This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you. Greyshark09 ( talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not create these templates, and do not know much about their use. Especially since it has been a long time since I edited in Arab-Israeli articles.
1RR edit notices normally show up when you click the edit button on a page in an area covered by 1RR arbitration rulings. See
Can you find an admin to add some categories to this edit notice?: Template:Editnotices/Page/Gaza War. Please see Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Gaza War. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
(unindent). I now see why you have your talk page semi-protected. I have had part of my talk page blanked by several anonymous IPs today. Also occurring with some of my comments, and yours, at Template talk:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement. I left a lot of warning messages from WP:WARNING on the anonymous IP talk pages. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI -- Nstrauss ( talk) 05:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Did you mean to undo J.delanoy's revert of Grawp? -- Bsa dow ski1 06:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Carol, can you please clarify your rev/del request at WP:ANEW? I'm afraid I couldn't figure out what talk page you meant.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Scope. I'm telling you this because you were involved at the related AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Good work, Carolmooredc: well done. Headhitter ( talk) 00:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I've received email that uses your name. If you didn't send it, I thought you might want to know. If you did send it, my talk page is the place for such comments. Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 13:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carol, we haven't met but we're both in WMDC. I just got a plaintive note on my talk page from Babel41 ... who I worked with a lot on the Mark Satin article. They erased the message, but you may want to read it anyway. Babel is really very sweet and quite easy to work with, and has amazing historical knowledge from the 60s and 70s that I'd love to see in more articles. I don't know anything about the dispute. - Dank ( push to talk) 11:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I made a Request for Comments in Minorities in Greece page and (after reading your user page) thought you may be interested. The issue is, I was trying to add information about problems of muslims living in Athens (some 300,000 people) since some time but my edits are being reverted by multiple users. The main argument against adding this information is that those people are not minorities but immigrants. Details of the discussion are here. If you would like to contribute with your comments, that would be very welcome. Filanca ( talk) 18:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, CM.
At the above the http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template_talk:Libertarianism_sidebar&diff=544135738&oldid=544102038 Edit has me removing your Edit & substituting my own line on a related topic. Such was not my intent. Indeed, when I started editing, CC's was the most recent Edit. If you wish to restore your Edit, please do. If you wish me to restore it, please let me know. Sorry about that. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 02:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I filed a request at the ANB, here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 02:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
i have started a discussion regarding your editing on the separation barrier article at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Soosim ( talk) 06:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
But you would rather edit war than add proper references. Soosim ( talk) 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User:Z554 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Z554. Thank you. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 15:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. In response to your question, yes, I did do a lot of editing on Wikipedia anonymously prior to recently getting an account. But don't worry; I have never been banned and was only trying to improve the article you mentioned. I got the account because I wanted to try creating articles. -- 1ST7 ( talk) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I want to add a map of Uhehe and surrounds to the Hehe people article. I have found one via Google Books, am I allowed to screen-shot it and use it in the article so long as I attribute to the book? I feel quite certain your answer will be in the negative, but perhaps there's some quirk I'm not aware of. Hence the question. As we English don't say, though actually we do sometimes mispronounce it: Au revoir!
♣ Herr LudicrousTripe ( talk) 17:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
You never did apologize for your mistake. One would be appreciated on my talk page. Thank you. Z554 ( talk) 00:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carolmooredc. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 23:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you an admin? Very sorry to hassle you, but I have an IP persistently trying to add highly dubious claims without so much as citing a source. I know the Mau Mau Uprising can be contentious, but that is no excuse for repeatedly trying to introduce unsourced material into the article. Are you able to add protection so IPs cannot edit the page? Sorry. LudicrousTripe ( talk) 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Carol, I've reactivated the long-standing merge proposal on 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, see discussion. Greyshark09 ( talk) 07:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. (Take a look at the citations. An error was produced.) – S. Rich ( talk) 17:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I have started the Stephen Halbrook article. Surprised there wasn't one already. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
These are serious accusations, and as such have been reported to the Administrators' noticeboard. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_CarlMooreDC_making_false_accusations_of_libel.2Fthreats_of_banning. Steeletrap ( talk) 22:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LewRockwell.com, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer ( 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) 11:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
We may not like or have high regard for each other, but the tone of your and my comments/edits needs to get better. We both need to focus on content rather than contributors (i.e. you should cease focusing on me and me on you). While you are welcome to voice complaints about my conduct to the right venues, I ask that in future edits and disputes related to content, you keep the personal stuff and loaded languageout of it, and I pledge to do the same. Failing to live up to this commitment is clearly at odds with WP guidelines and will undermine this community. I hope you agree with my view that we both need to make a change in this regard and join me in trying to make it happen. Steeletrap ( talk) 17:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This one relates to NPOV. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Concerns_on_WP:Undue_regarding_AIDS_Denial_and_LewRockwell.com. You are encouraged to comment but I ask that you please keep it content related, and recommend that you make your posts concise and limited so we don't flood out the main point of the discussion again. (I was a bad offender there with all the wordy posts!) Steeletrap ( talk) 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I fear our "olive branch" is off to a poor start. You have already falsely accused me of potentially "defamatory" violation of BLP for reporting Palmer's statement that North wants to stone gays to death. You fail to note that 1) Palmer specifically cites and mentions a non-personal source from Reason Magazine for this claim, which were in the article before they were "cleansed" a day or so back. 2)this claim has made been at a host of RS. For instance, at http://www.alternet.org/story/40318/public_stoning%3A_not_just_for_the_taliban_anymore, it is asserted that "North has called for the stoning of gays and nonbelievers (rocks are cheap and plentiful, he has observed). Both friends and foes label him "Scary Gary." Please read up on these facts (I'd encourage visisting the Good Doctor North's Wikipedia entry) and try not to jump to (false and insulting) conclusions in the future, much less publicly make them on my talk page. Steeletrap ( talk) 21:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I wish you had not made this change: [2]. One, you had endorsed my request for a lockdown on the article. (Having made the request, I'd think you'd voluntarily follow it.) Two, it does not cite the Orange County Register, but relies on LRC alone. This is not in keeping with my proposed compromise. I ask that you revert it. Let's get an agreement, then edit within the parameters of the agreement. If the agreement is not adopted, then add what you like. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 00:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
While you fixed the date range on Talk:Lew Rockwell, the bot has archived too much of the recent discussion. I'd go back and restore the pre-pre-archive rendition, but we have comments that were made inbetween the bot archiving. I'm not sure how to get them back onto the most recent and current page of active comments. (Those less than 25 days old.) Can you fix? Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
All straightened out; LRC which only has one archive got dup copies of Lew Rockwell which has 3 archives. Oi!
