which quotes lack citations and I will fix it. Steeletrap (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: I found the error: the link I used referred to the book, whereas the quotes were from the book summary. The proper link has been restored, and your tags consequently removed. I regret my mistake. I hope you reject your insulting insinuation that (unlike most American third graders) I don't understand the purpose of quotation marks. Steeletrap (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link to the book jacket. Regarding the Reason quotes, the words posted – "a Bible-based social, political and religious order which ... denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God" – are not in Olson's text. Please fix. – S. Rich (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. The full quote used in the Olson piece is " "So let us be blunt about it," says Gary North. "We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." (see: http://web.archive.org/web/20100129052939/http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning/1) Did you not read page 2?

You have to subscribe to Reason to read the Olson article in the cited link, but an archived version of the cited link is available (which you don't need a subscription to acess) has the whole piece, including the above-mentioned quote. Please strike your comments and revert your tags. Thanks. Steeletrap (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up on page 2. I missed it. (Hence, the failed verify tag has had a positive effect.) I have taken the quote and put it into a separate subsection. It does not have anything to do with stoning anyone. But now we face the problems of properly paraphrasing it, putting it into context, shortening it, balance, undue (etc). – S. Rich (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Murray Rothbard may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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) 05:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

North RFC

As you have posted your comment in the survey section of the RfC, would you please remove your comments about appropriateness in the threaded discussion section. (The comment about the needed correction is just fine.) In effect you are taking two bites at the apple. If you would, we can also encourage MilesMoney to move the post there as well. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In the guidance for responding to RfC, it says "Some RfCs are structured as a series of distinct responses, one per editor." See: WP:RFC#Suggestions for responding In setting up the RfC, I had hoped the responses would follow that format. But you've now added a third response. Please remove the "Survey type" responses from the threaded discussion, and revise your survey response to cover all arguments you deem appropriate. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk)

Please move your comment about CarolMooreDC's input into the threaded discussion. If it is PA, you can also post to her talk page. I ask that you move the comment, and consolidate your 3 bites at the apple in order to keep the Survey comments and threaded comments as clean as possible. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I won't move it because the fact that her "argument" is basically an ad hominem attack is relevant to it(just as a basic logical flaw in a "keep" or "delete" argument could be responded to). Steeletrap (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The guidance for the RfC layout is clear. One distinct response per editor. Whether or not it is admoninem doesn't matter -- the proper place to say so is in the threaded discussion. You can post it with a bullet to off-set it from the others. Please do so as this is an issue of orderly discussion management. You've said editors should ignore her comment because it violates the rules. Would you like someone to say that your comments should be ignored because you are violating the rules? Again, please. I am not asking that will detract from your points, or be a big burden. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Rich, I am concerned that you jump to policy citations and admonitions without first verifying that your understanding of policy is accurate. In this case, you misunderstand RfC rules. One is limited to one statemen directly and distinctly addressing and endorsing a position on the matter at hand (e.g. an "approve" or "disapprove" message). But one is not limited in the number responses one may make to other people's remarks; I suggest you reference other RfCs to help understand the difference. Steeletrap (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I set up the RfC, and I am not making comments (for now) pertaining to the argument. If you had set up the RfC as a series of indented comments, which is an alternative method, I would certainly respect that layout. You have posted your views on the original question 4 times now. You are not helping yourself (or Wikipedia) with these repeated arguments. – S. Rich (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to RfC policy. You do not have the ability or authority to ban replies to "distinct statements" retroactively. Steeletrap (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich on what authority do you make disparaging statements such as the preceding one about editor Steeletrap? You are among peers here. Your tone is unduly adverserial, judgmental, and authoriarian. Please focus on content. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It's very difficult to take a statement like "You're not helping yourself" seriously in any respect other than as an attempt to demean. First, such a statement is inherently speculative. Second, there are no RfC policy grounds on which to criticize me for my reply to Carol's personal attack. Steeletrap (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

My comments have been polite requests. I quoted from the RFC guidance. I pointed out how multiple bites at the apple were being taken and how other editors might view them. I am not banning anybody from doing anything in the RfC. I am sorry that you feel that quoting from RfC guidance is adverserial, judgmental, or authoritarian. I am not happy with CarolMooreDC's comment, but that is an NPA issue, not one of discussion management. (If it were outright PA, I may have removed it IAW WP:TPNO and WP:TPO. But the comment did not go that far. In any event, the RFC will run its course and consensus will reign supreme. – S. Rich (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, please note the guidance in WP:RFC#Example: "Feel free to ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section. This will make the RfC easier to read for the editor who closes it, which is especially important for RfCs that attract a lot of responses." Again, I ask that you not add threaded replies. Please combine your survey response into one paragraph and please move your comment about CarolMooreDC into the threaded comments. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I am encouraged that you are shifting from misquoting policy to accurately referencing it. However, language like "feel free to ask" (as opposed to a definite declarative statement) implies that both making the request, and complying by it, are not obligatory; I typically would agree with such a request for purposes of concision and navigability, but pointing out that an "argument" is basically an ad hominem attack trumps that concern in this case. Steeletrap (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not misquoted any policy. Please show me such misquotes. Rather, I asked you -- with sincere pleases and thank yous -- to move your comments. These requests were done before the CarolMooreDC posted her comment. In any event, this is not an issue of CMDC's comment "trumping" anything because you are free to opine on NPA -- in the threaded discussion or elsewhere. I am simply asking that you move the comments into the appropriate sections. – S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, because I believe that you act with good intention, I will reaffirm that you have mis-cited policy on numerous occasions over the past many weeks and such references have repeatedly been indicated to you on several talk pages. It might be worth the effort if you care to review your participation on these difficult articles over the past 4-8 weeks. SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Steele, I think you'd agree that the RfC got a lot of people interested in the article. And I hope you agree that it's been improved. With this in mind, I think we have only two "primary source" problems remaining. (They are tagged in-line.) If we can get secondary sources for those two items, I will be happy. In the alternative, could we remove the two items pending discovery of secondary support? Once either course of action (secondary support or removal) is accomplished, I will be happy to close the RfC and the earlier discussion as resolved. (RfCs may be closed by originators when there is a quick resolution.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

An RfC may be closed if there is a resolution, not an accession to the view of OP. Your views have not been sustained by the RfC, so whatever your intention may be, this proposal appears to be an attempt to circumvent consensus process. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Steele, you've now had input from User:Collect, an editor with 10 years of experience and 29,000 edits. (Also, please look at the Barnstars that Collect has collected.) And you have the remarks from User:StAnselm, an editor with 6 years of experience and 84,000 edits. (And a few Barnstars as well.) They are giving you their explicit opinions about what the policy and guidance is -- that the Primary source usage we see is inappropriate. I started the whole thing in an effort to remove those Primary sourced items -- the ones lacking any secondary support. As said above, they are down to two. Will you (and Specifico) please agree to remove the bare primary source material from North article? If you would, the RfC and preceeding discussion can be closed. (Before ending the RfC I would post a comment asking if others have any thing else to add.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Why should we be basing our judgment on logical fallacies (see Appeal to Authority) as opposed to the arguments made? (or in collect's case, her or his failure to make an argument) And for the record, experienced editors Stalwart and EllenCT disagree with you. Steeletrap (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I am quite aware of fallacious argumentation -- some years of professional training and experience have honed my skills in this regard. The appeal to authority argument is quite correct, but when weighing the validity of the authority, I will select StAnselm (85k edits) over MilesMoney (169 edits) any day. I brought up the authority of these experienced editors, who have not had much (or any) involvement in the editing history because you seemed to be ignoring the exhortations to follow policy and guidance. Even if consensus seems to go one way, policy must (and hopefully will) prevail. – S. Rich (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you are compiling a record here of repeated exhortations to circumvent the RfC consensus process. Cherry-picking views after the fact is one step sillier than canvassing. Just let the RfC run its course. Your views have not been supported. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, Srich: Your current campaign to shut down the RfC is conspicuous in its contrast with, for example, your H. H. H. Hoppe RfC wherein the result was clear within hours of posting but the thing stayed open for roughly a month. Ditto your Rothbard RfC. What reason is there to shut down WP process here? SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It is quite interesting, Specifico, that you should object to my efforts to resolve and close the RfC. At the outset you said it was "pointless" and "should be withdrawn". In response to your criticisms, I asked for suggestions on how to improve the RfC, but you had none to offer. I make suggestions to Steele that might resolve the RfC and you say I am on a "campaign" to shut it down. Steele, you provided information about my miscounting of the various tags, and I made corrections. But do you really endorse these comments from SPECIFICO? Back to the "campaign" – if CarolMooreDC had asked for ANRFC, any of us could have commented to the administrator who might act on the request. But she did not. Steele, you have rejected my attempts to resolve the Primary source problem, but that is another issue. So the use of Primary sources is, indirectly, on the BLPNB. I look forward to reading your comments. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Inuse tag