So I deleted the material and I'll do a speedy deletion once I figure out if it's an AfD or a MfD. I assume that an empty talk page archive will be used by the bot - or deleted. Do I assume wrong? CarolMooreDC🗽 23:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it just me, but given that it is undeniable that LRC does give voice to Gary North and Donald Miller as well as others pushing a variety of fringe and conspiracy theories (not just AIDS/HIV denial), my impression of your advocacy at that article is that it is of a piece with your other libertarian advocacy, particularly so since I see your book being used as an authority in many posts on the site. Mangoe ( talk) 01:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
Talk:LewRockwell.com that didn't seem very
civil, so it has been removed. 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. I have not removed "nitpicky" or the introductory phrase in the comment, but such impolite, pointed comments do not enhance the best of relations between editors. This is the edit:
[3]. –
S. Rich (
talk) 01:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Per
WP:TPO removal of that comment was inappropriate. I am not taking a stand either way on the dispute/controversy you are discussing, but it is quite a stretch to say that Carol's comment qualifies for any of the criteria for editing. The only two which could possibly be argued are below, and I think neither qualifies. She was making a valid argument, in a contentious tone. While everyone can work on civility, her comment certainly was not disruptive. I also note that SRich and carol appear to agree with each other in the actual debate, so I am a bit confused about the "fight" all together.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
If you think the comment was collapsed inappropriately, I think you can just un-collapse it yourself. If that develops into a controversy, then get an admin involved. However, don't do it just to be pedantic. If the comment was borderline and you don't honestly think you will get good discussion going from having it visible, then I think its better just to let it lie. Again, if this becomes an issue where you feel like you are being hounded or censored, then you can of course escalate that. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
WRT the LRC talk page remarks (which I have just hatted), you were quite right in saying you were annoyed about the changes, and SPECIFICO was incorrect about posting the off-topic and baseless admonition to you. But you should have known better than to respond on the talk page. His talk page would have been a better place. (I have made a comment there. Please do not add anything to it, because you have already stated your annoyance.) Geez, this stuff is ridiculous! – S. Rich ( talk) 00:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
With regard to the Hoppe talk page and your recent comment, I was fine with the editing explanation until the last line: "Please more careful when writing and study WP:BLP and WP:RS policies." This is an admonition directed towards editors who had recently edited the article, and did not address article content itself. Even though the editors are not named, this sort of comment is personal in nature. I wish you would refrain from adding in such remarks. I do not think they are helpful. – S. Rich ( talk) 22:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia, so if editors allege lower ranking credentials, that's fine with me too. . – S. Rich ( talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
"There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article." Just who are the specific editors? SPECIFICO posted all over the place and I have revised those postings. He complained (incorrectly) about your "canvassing" and I defended you in that matter. (As I recall I said just because people are looking at particular project pages does not mean they have specific viewpoints.) The only specific editor that SPECIFICO notified was FurrySings. (And that was proper because Furry started the whole mess.) The canvassing issue is already mentioned on the RfC. It does not need more attention as it will only distract from the RfC topic. And should there be a discussion about posting the lousy canvassing template? JFC! The talk page has got too much garbage already. Please take down the template. (Or let me do it.) – S. Rich ( talk) 15:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Now you are digging yourself in deeper. On the EW page, you suggest that Chris & LK made their comments because they saw a "biased" version of the notification. You are not giving them credit for being able to figure out what the dispute is about. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Please go back to the Canvassing talk page and fix your comments. Grammer wise they are confusing. Also, I was not addressing what should be done in any particular affair. My comments can apply to any canvassing situation. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Carol, please do not mischaracterize the 3RR issue for which I was warned. I am sorry for having committed this offense, and -- unattuned to the specific rule though I (a noob) was -- I was wrong to revert so rapidly. But the admin in judgment did not speak to any of your absurd libel claims, which have been soundly rejected by the consensus of the RFD on the Hoppe talk page. Please take your false allegations to the relevant authority rather than baselessly repeating them. Thanks. Steeletrap ( talk) 23:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Posting the lousy canvassing templates is disruptive to the HHH discussion. (They serve NO purpose.) So far nobody has come in to "vote" keep, but when (or if) they do, will you tag their comments too? It was entirely proper to notify Furry about the discussion as Furry was the one that made the stinking change that started this mess. There is no doubt that Furry favored the change, it was originally done by Furry! Adding the whole, poorly founded, canvasing thread only complicated the discussion. The fact that you reverted my removal of the tags and hatting really irks me, and keep in mind that I started the discussion and RfC and I want to keep the section titled Academic freedom! Do the right and sensible thing, remove the tags and rehat the off-topic canvassing discussion. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Now that you've posted a DRN, you ought to notify each of the editors whom you tagged as canvassed, as well as SPECIFICO. (In fact, I think you must.) You'll make a lot of friends by doing so, won't you? (And what does BLP have to do with canvassing?) – S. Rich ( talk) 19:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Also, I hope you will un-archive our earlier discussion. Unless editors know you have sub-pages, that portion of our discussion cannot be found. 19:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Consider:
I repeat, in #1 you wanted the RfC notice changed to the actual RfC title, in #2 you don't follow your own advice, in #3 you don't like the fact that I change the RfC notice to the actual RfC title, in #4 you post your ANI (because SPECIFICO had done the same thing you had done) and in #5 you again ignore you own advice. In the meantime I had urged you to not post an ANI. In the ANI you say you don't know or understand the Canvassing guidance or hope it can be clarified. (And have you noticed that SPECIFICO has not made any comment in the ANI?)
My point is that this RfC notification/canvassing dispute was a needless, useless, wasteful, feckless mess created at your instigation. It was disruptive. The most shameful part is that you don't follow your own admonitions about posting notices. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 22:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You already made your canvassing comments on the RfC. Next, you got nowhere on the DRN. Now, by posting the ANI, you are WP:FORUMSHOPPING. (The DRN remark was not advice to actually take somewhere else, it was saying don't bring up the issue here.) I urge you to withdraw the ANI. I will oppose it in every respect. – S. Rich ( talk) 01:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Carol, please strike your latest comments on the Hoppe talk page imputing bad faith onto me by stating that my personal point of view/biases on Hoppe, rather than concern for encyclopedic accuracy, are the driving force for my decision. I am disappointed that the resounding rejection of your false charges of BLP/canvassing has not prompted you to refrain from making inappropriate and inaccurate remarks to other users. Steeletrap ( talk) 18:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Carol, please remove your "evidence of bias" heading in regards to me on the Hoppe page. (see: here) That is a personally-insulting heading that compounds your prior inappropriate comments, and derails a substantive discussion into personal maters. Thanks. Steeletrap ( talk) 19:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Per this diff saying you would not stop posting personal unofficial comments on on my talk page - per my four previous requests. Thank you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Note for my future info: Following removed by Admin after my WP:ANI:
: Please remove this disingenuous characterization of our discussion. I was calling on you to cease making personal attacks, not making personal "harassing" comments, which is what your previous warnings were related to. I encourage you to take your false understanding of policy regarding harassment to ANI for another correction. I have no desire to communicate with you on this page, and only regretfully do so when prompted by your personal attacks on me or by your misrepresentations of deleted comments I have made on this page.
Steeletrap (
talk) 23:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
An AFD you recently participated in earlier this month is back at AFD again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. FYI, the guidance for headings is at WP:TALKNEW. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on [[: [10]]]. Thank you. WP:AGF Discuss content on the article talk pages, not your feelings about other editors . Do not misrepresent the statements of other editors. Please use diffs to ensure accuracy if you wish to refer to my statements. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Rather than "Anarcho-capitalism is now a school of economics??", I think a more neutral heading is "Is Anarcho-capitalism a school of economics?" Why say "now"? Why put "A-C" in italics? Why add two question marks? Headings should be entirely neutral. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carol - I'm not sure if you did this before or after I pointed out WP:CANVASS to you, but there is an explicit clause about *not* notifying discussions via email/mailing lists. In this case, you could say well this is a wikipedia mailing list, concerned with gender issues, so notificatio nis appropriate, but (1) your notification was not neutral and (b) you didn't disclose that notification at the AFD. [11]. As I said before, I'm on your side on this particular AFD, but if it's ok for gendergap to canvass, then it makes it ok for everyone to canvass.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Plip!
for non-neutral canvassing. Throw it back in the water when you're done, I will reuse it :) -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 20:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm KhabarNegar. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Right-libertarianism without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Never delete sourced parts of article and replace them with unsourced material even you may have interest in them. Wikipedia neutrality is the case which you should remember to yourself again & again. Next time you will be reported. KhabarNegar ( talk) 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Strongly recommend you strikeout the rest of the comment. (Or simply remove the whole thing. It will remain in the edit history.) Nothing about competence of an (or any particular) editor in that comment is related to article improvement. Moreover, not well founded. –
S. Rich (
talk) 05:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Take it wherever the hell you like. I make no such suggestion! (And you won't get very far in any case.) – S. Rich ( talk) 05:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
On the Rothbard article, if the "racialist science" bit is what is irking you, do chop it out. I didn't mean it as a pejorative, but if that is how it looks and is coming across, just chop it out. "similarities and differences between ethnic groups" is pretty neutral, so if the "racialist" aside comes across as something otherwise, just cut it.
As another aside, I honestly don't know why libertarians, of all stripes, don't form a joint political party as a Phase 1 booting out of the rentier-owned governing class we have at the moment. Imagine it! Government diminished! Businesses having to face the consequences of their actions! No more bank bailouts! No more rent-seeking masquerading as "privatisation"! Actually having genuine markets keeping costs down for everyone! etc. etc. Save for obvious exceptions, anything is an improvement on what we have at the moment. Well, such an effort at unity would have to fall apart at some point, but initially we might perhaps achieve a lot by working together, no? Maybe I'm a dreamer... Hugs, kisses.
LudicrousTripe ( talk) 14:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
My indent error on my 15:07 29 May post in the "Bad Article" was a doozie. I was reinforcing your response; the "view" I referred to was that in the prior post. I just noticed and fixed it. Sorry! North8000 ( talk) 14:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I have posted a {{ Please see}} re the BLPN on SPECIFICO's talkpage. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Your repeated article talk page remarks about POV, which are gratuitous, feckless, and antagonistic, amaze me. Everyone – you, I, and he – has a POV, and such POVs tend to skew edits. Well, so what? If the edits need fixing, then fixing the edits or commenting about the edits is appropriate. At the same time, if those particular edits are so abusive, that fact will be evident without your comments regarding any particular editor's POV. Throwing in such observations about editors on article talk pages only obscures the discussion. They are ad hominem, nothing more. And in accordance with WP:TPNO policy, they are disruptive. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm considering taking User:KhabarNegar to WP:ANB/I for a block on the basis he lacks the social skills and competence to contribute.
He was taken to WP:DRN from his behavior on Sanctions_Against_Iran, the result is here. They refused/recommended WP:RFC/U or WP:ANB/I. Every edit he disagrees with is harassment, trolling, vandalism. He does not participate coherently in the talk page. He is incapable of understanding basic concepts like the difference between an opinion piece and a news article ( eg here). He introduces copyvio's into articles. He's got so far as to edit war over over archival, apparently not understanding what it actually does ( edit war and confusion). I took specific opinion-piece-supported passages to a RfC and he obliged but continues edit warring over similar usages of one of the articles which is also a copyvio ( article history).