Just a reminder, when the {{Inuse}} tag is up, please refrain from editing. I had posted it. The changes made did not result in a edit conflict in this case, but I posted it with the hopes of avoiding a problem. Feel free to post the template yourself. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Steele, I woke up this morning with a thought about the inuse tag. I've just now done an experiment with the tag. I see that when it is posted at the top of the article, it does not show up when if someone opens a section for editing. This is simply a limitation on the template's utility. So I'm sure your edits with the tag in place were purely unintentional. So I think I'll ask the template gurus if they can modify the behavior of the tag. Thanks for understanding. – S. Rich (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC) In followup, I asked for a modification of the template. I'm told that MediaWiki can't be changed to institute the feature I'd suggested. 17:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your ping

I got your ping. In turn, you are most welcome. Shalom. – S. Rich (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course I thanked you. You specifically quoted BLP policy showing it was a violation for me to add a self-published blog (even of an RS scholar) to illustrate North's views. I learned something and the encyclopedic integrity of North's entry improved. Steeletrap (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

List of capital offenses

I appreciate this effort at article improvement. [6] While it is NPOV, it lacks context. "List of" articles and sections work when we have bibliographies or articles like List of people from Palm Springs, California. Rather, we need something that attracts the reader to the prose in the sub-section. (Naturally I prefer my version.) Can we come up with an alternative? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern regarding the term "list", which (as you note) tends to carry a connotation that is not appropriate in this section. My concern with your proposed section is that it's too broad. The section is really about the sort of offenses (or "offenders") North believes merit the death penalty (this is what the RS are criticizing him for). Steeletrap (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I reverted the change w/ an edit summary that explained my concern. And opened a thread in talk. St.A has chipped in and says he doesn't think drug smuggling is a biblical capital offense. I'd say we are still looking for an appropriate section title. Perhaps if we can elucidate more in the section text. Also, the second remark about capital punishment for children is a bit redundant given the mention of capital punishment for children who sass their parents. – S. Rich (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, just to be clear, I don't think North thinks it's a biblical capital offense. But there doesn't seem a whole to be a lot of disagreement about what are the biblical capital offenses (again, I am not at all sure North includes abortion); though I think there might be a fairly recent debate on whether homosexuality is to be included. For most Christians, the response is a fairly simple "none of that applies any more," with the possible exception of murder being a capital crime - but that can be justified as an exception, since it predates the Law of Moses. StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you object to my prior heading, we are going to have to find one that accurately describes the relevant text. The text relates to North's support for stoning to death certain groups of people; i.e., it relates to his unique conception of what constitutes a capital offense. Steeletrap (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We are getting close. "Offenses for which execution appropriate [sic]" is pretty good. How about "Sins for which capital punishment is appropriate" ? Reason -- do we have anything (secondary source wise) where North says a mandate exists? Shallom. – S. Rich (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sins smacks of OR (though the inference is entirely reasonable, do we have RS saying North says these are all "sins") and also seems to me to be a loaded word whose use implies some sort of disapproval of the "sin(s)" being discussed. Steeletrap (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I agree with your view that "mandate" is inappropriate. There is a distinction between favoring and or mandating something. Steeletrap (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's cogitate on this for awhile. This will allow others to chime in on the talk page. Thanks for your comment about mandate. Sins vs. crimes vs. offenses vs. ? My head is spinning! What are the rules about cocktail parties -- never discuss sex, religion or politics (something like that). Well, with North we have all 3 combined into one! So I think I'll get back to the things that are more familiar to me -- sex, drugs, and rock & roll. E.g., I'm off to look at some other topics for a while. I've enjoyed this bit of discussion with you Steele, and I look forward to more. But right now it's good night. – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