Anything to add? Is WP:ANB/I appropriate? Any other comments/suggestions? TippyGoomba ( talk) 05:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
This is your only warning. You may not remove valid RS account of Soto's remarks at Moscow. Please read the cited source concerning Soto's Moscow remarks and undo your removal of the validly cited account of Soto's statements. You may use talk to state your views, but you may not remove valid RS content without prior consensus.
SPECIFICO
talk 03:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 09:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No recent comments have been posted at WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Repeated_POV_soapboxing. Indeed, there has been no editing by S for 2 weeks. Suggest you tag the Noticeboard as {{ resolved}}. – S. Rich ( talk) 14:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, and your feedback regarding the RFC. I particularly appreciate your objectivity in light of the ANI report I made against you recently (which you might not even have put together I suppose!). I'm sure that we will run into each other in the future, and I hope that we can grow into a good working relationship. BTW, Specifico and srich, etc are heavily involved in this debate (opposing), so be prepared for the same issues you have encountered elsewhere.
Gaijin42 (
talk) 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Warned ya! ;) Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You may not continue these behaviors with impunity.
Consider taking a break from editing Wikipedia for reflection.
SPECIFICO
talk 03:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I've made some remarks on SPECIFICO's talk page. They apply to the both of you. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You may not continue these behaviors with impunity.
Consider taking a break from editing Wikipedia for reflection.
SPECIFICO
talk 03:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I've made some remarks on SPECIFICO's talk page. They apply to the both of you. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to
WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#WP:OR.2FSynth_argumentation_in_biography, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
SPECIFICO
talk 17:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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. Please read the source. Not synth. Skousan is making the connection in the cited source. Please replace the text you deleted. Do not revert properly sourced content. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
Use talk. Simple way to have the world know your concerns without disrupting the improvement of the article. You should be confident you know what is said in the cited sources before you state your view. For example, which source says that Murray is more notable as an economist than as the progenitor of the anarcho-capitalist school of thought, American right-libertarianism, and the Mises Institue. Please give a careful read to the policy. "even if you believe your view is correct..." You may not edit war. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive . Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hope life is going well in the land of Wikipedia. — Amakuru ( talk) 21:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
The guidance for WP:ANRFC says "Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question." I suggest you re-aim and then fire. (E.g., reword the request.) – S. Rich ( talk) 16:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
see: here. Steeletrap ( talk) 19:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
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, Stalwart 111 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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.
Hi, Carol. I'm sorry, I realize it must be a little unexpected, but you may be interested in the important debate that has erupted on my talkpage about an edit you made nine months ago. Well, anyway, you may want to know about it. Here. Regards, Bishonen | talk 12:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC).
I've unwatched the Rothbard article. It's just too painful to watch the back and forth. Keep up the good (NPOV) work. cheers, -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
He has said he has a PhD and has published in academic journals. Also referred to himself as a retired businessman (as I recall). He is not working towards a degree. You might make that minor correction to your posting. I do not think Binksternet is libertarian at all. He has, though, defended the Wiki quite admirably. Otherwise Hear, hear! I'd post my own list of diffs, but sadly it would be much, much TLDR and only get lost in the thread. You and some of the other editors have given the community enough to chew on. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I made this posting ( 1) in relation to the Volokh Conspiracy source, and thought you might be interested in commenting. Steeletrap ( talk) 18:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Srich is correct in their latest comment at ANI. There seems to be a tendency for you and Steeletrap to drift way off topic. I realise that it might be frustrating whens someone brings up something that happened 2.5 years ago but it is unlikely to affect any outcome now or to attract any administrative action. One reply in rebuttal would probably have sufficed. Similarly, Steeletrap is flogging a dead horse in raising the matter. I'm hoping that Steeletrap sees this because I'm becoming very confused regarding which talk pages I am recently been banned from and so dare not write there! As an aside, I am slightly alarmed that you seem to have been a political activist - you are going to have to be careful how you edit.
I have not intention of getting into a discussion about this note: take it or leave it. I'd also suggest that you don't get sucked into continuing such a discussion here or on, say, Steeltrap's talk page - it will just piss people off. - Sitush ( talk) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Your repeated references to @ Steeletrap: with the masculine pronoun constitute a personal attack and are unacceptable on Wikipedia. You are well aware from past discussions that Steeletrap is a woman. Moreover, as I believe that she has stated to you her particular sensitivity to being denigrated for her transgender status. I have long been concerned about gender bias within libertarian community and I must also tell you that I and thousands of others within the movement consider any misogynist or anti-transgender slur to be personally offensive. Please strike your references to Steeletrap in the masculine gender and replace with the feminine forms. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Question Carol, you claim that you didn't know about my being a woman and haven't made a personal attack on me for my sexual orientation. Can you both please explain, then, why specifically you linked to
womyn born womyn, a page whose proposition is that trans women aren't women (or that being assigned female at birth is a necessary condition for being female) in response to my self-identification? (
1) What possible contextual reason would you have to link to that page, what has nothing to do with the wiki page Bill Clinton, other than to respond to my self-identification?
Rich's comments are meaningless because he doesn't know the surrounding context. How exactly can he judge Carol's use of pronouns without knowing about all of our past exchanges? (Surely you aren't suggesting that the only way to convey one's gender is through a box on one's wiki page.) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) Signed STEELETRAP
I've left a note about your alleged "personal connection" to Murray Rothbard here.. Steeletrap ( talk) 18:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Please remove the comment about MM in this edit [17]. While true, it is not helpful in terms of article improvement or moving the talk page along. Yes, the MM issue is resolved with regard to LvMI; but, instead of simply going forward and removing the improper stuff, I'm giving the warriors another chance to state their case. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
You didn't have to do this. All you had to do was reply with "See my comments in the section above". Sections are useful things but creating/inserting them to make a point seems to be a tendency on AE-related articles and it won't win you any friends among uninvolved contributors. Someone else - Specifico? - got a ticking off for doing a similar thing in one of the recent ANI threads. Just a heads-up. - Sitush ( talk) 10:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll be honest, Carole, I'm a bit surprised to see so many people involved in the AE issue who seem to have been around for a while but who have not grasped a lot of the basics. Perhaps it is because they concentrate on such a small subset of our content and those who are involved have evolved to the point almost of having their own rules of conversation etc, although, oddly, they're keen to cite the more widely accepted policy/guidelines when it suits them! Another example of this is the bizarre use of "[indent]" that seems common in AE talk page discussions but has never been seen by me anywhere else. It is very odd. - Sitush ( talk) 00:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not think the WP:FTN posting is helpful. A poorly stated concern about removing categories from the article is raised, and it sorta follows the previous posting. But the issue raised simply involves proper categorization. You can see that I tried to explain what categorization is about. So, IMO, tying in previous discussions does not address the categorization concern. I hope you will remove it. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carolmooredc, As you probably know, I've been watching the disputes at LVMI/Rothbart/etc., and I've been trying to get people to treat each other with more respect and to encourage more collaboration. One thing I think would help in this regard is if you kept your comments a little less personal. I was just looking at this edit, and while you are making valid points, the little personal comments (eg. "How many times...before you get that") probably aren't helping very much. I understand the exasperation of talking in endless circles, believe me, but it would still be best if you stayed in the top couple of tiers in the pyramid at the top of your page. I'm asking everybody to make an effort, so I hope you'll do your part. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 08:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a skeptic on most things but believe some of our treatment of pseudoscience and the fringe is puerile, inappropriate polemic. I've just read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP mess and the Chopra piece. I've been aware of an ongoing dispute on this topic for some time but haven't read the relevant articles or followed any discussions. Are you able to point me to on- or off-wiki discussions and/or news reports of this dispute? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The first couple of sentences of Rupert Sheldrake are a worry. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I suggest you very carefully review the "bias" link which you have repeatedly cited as justification for your personal attacks on me and other editors. That link does not state that you may falsely impugn the motives of other editors or engage in various personal attacks. I suggest you revert your hostile personal remarks and confine your future comments to content. If you disagree with other editors' views regarding content, please consider this well-known guide to effective disagreement. I cannot recall ever seeing you land anywhere in the upper part of that chart. Your behavior does not foster collaboration, consensus, or compromise, and it is not consistent with the principles of this community. I urge you to accept this message in the constructive spirit in which I offer it and to consider it very carefully. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems that the 'MR as an historian' discussion is now back on the MR talkpage. Why? -- I really don't know. The discussion on the RSN was going on quite nicely. Well, to avoid threads bouncing back and forth between an article talkpage and drama board and then back to the article talk page, you might post a {{ Moved discussion to}} template. Whether it will serve to keep discussions focused on the issue is anyone's guess. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the welcome. I will check that issues you mention. Sageo ( talk) 18:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Saw your comment on AN, to notify an editor just post something along these lines on their talk. "Please be aware the topic area which cover Austrian economics is under General Sanctions You can see the community discussion here." Then log that notification here. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
So, you make a snippy comment at Talk:Ralph Raico and within minutes you stick another one here at RSN. You may not realise it but you are coming across as someone whose primary goal here is to moan in asides rather than discuss collaboratively. Can you please try to rein it in a bit? It is beginning to sound like a broken record and if you really have issues about all these alleged behavioural matters that you so frequently refer to then you should take them to WP:ANI or just perhaps WP:AE. - Sitush ( talk) 02:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You recently started some RSN discussions using an "involved/uninvolved" layout. I've started a discussion re same here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Please sign it. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
You are at 4RR on Thomas DiLorenzo. Please undo your last edit and do not edit war. Use talk and do not disparage other editors. Thanks.
SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
You are at 3RR on DiLorenzo. Please note. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Carol, you've done it again at the latest RSN thread. Do it again and you'll be well within scope of a topic ban for WP:TE and possibly even WP:NPA, even though you do not name names. Don't game the system by assuming that keeping names out of it somehow obviates liability. If you have a problem then report it instead of whinging from the sidelines. - Sitush ( talk) 00:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush ( talk) 01:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
As a result of a community discussion, the community has enacted editing restrictions, described at WP:AEGS and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor, provided the editor has been previously informed as this message does. This notice does not necessarily mean your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice will be logged at WP:AEGS.
I know you're already aware of this, but I felt that procedurally you should be technically notified since everyone else has been. This is a general notification, not one given in response to misconduct. Feel free to remove it. Mark Arsten ( talk) 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide a more specific section to the ANI discussion thread. It would be helpful. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
As I read the P-I sanctions page, it seems to apply to articles. Unless I'm missing something, I do not see how it applies to noticeboards or editor-editor interaction. Unless there is something specific in the sanctions, I suggest you remove the comment from S's talk page. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Carol, I was reading over the ANI thread on you today (I've been largely offline the past few days...out of state for the Thanksgiving holiday and a funeral). I don't think any administrative action is merited, but I would still like a commitment from you to try to refrain from discussing others' motives on article talk pages, and to try and focus more on the content. Does that sound like something you'd be willing to do? (This would be considered non-binding/on-your-honor.) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Carol, your notice on those other editor talk pages included two links that referenced the exact same page and section – " here". The sequence is Ready, Aim, Fire!. Not Ready, Fire, Aim!. Moreover, the thread is closed. What to do? Personally, I'd remove each of the notices from the talk pages. If there were (not are) specific diffs that violated whatever, then you might bring up something on an ANI. But this particular effort is not helpful or productive for anyone. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Why you should open this as a "continuation" of the SPECIFICO thread is beyond me. The ANI was resolved, and it resolved in favor of you, and NW should have posted something like {{ resolved}} or archived it. The other "sub-thread' about Arbcom is another problem, but at least you did not start it. We do NOT want to go to arbcom, do we? Opening this sub-thread is the same sort of behavior that Sitush talked about earlier. He cited, at some point, put-up-or-shut-up. And I support Sitush in this view. If you've got specific diffs that lay out a case for ANI action, post them as a new, simple, clean, uncomplicated request. But these haphazard postings are not going to work and I am not going to support you in them. I will not be dragged into Arbcom because you won't heed the advice of more experienced editors (and myself). – S. Rich ( talk) 04:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 00:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for digging up the extra sources on HR. I'm not quite sure why MM has latched onto this topic with such furvor, but I hope I handled the situation appropriately. It would be easy to just keep reverting him until an admin called a halt, but that's what we'd call an edit war, and not something I'd want to be half of. I hope that by reporting it to ANI, wiser minds than mine can find a good solution. Anyway, I'm rambling-- thanks again for the sources! -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 22:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Carol, I hope all is well with you and that you had a good holiday. As you have been one of the regular editors participating in articles related to Austrian Economics, and I was hoping I could convince you to participate in a small experiment on dispute resolution. It's formatted as a simple question and answer, with a hint of RfC/U, aimed at getting participants to talk with one another, recognize potential problems, and with any luck, commit to fixing those problems. The page is at User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics and you are free to edit at your leisure. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 00:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Just so you don't feel later that you've wasted too much of your time, none of the sources in this edit amount to much at all from what I can see. The usual fringe theorists etc doing the usual fringe stuff & patting each other on the back etc. You are building a house of cards and the Stromberg article is a test case - if that gets deleted then I'll likely be nominating a lot of others that are equally shoddy constructions in the "Polemicists 'Я Us" genre. Find mentions and citations in mainstream publications outside the US - including influential news sources such as El Pais, Le Monde, The Hindu and The Guardian, and books from publishers such as Oxford University Press - and you'll have a much better chance. Bearing in mind WP:BEFORE, I wish you well. - Sitush ( talk) 17:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Adjwilley, the "crap" was not Carol's: the article has been in a poor state since 2005 and I'd already done my research before nominating at AfD. Carol may be well-intentioned but the chances of her turning this one round are poor: I know the policies and I've got a pretty good rep for reliability in sourcing matters. My allusion was to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. - Sitush ( talk) 21:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
... this comment about "double-standard sexism". I've no idea what you mean but it concerns me greatly. I, for one, couldn't care less what gender, race, religion etc someone may be and yet it seems to be my recent comments that have triggered your edit. You won't get an easier ride off me because of any of those things but you won't get a tougher one either: I just go straight down the middle.
If you're pissed off about sexism being shown then you should talk about it, not go away in a huff: if there are any sexist people involved here (of whatever "standard") then they need to be told. In fact, they need to have some sort of admin action imposed. - Sitush ( talk) 01:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you've been asked before not to insert point-y subsection headings at various venues - WP:RSN was one that I can still recall. Specifico was similarly requested (not by me). Any chance you can avoid doing this sort of thing, which nearly always seems to serve to draw emphasis to your opening statements? There may indeed sometimes be a need to break up a long section - the so-called "arbitrary break" - but neither of these sections were long at the point where you inserted the subheading. Ta. - Sitush ( talk) 14:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Your postings have been consistently negative, hostile and, yes, bullying and I experience them as harassing. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 15:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Reserving a space for a future edit. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Austrian economics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 December 2013.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
How many more times must you be asked not to significantly refactor your messages when others have replied to them. Eg: here. Is it confusing and, worse, disruptive. Please stop. - Sitush ( talk) 15:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I recognize I am 'permabanned' from this page, but this note is relevant to an official matter (Mediation). I will not be participating until you signed the pledge we talked about. Steeletrap ( talk) 15:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I see that you've notified the Libertarianism Project of the AfD regarding Riggenbach. You should also give the same notice to the other Projects listed on the article talk page. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 05:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm replying here because a reply at the AfD is inappropriate. You ask here "why the personal attacks". Firstly, you should have grown a backbone by now; secondly, the very fact that you (yet again) had to clarify what you had said earlier shows that your original comment was confusing; thirdly, you give as good as you get with the "spree" thing. Grow up, Carol, and please stop making pointless speculative comments about something that is outside our control, ie: the workings of Amazon. You seem frequently to massively increase the length of discussions by taking them down completely irrelevant byways. - Sitush ( talk) 17:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe it's today the sun turns. (Really much darkness and short days here in Norway now). Sorry for not replying to your post at my talk. I have decided to drop the whole thing and in the future mostly amuse myself with the various projects or of this "serious and competent young scholar". Wikipedia has its sides obviously, one has to take it for what it is and simply adjust, I have found. I agree with the concern on your userpage about users who add (almost) "only negative material in a certain topic area because it supports their POV". ArbCom has ruled in an earlier case that the practice of mainly adding negative material is unacceptable if it is done to a particular ethnic or religious group or similar. But I think this principle could be broadened to apply to users whose edit pattern over time is such that 80-90% of their edits to articles consist of adding negative information about persons or groups they consider their opponents; politically or otherwise. This is not a healthy edit pattern; particularly not when it is about persons. Best wishes and A happy new year. Iselilja ( talk) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Carol, the SPI is not going to resolve anything. These are not socks or meatpuppets. If there are other problems, then such problems should be addressed on other noticeboards. But everybody who adds stuff to the SPI aint doing themselves or the project any help. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
You have misrepresented my statement in this edit. This is unaccepable. As a courtesy, I am posting this formal notice that you should remove/correct your false characterization of my post. I am prepared to seek enforcement of Community Sanctions if you do not stop violating civility and talk page policies. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You have again misrepresented me here, snidely attributing to me an edit which I did not make. You should strike through your misrepresentation. If you do not, I will seek to have you blocked immediately per AEGS. If you ever misrepresent my words or actions in the future I will seek to have you blocked without further warning. 02:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
Per BRD, you should use talk.
Please undo this edit.
SPECIFICO
talk 14:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
notice you posted on he defunct Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anti-war
I am looking to source Ploughshares Fund because large portions are getting deleted.
Can you point me to a Anti-war wikiproject,others who may help, or help me source this article? At the least watch the article?
Thank you! keep up the great work!
You may also be interested in WP:ARS. Igottheconch ( talk) 06:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you. Greyshark09 ( talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not create these templates, and do not know much about their use. Especially since it has been a long time since I edited in Arab-Israeli articles.