---

I applaud your opening a new discussion thread on the theocracy question. Good point in saying North does not necessarily believe in stoning in current society. (Indeed, it is an absurd endorsement. I recall a short story on the topic from my Jr. high school days.) As this/his stuff is or may be about his views of the hypothetical new society, we do need secondary sources to flesh out the section. Again, starting up a NPOV discussion is appreciated! – S. Rich (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't respond to the recent CMDC remark on the GN talkpage. (Of course you are free to do so, but I hope you won't.) I've responded and I hope my remark covers the issue. Let's work on the section that concerns us, not the number of particular edits. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Good response. No harm, no foul. (I should've been less eloquent in my remarks above. It coulda been posted sooner. But, again, I like your response. – S. Rich (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Section heading on Rothbard talk page

This message is regarding the section heading here: [7]. WP:TPO says: "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc." With this guidance in mind, I ask that you change the section heading to something like "Regarding two 'Austrian economist' sources'. Just the heading please. Say what you'd like regarding the cronies in your comment only. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

While I almost ping'd a thank you, I thought I'd comment. The "personal connection" might have existed, but 2 of the 3 are dead so it doesn't matter. Still, it implies more than just an academic connection with MR. After all, the 2 guys have/had distinguished chairs (something like that) at their universities. I won't change the heading, I thank you for the change (so far), and I hope you will remove the last, unneeded phrase. (And how did I close an earlier comment? Oh, yes – Salome.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Block letters & balance

Thanks for the clarification. And for Block's response posted in LR.com. As we do have his response, the criticism section should mention the pertinent portions of Block's response. – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree (the reason I didn't mention it was because three text originally came from a source which didn't note Block's response). Have at it, if you like; if not I'll be sure to note it later tonight. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Science

Steele, I see you mention that economics is science/scientific. This has stimulated me to look at the articles on science subjects in general. In particular, I've viewed Science, Scientific method, Models of scientific inquiry, Philosophy of science (but see Philosophy and economics), Scientific theory, and others. I see that economics is not mentioned in these articles. Even so, once we get to Social science, we see economics discussed. (Interestingly, Law is listed as one of the topics in {{Science}}. I've never considered law as a scientific subject.) The Outline of economics itself does not give much guidance, except to list economics as a social science. But it does have Experimental economics listed (which I want to look at some more). And it seems that experimental economics validates the idea that economics is or can be an Experimental science. Well, you cited the piece by Hoppe where he uses the term "a priori science" to describe Misean thought. Well, if the Miseans all think using a priori methods, where does scientific method come in? Arent they admitting that science (as described in the articles above) is not part of their regime? And are they dressing up their ideas about economics with scientific or pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo? The answers are: scientific method admittedly is not part of their thinking and they are not dressing up their ideas with mumbo-jumbo. Are their thoughts, knowledge, views, justifications, etc. invalid? I don't know. But I understand that scientists think Dark matter exists even though they have no direct evidence for it. At this stage they can only infer its existence. What do you say? Your thoughts on this (e.g., on the admittedly non-scientific nature of Misean thought) will be appreciated. Cheers. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The dark matter analogy is spurious, Rich; dark matter is inferred from empirical observation even if it can't be directly captured from it. It is necessary to invoke dark matter to make the empirical observations we do see "work" logically. (long before the invention of telescopes et al, the existence of atoms was similarly inferred by thinkers such as Epicurus and Democritus; they drew this inference a scientific combination of logical reasoning and empirical methods, even if atoms couldn't literally be seen.). The Mises view is that empiricism/observation/attempts to test and verify hypotheses play no role in the "science" of human action. That's unscientific by definition. (and is to be sharply contrasted with the flavor of Austrianism favored by F.A. Hayek, in which logical reasoning plays a much greater role than in other economic systems but empiricism is used to verify and falsify supposedly logically deduced truths.)

In addition to my above reasoning, we also have the direct evidence of Misesians such as Hoppe stating plainly that the misesian view is regarded as "dogmatic" and "unscientific" by mainstream thinkers.

I hope this discussion sheds some light on where I'm coming from, even if we disagree. To be clear, this has nothing to do with ideology. Though I have deep disdain for the libertarian ideology of the Chicago School, you don't see me calling them pseudo-scientific, or fringe, or anything than scholars of the first order. Steeletrap (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly admitted that the existence of dark matter was inferred from other empirical evidence. (And I do not rest my case on the analogy.) Dark matter is an a posteriori hypothesis (if I understand correctly). Okay, the hypothesis may end up explaining much of what we do not understand at present. But we do no dismiss the idea as pseudoscience. Along the same lines, where is the direct evidence or empirical evidence for mathematics? By definition, there is none. Do we dismiss mathematics because of this? Indeed, not! Compare, the people touting various pseudo-science theories (and products) are dressing up their nonsense with scientific sounding terminology, etc. I do not think the Miseans are doing anything of the kind. They are gadflies who say "what you are expounding doesn't make sense because....". If the empirical economists had a great case or great evidence supporting their theories, those theories would stand on their own two feet! Here is another idea for your consideration – as I understand, logical reasoning can be carried out in the absence of evidence. For example, people carry out Thought experiments all of the time. Are these experiments empirical? Are these experiments unscientific? Are they pseudo-science? – S. Rich (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Mathematics isn't an empirical science. Nor is logic. They are the basic foundations of reality, from which all science flows. (Empiricism rests upon basic logical and mathematical axioms, such as A=A and 1+1=2) It is logically impossible to have a world where 2 is less than 1 or A does not equal A. It is logically possible to have a world where economic "laws" do not apply in the same way.

And of course thought experiments are not scientific. Philosophy is not a science; in my view, it is an attempt to make explicit the logical (and "metaphysical" or extra-empirical) principles of the universe; these principles form the framework within which the empirical sciences take place. Among them are the principle of induction, the principle of casuality and its complement of determinism, and the basic axioms of logic; the law of diminishing returns does not make the cut.) Steeletrap (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@srich -- <<dressing up their nonsense with scientific sounding terminology>> -- malinvestment Q.E.D. SPECIFICO talk 12:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Steele, please note that I opened this discussion with you before you tagged Murray with fringe. (And I'm glad to see that you've dropped the fringe topic (for now).) But let me respond further. In general we see lots of thinking, scholarship, musing, ruminating, cogitating, and writing about various topics. Some of it is empirical, inductive, scientific, non-scientific. And WP, seeking to be an encyclopedia, has lots of articles that discuss unusual, minority, heterodoxy, and fringe (small f ) topics. But in each article or topic about an off-the-wall subject (e.g., pseudoscience or otherwise) WP needs RS that says "this stuff about a supposed-scientific topic is pseudoscience". Before we go and label stuff as FRINGE (all CAPS, indicating WP editing terminology) we need RS that backs-up the claim. Consider, there is the Law of supply and demand and the Law of three stages – are they similar to the Law of Gravity or Kepler's laws of planetary motion? No. Each simply uses the word "law". Do we go and tag these articles as FRINGE? (No – because there is no RS that supports such tagging.) Now if I was writing stuff about how Kepler's laws has verified my scientific prediction that the upcoming planetary alignment is going to cause an intense rise in the number, severity, and duration of migraine headaches (and therefore you should buy my "Syzygy Shield" for only $19.95 via Paypal), I'd be engaging in pseudoscience (and hucksterism). I'd expect a Reliable Source to come in and say "Rich's Syzygy Shield is phony!" At that point it would be proper to tag my Syzygy Shield article with FRINGE. In our cases, that is, with the Misesans and LvMI, we need RS that says "fringe" – in the Wikipedian usage of the term – before it is proper use FRINGE for tagging articles or in edit summaries. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Rich, I think the general discussion (which I instigated in another forum) is misguided, per policy. According to WP:Fringe, the relevant criterion is what mainstream sources think. Fringe theory is defined not as false or erroneous theory, but rather theory which "depart[s] significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." The relevant question is whether Misesian theory fits the bill. (or more precisely, if there is convincing evidence from multiple RS that they fit the bill.) I plan to do more research in this regard in the coming days.