1RR edit notices normally show up when you click the edit button on a page in an area covered by 1RR arbitration rulings. See
Can you find an admin to add some categories to this edit notice?: Template:Editnotices/Page/Gaza War. Please see Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Gaza War. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
(unindent). I now see why you have your talk page semi-protected. I have had part of my talk page blanked by several anonymous IPs today. Also occurring with some of my comments, and yours, at Template talk:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement. I left a lot of warning messages from WP:WARNING on the anonymous IP talk pages. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 17:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI -- Nstrauss ( talk) 05:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Did you mean to undo J.delanoy's revert of Grawp? -- Bsa dow ski1 06:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Carol, can you please clarify your rev/del request at WP:ANEW? I'm afraid I couldn't figure out what talk page you meant.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Scope. I'm telling you this because you were involved at the related AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Good work, Carolmooredc: well done. Headhitter ( talk) 00:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I've received email that uses your name. If you didn't send it, I thought you might want to know. If you did send it, my talk page is the place for such comments. Thanks. Truthkeeper ( talk) 13:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carol, we haven't met but we're both in WMDC. I just got a plaintive note on my talk page from Babel41 ... who I worked with a lot on the Mark Satin article. They erased the message, but you may want to read it anyway. Babel is really very sweet and quite easy to work with, and has amazing historical knowledge from the 60s and 70s that I'd love to see in more articles. I don't know anything about the dispute. - Dank ( push to talk) 11:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I made a Request for Comments in Minorities in Greece page and (after reading your user page) thought you may be interested. The issue is, I was trying to add information about problems of muslims living in Athens (some 300,000 people) since some time but my edits are being reverted by multiple users. The main argument against adding this information is that those people are not minorities but immigrants. Details of the discussion are here. If you would like to contribute with your comments, that would be very welcome. Filanca ( talk) 18:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, CM.
At the above the http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template_talk:Libertarianism_sidebar&diff=544135738&oldid=544102038 Edit has me removing your Edit & substituting my own line on a related topic. Such was not my intent. Indeed, when I started editing, CC's was the most recent Edit. If you wish to restore your Edit, please do. If you wish me to restore it, please let me know. Sorry about that. -- Thomasmeeks ( talk) 02:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I filed a request at the ANB, here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 02:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
i have started a discussion regarding your editing on the separation barrier article at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Soosim ( talk) 06:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
But you would rather edit war than add proper references. Soosim ( talk) 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User:Z554 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Z554. Thank you. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 15:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. In response to your question, yes, I did do a lot of editing on Wikipedia anonymously prior to recently getting an account. But don't worry; I have never been banned and was only trying to improve the article you mentioned. I got the account because I wanted to try creating articles. -- 1ST7 ( talk) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I want to add a map of Uhehe and surrounds to the Hehe people article. I have found one via Google Books, am I allowed to screen-shot it and use it in the article so long as I attribute to the book? I feel quite certain your answer will be in the negative, but perhaps there's some quirk I'm not aware of. Hence the question. As we English don't say, though actually we do sometimes mispronounce it: Au revoir!
♣ Herr LudicrousTripe ( talk) 17:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
You never did apologize for your mistake. One would be appreciated on my talk page. Thank you. Z554 ( talk) 00:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carolmooredc. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 23:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you an admin? Very sorry to hassle you, but I have an IP persistently trying to add highly dubious claims without so much as citing a source. I know the Mau Mau Uprising can be contentious, but that is no excuse for repeatedly trying to introduce unsourced material into the article. Are you able to add protection so IPs cannot edit the page? Sorry. LudicrousTripe ( talk) 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello Carol, I've reactivated the long-standing merge proposal on 2007–2008 Israel–Gaza conflict, see discussion. Greyshark09 ( talk) 07:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. (Take a look at the citations. An error was produced.) – S. Rich ( talk) 17:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I have started the Stephen Halbrook article. Surprised there wasn't one already. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
These are serious accusations, and as such have been reported to the Administrators' noticeboard. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_CarlMooreDC_making_false_accusations_of_libel.2Fthreats_of_banning. Steeletrap ( talk) 22:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LewRockwell.com, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer ( 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) 11:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
We may not like or have high regard for each other, but the tone of your and my comments/edits needs to get better. We both need to focus on content rather than contributors (i.e. you should cease focusing on me and me on you). While you are welcome to voice complaints about my conduct to the right venues, I ask that in future edits and disputes related to content, you keep the personal stuff and loaded languageout of it, and I pledge to do the same. Failing to live up to this commitment is clearly at odds with WP guidelines and will undermine this community. I hope you agree with my view that we both need to make a change in this regard and join me in trying to make it happen. Steeletrap ( talk) 17:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This one relates to NPOV. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Concerns_on_WP:Undue_regarding_AIDS_Denial_and_LewRockwell.com. You are encouraged to comment but I ask that you please keep it content related, and recommend that you make your posts concise and limited so we don't flood out the main point of the discussion again. (I was a bad offender there with all the wordy posts!) Steeletrap ( talk) 20:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I fear our "olive branch" is off to a poor start. You have already falsely accused me of potentially "defamatory" violation of BLP for reporting Palmer's statement that North wants to stone gays to death. You fail to note that 1) Palmer specifically cites and mentions a non-personal source from Reason Magazine for this claim, which were in the article before they were "cleansed" a day or so back. 2)this claim has made been at a host of RS. For instance, at http://www.alternet.org/story/40318/public_stoning%3A_not_just_for_the_taliban_anymore, it is asserted that "North has called for the stoning of gays and nonbelievers (rocks are cheap and plentiful, he has observed). Both friends and foes label him "Scary Gary." Please read up on these facts (I'd encourage visisting the Good Doctor North's Wikipedia entry) and try not to jump to (false and insulting) conclusions in the future, much less publicly make them on my talk page. Steeletrap ( talk) 21:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I wish you had not made this change: [2]. One, you had endorsed my request for a lockdown on the article. (Having made the request, I'd think you'd voluntarily follow it.) Two, it does not cite the Orange County Register, but relies on LRC alone. This is not in keeping with my proposed compromise. I ask that you revert it. Let's get an agreement, then edit within the parameters of the agreement. If the agreement is not adopted, then add what you like. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 00:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
While you fixed the date range on Talk:Lew Rockwell, the bot has archived too much of the recent discussion. I'd go back and restore the pre-pre-archive rendition, but we have comments that were made inbetween the bot archiving. I'm not sure how to get them back onto the most recent and current page of active comments. (Those less than 25 days old.) Can you fix? Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
All straightened out; LRC which only has one archive got dup copies of Lew Rockwell which has 3 archives. Oi!
So I deleted the material and I'll do a speedy deletion once I figure out if it's an AfD or a MfD. I assume that an empty talk page archive will be used by the bot - or deleted. Do I assume wrong? CarolMooreDC🗽 23:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it just me, but given that it is undeniable that LRC does give voice to Gary North and Donald Miller as well as others pushing a variety of fringe and conspiracy theories (not just AIDS/HIV denial), my impression of your advocacy at that article is that it is of a piece with your other libertarian advocacy, particularly so since I see your book being used as an authority in many posts on the site. Mangoe ( talk) 01:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
Talk:LewRockwell.com that didn't seem very
civil, so it has been removed. 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. I have not removed "nitpicky" or the introductory phrase in the comment, but such impolite, pointed comments do not enhance the best of relations between editors. This is the edit:
[3]. –
S. Rich (
talk) 01:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Per
WP:TPO removal of that comment was inappropriate. I am not taking a stand either way on the dispute/controversy you are discussing, but it is quite a stretch to say that Carol's comment qualifies for any of the criteria for editing. The only two which could possibly be argued are below, and I think neither qualifies. She was making a valid argument, in a contentious tone. While everyone can work on civility, her comment certainly was not disruptive. I also note that SRich and carol appear to agree with each other in the actual debate, so I am a bit confused about the "fight" all together.
Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
If you think the comment was collapsed inappropriately, I think you can just un-collapse it yourself. If that develops into a controversy, then get an admin involved. However, don't do it just to be pedantic. If the comment was borderline and you don't honestly think you will get good discussion going from having it visible, then I think its better just to let it lie. Again, if this becomes an issue where you feel like you are being hounded or censored, then you can of course escalate that. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
WRT the LRC talk page remarks (which I have just hatted), you were quite right in saying you were annoyed about the changes, and SPECIFICO was incorrect about posting the off-topic and baseless admonition to you. But you should have known better than to respond on the talk page. His talk page would have been a better place. (I have made a comment there. Please do not add anything to it, because you have already stated your annoyance.) Geez, this stuff is ridiculous! – S. Rich ( talk) 00:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
With regard to the Hoppe talk page and your recent comment, I was fine with the editing explanation until the last line: "Please more careful when writing and study WP:BLP and WP:RS policies." This is an admonition directed towards editors who had recently edited the article, and did not address article content itself. Even though the editors are not named, this sort of comment is personal in nature. I wish you would refrain from adding in such remarks. I do not think they are helpful. – S. Rich ( talk) 22:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia, so if editors allege lower ranking credentials, that's fine with me too. . – S. Rich ( talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
"There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article." Just who are the specific editors? SPECIFICO posted all over the place and I have revised those postings. He complained (incorrectly) about your "canvassing" and I defended you in that matter. (As I recall I said just because people are looking at particular project pages does not mean they have specific viewpoints.) The only specific editor that SPECIFICO notified was FurrySings. (And that was proper because Furry started the whole mess.) The canvassing issue is already mentioned on the RfC. It does not need more attention as it will only distract from the RfC topic. And should there be a discussion about posting the lousy canvassing template? JFC! The talk page has got too much garbage already. Please take down the template. (Or let me do it.) – S. Rich ( talk) 15:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Now you are digging yourself in deeper. On the EW page, you suggest that Chris & LK made their comments because they saw a "biased" version of the notification. You are not giving them credit for being able to figure out what the dispute is about. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Please go back to the Canvassing talk page and fix your comments. Grammer wise they are confusing. Also, I was not addressing what should be done in any particular affair. My comments can apply to any canvassing situation. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Carol, please do not mischaracterize the 3RR issue for which I was warned. I am sorry for having committed this offense, and -- unattuned to the specific rule though I (a noob) was -- I was wrong to revert so rapidly. But the admin in judgment did not speak to any of your absurd libel claims, which have been soundly rejected by the consensus of the RFD on the Hoppe talk page. Please take your false allegations to the relevant authority rather than baselessly repeating them. Thanks. Steeletrap ( talk) 23:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Posting the lousy canvassing templates is disruptive to the HHH discussion. (They serve NO purpose.) So far nobody has come in to "vote" keep, but when (or if) they do, will you tag their comments too? It was entirely proper to notify Furry about the discussion as Furry was the one that made the stinking change that started this mess. There is no doubt that Furry favored the change, it was originally done by Furry! Adding the whole, poorly founded, canvasing thread only complicated the discussion. The fact that you reverted my removal of the tags and hatting really irks me, and keep in mind that I started the discussion and RfC and I want to keep the section titled Academic freedom! Do the right and sensible thing, remove the tags and rehat the off-topic canvassing discussion. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Now that you've posted a DRN, you ought to notify each of the editors whom you tagged as canvassed, as well as SPECIFICO. (In fact, I think you must.) You'll make a lot of friends by doing so, won't you? (And what does BLP have to do with canvassing?) – S. Rich ( talk) 19:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Also, I hope you will un-archive our earlier discussion. Unless editors know you have sub-pages, that portion of our discussion cannot be found. 19:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Consider:
I repeat, in #1 you wanted the RfC notice changed to the actual RfC title, in #2 you don't follow your own advice, in #3 you don't like the fact that I change the RfC notice to the actual RfC title, in #4 you post your ANI (because SPECIFICO had done the same thing you had done) and in #5 you again ignore you own advice. In the meantime I had urged you to not post an ANI. In the ANI you say you don't know or understand the Canvassing guidance or hope it can be clarified. (And have you noticed that SPECIFICO has not made any comment in the ANI?)
My point is that this RfC notification/canvassing dispute was a needless, useless, wasteful, feckless mess created at your instigation. It was disruptive. The most shameful part is that you don't follow your own admonitions about posting notices. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 22:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You already made your canvassing comments on the RfC. Next, you got nowhere on the DRN. Now, by posting the ANI, you are WP:FORUMSHOPPING. (The DRN remark was not advice to actually take somewhere else, it was saying don't bring up the issue here.) I urge you to withdraw the ANI. I will oppose it in every respect. – S. Rich ( talk) 01:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Carol, please strike your latest comments on the Hoppe talk page imputing bad faith onto me by stating that my personal point of view/biases on Hoppe, rather than concern for encyclopedic accuracy, are the driving force for my decision. I am disappointed that the resounding rejection of your false charges of BLP/canvassing has not prompted you to refrain from making inappropriate and inaccurate remarks to other users. Steeletrap ( talk) 18:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Carol, please remove your "evidence of bias" heading in regards to me on the Hoppe page. (see: here) That is a personally-insulting heading that compounds your prior inappropriate comments, and derails a substantive discussion into personal maters. Thanks. Steeletrap ( talk) 19:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Per this diff saying you would not stop posting personal unofficial comments on on my talk page - per my four previous requests. Thank you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Note for my future info: Following removed by Admin after my WP:ANI:
: Please remove this disingenuous characterization of our discussion. I was calling on you to cease making personal attacks, not making personal "harassing" comments, which is what your previous warnings were related to. I encourage you to take your false understanding of policy regarding harassment to ANI for another correction. I have no desire to communicate with you on this page, and only regretfully do so when prompted by your personal attacks on me or by your misrepresentations of deleted comments I have made on this page.
Steeletrap (
talk) 23:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
An AFD you recently participated in earlier this month is back at AFD again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Violations of the Ceasefire of 21 November, 2013 (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. FYI, the guidance for headings is at WP:TALKNEW. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on [[: [10]]]. Thank you. WP:AGF Discuss content on the article talk pages, not your feelings about other editors . Do not misrepresent the statements of other editors. Please use diffs to ensure accuracy if you wish to refer to my statements. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Rather than "Anarcho-capitalism is now a school of economics??", I think a more neutral heading is "Is Anarcho-capitalism a school of economics?" Why say "now"? Why put "A-C" in italics? Why add two question marks? Headings should be entirely neutral. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carol - I'm not sure if you did this before or after I pointed out WP:CANVASS to you, but there is an explicit clause about *not* notifying discussions via email/mailing lists. In this case, you could say well this is a wikipedia mailing list, concerned with gender issues, so notificatio nis appropriate, but (1) your notification was not neutral and (b) you didn't disclose that notification at the AFD. [11]. As I said before, I'm on your side on this particular AFD, but if it's ok for gendergap to canvass, then it makes it ok for everyone to canvass.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 14:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Plip!
for non-neutral canvassing. Throw it back in the water when you're done, I will reuse it :) -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 20:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm KhabarNegar. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Right-libertarianism without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Never delete sourced parts of article and replace them with unsourced material even you may have interest in them. Wikipedia neutrality is the case which you should remember to yourself again & again. Next time you will be reported. KhabarNegar ( talk) 16:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Strongly recommend you strikeout the rest of the comment. (Or simply remove the whole thing. It will remain in the edit history.) Nothing about competence of an (or any particular) editor in that comment is related to article improvement. Moreover, not well founded. –
S. Rich (
talk) 05:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Take it wherever the hell you like. I make no such suggestion! (And you won't get very far in any case.) – S. Rich ( talk) 05:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
On the Rothbard article, if the "racialist science" bit is what is irking you, do chop it out. I didn't mean it as a pejorative, but if that is how it looks and is coming across, just chop it out. "similarities and differences between ethnic groups" is pretty neutral, so if the "racialist" aside comes across as something otherwise, just cut it.
As another aside, I honestly don't know why libertarians, of all stripes, don't form a joint political party as a Phase 1 booting out of the rentier-owned governing class we have at the moment. Imagine it! Government diminished! Businesses having to face the consequences of their actions! No more bank bailouts! No more rent-seeking masquerading as "privatisation"! Actually having genuine markets keeping costs down for everyone! etc. etc. Save for obvious exceptions, anything is an improvement on what we have at the moment. Well, such an effort at unity would have to fall apart at some point, but initially we might perhaps achieve a lot by working together, no? Maybe I'm a dreamer... Hugs, kisses.
LudicrousTripe ( talk) 14:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
My indent error on my 15:07 29 May post in the "Bad Article" was a doozie. I was reinforcing your response; the "view" I referred to was that in the prior post. I just noticed and fixed it. Sorry! North8000 ( talk) 14:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I have posted a {{ Please see}} re the BLPN on SPECIFICO's talkpage. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Your repeated article talk page remarks about POV, which are gratuitous, feckless, and antagonistic, amaze me. Everyone – you, I, and he – has a POV, and such POVs tend to skew edits. Well, so what? If the edits need fixing, then fixing the edits or commenting about the edits is appropriate. At the same time, if those particular edits are so abusive, that fact will be evident without your comments regarding any particular editor's POV. Throwing in such observations about editors on article talk pages only obscures the discussion. They are ad hominem, nothing more. And in accordance with WP:TPNO policy, they are disruptive. – S. Rich ( talk) 18:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm considering taking User:KhabarNegar to WP:ANB/I for a block on the basis he lacks the social skills and competence to contribute.
He was taken to WP:DRN from his behavior on Sanctions_Against_Iran, the result is here. They refused/recommended WP:RFC/U or WP:ANB/I. Every edit he disagrees with is harassment, trolling, vandalism. He does not participate coherently in the talk page. He is incapable of understanding basic concepts like the difference between an opinion piece and a news article ( eg here). He introduces copyvio's into articles. He's got so far as to edit war over over archival, apparently not understanding what it actually does ( edit war and confusion). I took specific opinion-piece-supported passages to a RfC and he obliged but continues edit warring over similar usages of one of the articles which is also a copyvio ( article history).