In evaluating whether content is fringe or not, Wikipedia is basically telling us to appeal to authorities, as opposed to evaluating methodologies of particular theories (which I did above). While far from infallible as an approach, the Wikipedia policy is in my view undoubtedly better (i.e. it has a better probability of yielding articles with accurate content) than encouraging editors to determine for themselves what is true/false, scientific/pseudoscientific, etc. Steeletrap (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Steele, I forgot something important. You have a "deep distain" for the Chicago School. I have a deep distain for Nidal Malik Hasan. (He violated his oath of commissioning to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and murdered the very people that he, as a physician, was supposed to care for and treat – his fellow soldiers.) I've done some ce on Hasan's article recently because his court-martial began yesterday. And I'd like to see the article on him reach GA status (like that of Bradley Manning). As I have done on Hasan (however minor), can you do the same for the Chicago folks? IOW, I challenge you to an Ideological Turing Test. Give me an article to improve, a la Turing, and I will do the same for you. If you take up this challenge, I hope you will start with Chicago School because I see some minor stuff in that needs fixing. And, Steele, whether you take up the challenge (or Turing Test) I always wish you the best. – S. Rich (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Steele, I see your note [8] about posting something on the FTN. Frankly, like many noticeboard discussions, I don't think it will go too far. You'd be far better off at having a stab at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. Why better? Several reasons: 1. As I mentioned before, the FTN has but one or two threads on Rothbard & the Misesans. If they have not been brought up as FRINGE in the past, I'd think there is not much support for labeling them as FRINGE. 2. Whatever discussion gets worked up on FTN is likely to result in more drama, WP:TLDR, and archiving – nothing more. I'd be shocked if any policy change, much less enduring article editing changes, came about. 3. In terms of Wikipedian contributions, this list article will always be available as a general subject/article for the world to read. If you get some paragraphs or sentences devoted to the Misesans (or other fringe economists), you can then create redirects to your particular contributions. (And even better, you might have enough to create an article similar to Pseudohistory.) Also consider that your edits to this article, supported by the RS you provide, will undergo examination by editors who are interested in creating an expansive and comprehensive listing of pseudoscience topics. (Compared with people who are focused on the walled garden.) It is far more exciting and satisfying to be building this encyclopedia as opposed to involvement in the continuous bickering that we see on the article talk pages, editor talk pages, and notice boards. The list article is now on my watchlist. I hope to see your contributions soon. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC) PS Be sure to look at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience before posting to the FTN or the article. – S. Rich (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WRT BLPN -- article edit counts

Not a big deal, but SPECIFICO has made 20 edits to Salerno. DickClarkMises made 55 edits. The last one by DickClark was 4 years ago. Also, I'm not clear on what insinuations you think I've made. My point is that too much of the thread has gone off on all kinds of messy side topics. Indeed, I'm commenting here so that another needless side-issue does not develop in the thread. Also note I tagged the post as "Request unclear" 23 hours after it was opened. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Srich. Why not pursue your helpful insight that the initial BLPN request was not well-formed? Others, perhaps noting your tag, asked OP on numerous occasions to refer to diffs, state the BLP issue, and pose a clear question which BLPN could help resolve. OP did not do so. Regardless of whether that was because OP is incapable, of doing so or unwilling to do so, it is clear that this lack of a proper BLPN query was the cause of the pointless, time-consuming, and garbled mess which ensued. Why not use your good will and acknowledged dedication to WP to persuade OP to either set the posting on course or drop it? There's a huge cost in editor time, attention, and good will when these mis-formed noticeboard discussions are splattered to and fro. Editors who take the bait and join in the off-topic nit-picking or worse, the personal comments, are only encouraging future editors to vent their frustrations with similar pointless postings. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article

Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

RSN comment

Would you please modify your remark on the RSN. The Bold "Correction" suggests that OP is making a correction, and it takes a bit of reading to see your signature to make sure OP did not sign it. I recommend a simple bullet at the beginning and change "correction" to "comment". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to "correction of OP." I don't think there is much of a concern in that regard, because my first sentence clearly indicates I am not OP. Steeletrap (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Not sure what you were doing here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Me either. Obviously, the mass content deletion was unintentional, and I apologize. I will be more careful in the future. Steeletrap (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Murray Rothbard 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) 20:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I fixed this in my subsequent edit, so all good now. --RL0919 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

editor to editor comments

Compare Scientology Cult (basically a blog) with the documentary film 'Inside the Scientology cult' and ABC News. (These are at the top of the Google results I got for 'inside the cult of scientology'.) If the discussion was about using the word "cult" to describe Scientology, then the ABC News piece works fine as RS. But the scientology-cult.com does not because it is a blog. Same editing decisions apply to LvMI and Callahan. Also, you've got to consider WP:BALANCE. Callahan says "cult". LvMI says "not cult!" Callahan (or another blogger) says "Are too!" LvMI says "Am not!" (and an enterprising editor finds a blog to support this assertion). The SPS policy wisely avoids such battles of the blogs by saying "Don't use!". – S. Rich (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

RSN notices

Hello. Please provide a notice to those individual editors whom you have mentioned on the RSN. Here is a template: {{notice}} {{notice|your text & [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Removal .2Fdistortion of RS-cited text at Murray Rothbard]]}}. While the "Notifications" feature of WP is helpful, we do not assume that editors have enabled it on their preferences. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: I have made a comment regarding your posting. Basically I say there is no beef about the reliability of either Callahan or Rothbard. While I did not say so, the dispute resolution board may be a better forum for you. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. If you didn't have a problem with the source, why did you delete and challenge its interpretation of Rothbard, as broadly (not just in the case of "euthanasia") supporting the parental right to let child starve? Steeletrap (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue was not the reliability of the source, but in how it was used. I've shelled out my 25 clams for the Callahan article, so I'll take a closer look on what he says. (Also, it seems that Callahan is keeping at least one foot inside the walled garden. At the end of "Liberty vs. Libertarianism: The Battle of Titans" (featured on WWE Raw), he says his Econ for Real People is published by LvMI.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This makes no sense whatsoever. The source is "used" to say what the source says. If it is a reliable source (with a reliable interpretation of MNR) then there is no problem. Steeletrap (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@Srich: It boggles the mind that you were contentiously asserting your objection without having examined the article. I hope this is not going to recur every time a reference is hard-copy or paid-copy only. Another aspect of the web search problem here. SPECIFICO talk 04:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Steele – Here is what the RSN page instruction say: "Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.... If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard." We all agree that Callahan is reliable, so the RSN is not the board to use. I recommend that you close the discussion, and, as Blink says, discuss the usage of Callahan's article (and the primary source) some more on the Rothbard talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, for Steele. I've seen your insert on the RSN. When you ask about "removal or distortion" of a source, you are asking about how it is being used, not about whether it is reliable or not. That sort of question (i.e., "how") is a OR/weight/NPOV issue. Please don't spin your wheels on this. The meat of the discussion should be on Rothbard's talk page. If we can't resolve it there, we go to Dispute Resolution or another noticeboard. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Pleeze, Steele, don't add unneeded commentary to your notifications as you did here: [9]. I apologize if my suggestion (above) was not clear to begin with – I simply wanted you to provide a basic notice as to the fact that a discussion had started and where it was. But adding "your ... distortion of" is not the way to make a notification or start a discussion. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Murray Rothbard. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please respect the request for a quotation of a difficult-to-obtain source. Binksternet (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Binkster is quite correct. These tags alert editors to come by and solve the particular issue. When we have an article with multiple pages, either the particular page or the supporting quotation serves to WP:V the information. When the tags are placed, they are automatically indexed into categories and lists that other editors (and/or bots) access so that they can come by to correct. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] I'm starting to think y'all are trolling, because I know neither of you is stupid enough to believe what you're saying. Publication of an assertion in a peer-reviewed, respected mainstream journal is sufficient for verification on Wikipedia (and a term paper, academic thesis, etc). Steeletrap (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, it's been repeatedly explained that the entire relevant porions of RS Callahan text and associated primary words of Rothbard were provided by Ms. Steeletrap in her first introduction of this content, repeated assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Please review the entire matter and associated threads. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Murray Rothbard, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Steele, the use of strikeout is proper on your own remarks, but not on those of others. Using strikeout implies that the editor has retracted the remark on their own. If you disagree with the remark, please add a comment under the particular remark. (I have not modified the attempted strikeout because you did not format it correctly and the "change" is not visible.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you jump the gun on asserting "policy"-based complaints while displaying little understanding of the relevant policy. The assertion she made about me was false; crossing is appropriate in these circumstances, and often done by members of our community. You can (and should have) verified that this is a matter of objective fact, not "opinion", by taking 7 seconds to click on her link to "my" diff. Steeletrap (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:TPO is clear. "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." – S. Rich (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Steeletrap that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. In this remark [10] you are implying editors are stupid and trolling. Not helpful, not appropriate. The posts by Binkster and myself are efforts to resolve editing issues, nothing more. – S. Rich (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Again we have an illustration of why logic matters, and basic understanding of logic is necessary for editors to collaborate effectively. You say I was calling you stupid; my stated basis for believing you were trolling was precisely the opposite: that I "know" you aren't stupid. .