Anything to add? Is WP:ANB/I appropriate? Any other comments/suggestions? TippyGoomba ( talk) 05:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
This is your only warning. You may not remove valid RS account of Soto's remarks at Moscow. Please read the cited source concerning Soto's Moscow remarks and undo your removal of the validly cited account of Soto's statements. You may use talk to state your views, but you may not remove valid RS content without prior consensus.
SPECIFICO
talk 03:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 09:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
No recent comments have been posted at WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Repeated_POV_soapboxing. Indeed, there has been no editing by S for 2 weeks. Suggest you tag the Noticeboard as {{ resolved}}. – S. Rich ( talk) 14:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, and your feedback regarding the RFC. I particularly appreciate your objectivity in light of the ANI report I made against you recently (which you might not even have put together I suppose!). I'm sure that we will run into each other in the future, and I hope that we can grow into a good working relationship. BTW, Specifico and srich, etc are heavily involved in this debate (opposing), so be prepared for the same issues you have encountered elsewhere.
Gaijin42 (
talk) 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Warned ya! ;) Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You may not continue these behaviors with impunity.
Consider taking a break from editing Wikipedia for reflection.
SPECIFICO
talk 03:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I've made some remarks on SPECIFICO's talk page. They apply to the both of you. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You may not continue these behaviors with impunity.
Consider taking a break from editing Wikipedia for reflection.
SPECIFICO
talk 03:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I've made some remarks on SPECIFICO's talk page. They apply to the both of you. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to
WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#WP:OR.2FSynth_argumentation_in_biography, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
SPECIFICO
talk 17:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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. Please read the source. Not synth. Skousan is making the connection in the cited source. Please replace the text you deleted. Do not revert properly sourced content. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
Use talk. Simple way to have the world know your concerns without disrupting the improvement of the article. You should be confident you know what is said in the cited sources before you state your view. For example, which source says that Murray is more notable as an economist than as the progenitor of the anarcho-capitalist school of thought, American right-libertarianism, and the Mises Institue. Please give a careful read to the policy. "even if you believe your view is correct..." You may not edit war. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive . Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hope life is going well in the land of Wikipedia. — Amakuru ( talk) 21:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
The guidance for WP:ANRFC says "Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question." I suggest you re-aim and then fire. (E.g., reword the request.) – S. Rich ( talk) 16:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
see: here. Steeletrap ( talk) 19:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
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, Stalwart 111 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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.
Hi, Carol. I'm sorry, I realize it must be a little unexpected, but you may be interested in the important debate that has erupted on my talkpage about an edit you made nine months ago. Well, anyway, you may want to know about it. Here. Regards, Bishonen | talk 12:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC).
I've unwatched the Rothbard article. It's just too painful to watch the back and forth. Keep up the good (NPOV) work. cheers, -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 13:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
He has said he has a PhD and has published in academic journals. Also referred to himself as a retired businessman (as I recall). He is not working towards a degree. You might make that minor correction to your posting. I do not think Binksternet is libertarian at all. He has, though, defended the Wiki quite admirably. Otherwise Hear, hear! I'd post my own list of diffs, but sadly it would be much, much TLDR and only get lost in the thread. You and some of the other editors have given the community enough to chew on. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I made this posting ( 1) in relation to the Volokh Conspiracy source, and thought you might be interested in commenting. Steeletrap ( talk) 18:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Srich is correct in their latest comment at ANI. There seems to be a tendency for you and Steeletrap to drift way off topic. I realise that it might be frustrating whens someone brings up something that happened 2.5 years ago but it is unlikely to affect any outcome now or to attract any administrative action. One reply in rebuttal would probably have sufficed. Similarly, Steeletrap is flogging a dead horse in raising the matter. I'm hoping that Steeletrap sees this because I'm becoming very confused regarding which talk pages I am recently been banned from and so dare not write there! As an aside, I am slightly alarmed that you seem to have been a political activist - you are going to have to be careful how you edit.
I have not intention of getting into a discussion about this note: take it or leave it. I'd also suggest that you don't get sucked into continuing such a discussion here or on, say, Steeltrap's talk page - it will just piss people off. - Sitush ( talk) 05:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Your repeated references to @ Steeletrap: with the masculine pronoun constitute a personal attack and are unacceptable on Wikipedia. You are well aware from past discussions that Steeletrap is a woman. Moreover, as I believe that she has stated to you her particular sensitivity to being denigrated for her transgender status. I have long been concerned about gender bias within libertarian community and I must also tell you that I and thousands of others within the movement consider any misogynist or anti-transgender slur to be personally offensive. Please strike your references to Steeletrap in the masculine gender and replace with the feminine forms. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Question Carol, you claim that you didn't know about my being a woman and haven't made a personal attack on me for my sexual orientation. Can you both please explain, then, why specifically you linked to
womyn born womyn, a page whose proposition is that trans women aren't women (or that being assigned female at birth is a necessary condition for being female) in response to my self-identification? (
1) What possible contextual reason would you have to link to that page, what has nothing to do with the wiki page Bill Clinton, other than to respond to my self-identification?
Rich's comments are meaningless because he doesn't know the surrounding context. How exactly can he judge Carol's use of pronouns without knowing about all of our past exchanges? (Surely you aren't suggesting that the only way to convey one's gender is through a box on one's wiki page.) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) Signed STEELETRAP
I've left a note about your alleged "personal connection" to Murray Rothbard here.. Steeletrap ( talk) 18:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Please remove the comment about MM in this edit [17]. While true, it is not helpful in terms of article improvement or moving the talk page along. Yes, the MM issue is resolved with regard to LvMI; but, instead of simply going forward and removing the improper stuff, I'm giving the warriors another chance to state their case. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
You didn't have to do this. All you had to do was reply with "See my comments in the section above". Sections are useful things but creating/inserting them to make a point seems to be a tendency on AE-related articles and it won't win you any friends among uninvolved contributors. Someone else - Specifico? - got a ticking off for doing a similar thing in one of the recent ANI threads. Just a heads-up. - Sitush ( talk) 10:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll be honest, Carole, I'm a bit surprised to see so many people involved in the AE issue who seem to have been around for a while but who have not grasped a lot of the basics. Perhaps it is because they concentrate on such a small subset of our content and those who are involved have evolved to the point almost of having their own rules of conversation etc, although, oddly, they're keen to cite the more widely accepted policy/guidelines when it suits them! Another example of this is the bizarre use of "[indent]" that seems common in AE talk page discussions but has never been seen by me anywhere else. It is very odd. - Sitush ( talk) 00:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not think the WP:FTN posting is helpful. A poorly stated concern about removing categories from the article is raised, and it sorta follows the previous posting. But the issue raised simply involves proper categorization. You can see that I tried to explain what categorization is about. So, IMO, tying in previous discussions does not address the categorization concern. I hope you will remove it. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carolmooredc, As you probably know, I've been watching the disputes at LVMI/Rothbart/etc., and I've been trying to get people to treat each other with more respect and to encourage more collaboration. One thing I think would help in this regard is if you kept your comments a little less personal. I was just looking at this edit, and while you are making valid points, the little personal comments (eg. "How many times...before you get that") probably aren't helping very much. I understand the exasperation of talking in endless circles, believe me, but it would still be best if you stayed in the top couple of tiers in the pyramid at the top of your page. I'm asking everybody to make an effort, so I hope you'll do your part. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 08:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a skeptic on most things but believe some of our treatment of pseudoscience and the fringe is puerile, inappropriate polemic. I've just read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Rupert Sheldrake is a BLP mess and the Chopra piece. I've been aware of an ongoing dispute on this topic for some time but haven't read the relevant articles or followed any discussions. Are you able to point me to on- or off-wiki discussions and/or news reports of this dispute? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The first couple of sentences of Rupert Sheldrake are a worry. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I suggest you very carefully review the "bias" link which you have repeatedly cited as justification for your personal attacks on me and other editors. That link does not state that you may falsely impugn the motives of other editors or engage in various personal attacks. I suggest you revert your hostile personal remarks and confine your future comments to content. If you disagree with other editors' views regarding content, please consider this well-known guide to effective disagreement. I cannot recall ever seeing you land anywhere in the upper part of that chart. Your behavior does not foster collaboration, consensus, or compromise, and it is not consistent with the principles of this community. I urge you to accept this message in the constructive spirit in which I offer it and to consider it very carefully. SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems that the 'MR as an historian' discussion is now back on the MR talkpage. Why? -- I really don't know. The discussion on the RSN was going on quite nicely. Well, to avoid threads bouncing back and forth between an article talkpage and drama board and then back to the article talk page, you might post a {{ Moved discussion to}} template. Whether it will serve to keep discussions focused on the issue is anyone's guess. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the welcome. I will check that issues you mention. Sageo ( talk) 18:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Saw your comment on AN, to notify an editor just post something along these lines on their talk. "Please be aware the topic area which cover Austrian economics is under General Sanctions You can see the community discussion here." Then log that notification here. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
So, you make a snippy comment at Talk:Ralph Raico and within minutes you stick another one here at RSN. You may not realise it but you are coming across as someone whose primary goal here is to moan in asides rather than discuss collaboratively. Can you please try to rein it in a bit? It is beginning to sound like a broken record and if you really have issues about all these alleged behavioural matters that you so frequently refer to then you should take them to WP:ANI or just perhaps WP:AE. - Sitush ( talk) 02:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You recently started some RSN discussions using an "involved/uninvolved" layout. I've started a discussion re same here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Please sign it. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
You are at 4RR on Thomas DiLorenzo. Please undo your last edit and do not edit war. Use talk and do not disparage other editors. Thanks.
SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
You are at 3RR on DiLorenzo. Please note. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Carol, you've done it again at the latest RSN thread. Do it again and you'll be well within scope of a topic ban for WP:TE and possibly even WP:NPA, even though you do not name names. Don't game the system by assuming that keeping names out of it somehow obviates liability. If you have a problem then report it instead of whinging from the sidelines. - Sitush ( talk) 00:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush ( talk) 01:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
As a result of a community discussion, the community has enacted editing restrictions, described at WP:AEGS and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor, provided the editor has been previously informed as this message does. This notice does not necessarily mean your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice will be logged at WP:AEGS.
I know you're already aware of this, but I felt that procedurally you should be technically notified since everyone else has been. This is a general notification, not one given in response to misconduct. Feel free to remove it. Mark Arsten ( talk) 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide a more specific section to the ANI discussion thread. It would be helpful. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
As I read the P-I sanctions page, it seems to apply to articles. Unless I'm missing something, I do not see how it applies to noticeboards or editor-editor interaction. Unless there is something specific in the sanctions, I suggest you remove the comment from S's talk page. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Carol, I was reading over the ANI thread on you today (I've been largely offline the past few days...out of state for the Thanksgiving holiday and a funeral). I don't think any administrative action is merited, but I would still like a commitment from you to try to refrain from discussing others' motives on article talk pages, and to try and focus more on the content. Does that sound like something you'd be willing to do? (This would be considered non-binding/on-your-honor.) ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Carol, your notice on those other editor talk pages included two links that referenced the exact same page and section – " here". The sequence is Ready, Aim, Fire!. Not Ready, Fire, Aim!. Moreover, the thread is closed. What to do? Personally, I'd remove each of the notices from the talk pages. If there were (not are) specific diffs that violated whatever, then you might bring up something on an ANI. But this particular effort is not helpful or productive for anyone. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Why you should open this as a "continuation" of the SPECIFICO thread is beyond me. The ANI was resolved, and it resolved in favor of you, and NW should have posted something like {{ resolved}} or archived it. The other "sub-thread' about Arbcom is another problem, but at least you did not start it. We do NOT want to go to arbcom, do we? Opening this sub-thread is the same sort of behavior that Sitush talked about earlier. He cited, at some point, put-up-or-shut-up. And I support Sitush in this view. If you've got specific diffs that lay out a case for ANI action, post them as a new, simple, clean, uncomplicated request. But these haphazard postings are not going to work and I am not going to support you in them. I will not be dragged into Arbcom because you won't heed the advice of more experienced editors (and myself). – S. Rich ( talk) 04:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 00:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for digging up the extra sources on HR. I'm not quite sure why MM has latched onto this topic with such furvor, but I hope I handled the situation appropriately. It would be easy to just keep reverting him until an admin called a halt, but that's what we'd call an edit war, and not something I'd want to be half of. I hope that by reporting it to ANI, wiser minds than mine can find a good solution. Anyway, I'm rambling-- thanks again for the sources! -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 22:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Carol, I hope all is well with you and that you had a good holiday. As you have been one of the regular editors participating in articles related to Austrian Economics, and I was hoping I could convince you to participate in a small experiment on dispute resolution. It's formatted as a simple question and answer, with a hint of RfC/U, aimed at getting participants to talk with one another, recognize potential problems, and with any luck, commit to fixing those problems. The page is at User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics and you are free to edit at your leisure. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 00:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Just so you don't feel later that you've wasted too much of your time, none of the sources in this edit amount to much at all from what I can see. The usual fringe theorists etc doing the usual fringe stuff & patting each other on the back etc. You are building a house of cards and the Stromberg article is a test case - if that gets deleted then I'll likely be nominating a lot of others that are equally shoddy constructions in the "Polemicists 'Я Us" genre. Find mentions and citations in mainstream publications outside the US - including influential news sources such as El Pais, Le Monde, The Hindu and The Guardian, and books from publishers such as Oxford University Press - and you'll have a much better chance. Bearing in mind WP:BEFORE, I wish you well. - Sitush ( talk) 17:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Adjwilley, the "crap" was not Carol's: the article has been in a poor state since 2005 and I'd already done my research before nominating at AfD. Carol may be well-intentioned but the chances of her turning this one round are poor: I know the policies and I've got a pretty good rep for reliability in sourcing matters. My allusion was to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. - Sitush ( talk) 21:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
... this comment about "double-standard sexism". I've no idea what you mean but it concerns me greatly. I, for one, couldn't care less what gender, race, religion etc someone may be and yet it seems to be my recent comments that have triggered your edit. You won't get an easier ride off me because of any of those things but you won't get a tougher one either: I just go straight down the middle.
If you're pissed off about sexism being shown then you should talk about it, not go away in a huff: if there are any sexist people involved here (of whatever "standard") then they need to be told. In fact, they need to have some sort of admin action imposed. - Sitush ( talk) 01:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you've been asked before not to insert point-y subsection headings at various venues - WP:RSN was one that I can still recall. Specifico was similarly requested (not by me). Any chance you can avoid doing this sort of thing, which nearly always seems to serve to draw emphasis to your opening statements? There may indeed sometimes be a need to break up a long section - the so-called "arbitrary break" - but neither of these sections were long at the point where you inserted the subheading. Ta. - Sitush ( talk) 14:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Your postings have been consistently negative, hostile and, yes, bullying and I experience them as harassing. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 15:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Reserving a space for a future edit. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Austrian economics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 December 2013.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
How many more times must you be asked not to significantly refactor your messages when others have replied to them. Eg: here. Is it confusing and, worse, disruptive. Please stop. - Sitush ( talk) 15:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I recognize I am 'permabanned' from this page, but this note is relevant to an official matter (Mediation). I will not be participating until you signed the pledge we talked about. Steeletrap ( talk) 15:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I see that you've notified the Libertarianism Project of the AfD regarding Riggenbach. You should also give the same notice to the other Projects listed on the article talk page. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 05:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm replying here because a reply at the AfD is inappropriate. You ask here "why the personal attacks". Firstly, you should have grown a backbone by now; secondly, the very fact that you (yet again) had to clarify what you had said earlier shows that your original comment was confusing; thirdly, you give as good as you get with the "spree" thing. Grow up, Carol, and please stop making pointless speculative comments about something that is outside our control, ie: the workings of Amazon. You seem frequently to massively increase the length of discussions by taking them down completely irrelevant byways. - Sitush ( talk) 17:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe it's today the sun turns. (Really much darkness and short days here in Norway now). Sorry for not replying to your post at my talk. I have decided to drop the whole thing and in the future mostly amuse myself with the various projects or of this "serious and competent young scholar". Wikipedia has its sides obviously, one has to take it for what it is and simply adjust, I have found. I agree with the concern on your userpage about users who add (almost) "only negative material in a certain topic area because it supports their POV". ArbCom has ruled in an earlier case that the practice of mainly adding negative material is unacceptable if it is done to a particular ethnic or religious group or similar. But I think this principle could be broadened to apply to users whose edit pattern over time is such that 80-90% of their edits to articles consist of adding negative information about persons or groups they consider their opponents; politically or otherwise. This is not a healthy edit pattern; particularly not when it is about persons. Best wishes and A happy new year. Iselilja ( talk) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Carol, the SPI is not going to resolve anything. These are not socks or meatpuppets. If there are other problems, then such problems should be addressed on other noticeboards. But everybody who adds stuff to the SPI aint doing themselves or the project any help. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 05:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
You have misrepresented my statement in this edit. This is unaccepable. As a courtesy, I am posting this formal notice that you should remove/correct your false characterization of my post. I am prepared to seek enforcement of Community Sanctions if you do not stop violating civility and talk page policies. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You have again misrepresented me here, snidely attributing to me an edit which I did not make. You should strike through your misrepresentation. If you do not, I will seek to have you blocked immediately per AEGS. If you ever misrepresent my words or actions in the future I will seek to have you blocked without further warning. 02:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
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.
Per BRD, you should use talk.
Please undo this edit.
SPECIFICO
talk 14:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
notice you posted on he defunct Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anti-war
I am looking to source Ploughshares Fund because large portions are getting deleted.
Can you point me to a Anti-war wikiproject,others who may help, or help me source this article? At the least watch the article?
Thank you! keep up the great work!
You may also be interested in WP:ARS. Igottheconch ( talk) 06:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)