As I have concluded that both you and Bink are trolling, I ask that both of you do not post to this page again. Steeletrap (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I'm going to put this right here on the scene rather than going to your talk page: You know very well that these repeated templates, for an issue which has previously been aired and to which Ms. Steeletrap has fully responded, are uncivil behavior on your part. Please desist. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

fellow traveler

Not involved in the actual issue/dispute, but noticed your comment to goethean. You may or may not be aware of (and may or may not have been intending to imply this meaning), but fellow traveler is a bit of a loaded term, and usually brings up communist sympathiser type allegories (at least in the States, I don't know where you or goethean are from). If you intended this, then by all means say what you feel, but if not you might want to tweak it, as I believe you are editing in an already politically charged topic, and adding fuel to the fire is never helpful :) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Gaijin. Thanks for the thoughtful note. I must say that I disagree that the term "fellow traveler" is offensive, particularly if used abstractly rather than directed at a particular user. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that, for several years, the Mises Institute-related articles were almost exclusively edited by fellow travelers. That's why the material was so gushingly (and misleadingly) positive. Steeletrap (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was offensive, just that it is loaded. Your usage makes total sense. I was just pointing out that it carries some hidden meanings, and if you didn't intend those hidden meanings it might derail your point. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you as always for your input. Hope editing has been going well for you! Steeletrap (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Steeletrap. You have new messages at Srich32977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RSN notice

– – S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, I am concerned about your WP:Competence. 1 revert over the course of several weeks does not constitute an edit war. In fact, it is you who are engaged in an edit war by your 3 reverts in 24 hours. I also ask you to please heed my request to stay off my talk page. Steeletrap (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Murphy blog as RS for article (BRD)

You might be interested in a discussion regarding the Murphy blog material on LvMI. I have opened a BRD here: Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#Murphy blog as RS for article .28BRD.29. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Steeletrap. You have new messages at Srich32977's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RSN on Callahan blog

Hello. You made some comments at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com. I have attempted to summarize the comments of various editors in a table. Please take a look and make any changes to the summary of your comments as you feel appropriate. I only ask that the summary be brief. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hillsdale College

Hello, I'm Srich32977. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Hillsdale College seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Steeletrap, the only way to quote the Huffington Post piece is via a full quote of the particular paragraph. The other edits are spinning it. We are here to give a non-POV rendition. If there is other RS that describes Arnn as a racist, then that RS should be presented. But portions of the H-Post article do not support this description of Arnn. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I genuinely don't understand what you're talking about. Can you give me the whole quote? Steeletrap (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The section has undergone several changes since I posted this message. One or more of the iterations has the whole quote, and Orlady has made needed modifications. So I think the issue is resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Needed modifications: The uninvolved editor restored the content to almost exactly the way it was before your edit-warring. The needed modification was, as you were previously told several times, to undo your change. You are needlessly building a file of tendentious, uncivil, and battleground behavior. Please consider taking some time off from these economics/libertarian related articles which frustrate you and come back prepared to respond voluntarily to the comments of other editors. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Post to Specifico's talk page

Thanks for your comment on SPECIFICO's talk page. Alas, the template message I posted did not set-off a new section for the remark. See: [11]. The message had nothing to do with competence. Rather, it involved the removal of SPS templates on the Ludwig von Mises Institute article. I should have set it off as a separate section. (And now, that I see it may be confused with the COMPETENCE remarks, I see the confusion.) If you would be so kind, please add a section heading. I am reluctant to clarify remark on SPECIFICOs talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)