![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Thank you for your edits. I think you're right about my tone--I am a bit harried because of a DYK which turned out to be a nightmare yesterday (although it is finally on the front page). Then I come back online and see that an unregistered account wants to delete his page...Anyway, I will take a short break from Wikipedia after this one gets saved I think! Zigzig20s ( talk) 17:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey, just a quick note to say that I appreciate your contributions to ALEC. We might disagree on a few issues but that's healthy. I've been editing the article lonely and largely unchecked for some time and it's always good to get some critical feedback. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Why did you delete these sections? They were improperly archived, appearing in the archives below the archive footer. You are hounding me? I am well aware of the battleground mentality you have repeatedly expressed, e.g., at Austrian Economics arbitration, and I will not hesitate to open an RFC/U on the history of your interactions with me if you do not improve your behavior immediately. EllenCT ( talk) 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your note.
I do not have an commercial interest in my postings ref Michael D. Echanis.
If you have specifics otherwise please share and I'll be happy to clarify / correct. Please include sources of such allegations if there are any.
Nor do I have a conflict of interest in any regard or respect. Far from it, actually.
I have, in the recent past, self-edited the initial lengthly piece down to a very reasonable length.
It is heavily referenced - more so than many other such pieces I see on Wiki - and certainly more so than previous postings on the subject prior to my becoming aware of and entering into the contributor catagory.
Certainly, however, if you have specifics please let me know and I'll respond in an appropriate manner.
Thank you.
Greg Walker (Retired) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magmaster ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. If being the acknowledged subject matter expert on Michael Echanis is a COI please advise. This as opposed to the initial fabrications, fiction, myth, lies and other less than stellar "historical" information I encountered when I first saw/read this WikiPost. I am the only authority on this subject who has properly researched, to include FOIA, Echanis' military background and stated for the record he was NOT either Ranger or Special Forces qualified as so often quoted. That is not the action of someone seeking to continue to paint the subject in the best of lights...which would be a COI. As stated in the August/September 2013 issue of Black Belt Magazine, in conjunction with the article I wrote on Mike Echanis, I have not asked for or received any financial reimbursement for said work - nor the article in the December/January 2014 issue of the same publication announcing Mike's induction into the BB Hall of Fame. I believe if you will re-read the current Wiki post you will find it quite concise, accurate, referenced and appropriate. Magmaster ( talk) 18:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:@ SPECIFICO: If it is so stupid, if it is so irrelevant, if it is so miniscule, you could leave it alone. But the source found the detail interesting enough to put in his article. Netoholic likes SM and you ( Personal attack removed) remove the wikilink. And then you present Nobel as a straw-man and expect me to report back to you. Hell no. If Nobel's article had a wikilink to the neighborhood of his boyhood playground, no editor would remove it. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did on
Talk:Stefan_Molyneux. 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.
You've posted text which falsely attributes inappropriate views, feelings, and motives to me. This is not acceptable. Because you've recently made considerable progress in avoiding such behavior I have decided, rather than proceeding immediately to pursue a remedy, to extend you the courtesy of this warning. I request that you redact the
inappropriate personal remarks you made about me. Thanks.
SPECIFICO
talk 20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You're on increasingly thin ice in this stupid little mess, Srich. Your edit summary on the move is sarcastic and misrepresents and belittles the simple objective reason for my having contacted you about your initial misstep. I don't know whether you can fix it, but this will serve as an additional warning to you not to represent the motives or opinions of other editors and to exercise at least the level of care you would marshall to the paraphrase of a source reference in a WP article. This post will serve as a record that you are fully aware of the problem with your recent actions. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Kindly undo your premature endorsement of the lede text. We operate by consensus. I don't like the change for reasons which I've stated. As I recall, there are two others who prefer the more complete version. You know better than to short circuit an ongoing discussion. Frankly, your behavior had the effect of facilitating edit warring, battleground, and ownership behavior for the other editor who was only waiting for the clock to run out on his already fourth revert before again jumping the gun on attempted resolution on talk. Please undo your proxy edit. There was no consensus for it and a short lapse in the talk dialogue is no reason to jump the gun, particularly in light of the recent history of this article. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I made the change, and if it is accepted it becomes consensus. I posted a note about the change on the talk page and invited editors to comment. Take a look at policy, which says "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing." – S. Rich ( talk) 19:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Do yourself a favor, kimosabe, and don't repeat the "everyones behaving like children" nonsense after it's died its natural ridiculous death. What's the point? That's not grown up, is it? SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think your help would be appreciated in the discussion Here, since you closed the previous discussion about Tesla's birthplace. There's some dispute regarding the conclusion of that discussion. It would be helpful to clarify whether the consensus determined that the present wording should stay, or that there was no consensus to change the present wording with the suggested formulation. Asdisis ( talk) 14:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to do, but in my view you are putting yourself at some risk of being found to violate WP:HOUNDING. If you are convinced that EllenCT has an established pattern of disruptive editing, it would be better to open an RfU and have the community act, rather than acting yourself. RfUs are a lot of work to set up soundly (and it is important to do that, lest the effort boomerang on you) but that is a better road to go down. You have done everything you could do talk directly with her in a civil way. Jytdog ( talk) 12:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jytdog, for your support. And I understand the risk. I'm hoping my comments will generate more support and eventually get her to stop the soapboxing etc. But I think an RFC/U will be next. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You may or may not have looked through the history of the page in question. SPECIFICO removed almost all the content on the claim that it was "unsourced", leaving the article a stub, which I reverted today. I noticed that you have added a request for more citations on the page -- can you explain what sort of citations you believe are currently lacking? I will then look for them. -- Pmetzger ( talk) 02:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't show you the diff of your hatting because some stuff has been revdel'd but I can show you the diff where Tarc reverted you here. The next time you intervene with something I'm involved in at ANI with an administrative action even though you are a non-administrator, I'll be seeking some sort of sanction against you. Your officiousness is becoming silly and disruptive in its own right: that's why so many people are reverting you or telling you to go away when you post admin-type messages on their talk pages. Drop it, please. - Sitush ( talk) 19:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Netoholic: rather than clutter the ANI thread with a response to you, I'll answer here: I really don't consider myself a victim of his behavior. That said, I do not think a site ban will result. I've proposed an IBAN for the two of them in the past, but hadn't garnered support. Seems, though, that an IBAN will go through this time. And it ought to be two-way – because I don't think CMDC would be following Specifico. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
For my education: does WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALL also apply to the following text in the article, or what is the difference between the following and what you deleted:
The IRS classified bitcoins as a capital asset end of March 2014[169] and subject to taxes on capital gains.[170] On 8 May 2014, the US Federal Election Commission issued draft guidance to US politicians who want to receive bitcoin donations.[171] The Commission declined to declare bitcoins currency, opting to deem them items "of value."[172] In May 2014, Brett Stapper, the co-founder of Falcon Global Capital, registered to lobby members of Congress and federal agencies on issues related to bitcoin.[173] As of June 2014, there are no new rules at the state level, although the New York State Department of Financial Services intended to propose regulations no later than the end of the second quarter of 2014. As of 11 March 2014, it officially invited bitcoin exchanges to apply with them.[174] In June 2014 California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) drafted legislation (Assembly Bill 129) to legalize bitcoin and all other alternative and digital currency, such as Litecoin, Dogecoin, Starbucks Stars, and Amazon Coins.[175] However, Dickinson "thinks the federal government should regulate the cryptocurrency" and said "I saw this legislation as a ways of cleaning up the code in California to conform to reality".[175]
It seems to me that what I contributed is exactly the same as the above. Must the above then also be deleted in terms of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALL.
I just don´t see any difference between the above and what I contributed. Homni ( talk) 17:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)~
What does "Primary Source" mean? Homni ( talk) 17:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Srich, is Peter Schiff an Austrian Economist? That was quite a brouhaha a couple of years ago, but eventually the truth won out. Consider whether you're on the side of brouhaha or truth. The choice is yours, but consider you've recently been called out for nitpicking. Let's focus on important issues. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Srich, I doubt you'd be considered to have "clean hands" at AE with respect to Steeletrap at this point. Tenuous claims or claims that are not obvious on their face are apt to get you into trouble in that context. Let's focus on important matters, not this and that and this and that. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Have a peek, Srich. The Casey thing is even dumber than the Schiff thing was. And the Schiff thing went on and on and on. [2] Not everyone who writes about economics is an economist. Not everyone who writes about Austrian economics is an Austrian economist. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Here. What's your problem with "however"? It's contrasting two very different receptions, and such language is used on Wikipedia all the time. Otherwise, if readers are just skimming, they might not even notice the shift in reception in the third sentence. To the minimal extent it's "editorial", it's well within our purview as editors. VictorD7 ( talk) 04:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
For the longest time, I thought I was the only one that bugged. Then just yesterday (maybe two days ago now), I found another editor doing this elsewhere and thanked him. Now this. It's good to know there are similar eyes out there. Good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
I hope you have the presence of mind to reflect on how many Admins have rebuked you for your interpersonal lapses over the past 6-8 weeks. I suggest you stay away from situations which you find too "stimulating" for you. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
...You can confirm for yourself that I did not say you are "in denial" -- a statement which would be ad hominem and require an evaluation of your psychological or emotional condition. I stated in simple terms that any attorney should find routine that you deny the proposition put forth by the cited link. Reading "deny" to mean "in denial" is bizarre and further suggests you might benefit from a breather on these challenging articles..... SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to this, which Srich appears to deny. ...
Bullshit. I have not denied anything....Add it yourself, Specifico, or are you denying that the material is noteworthy?
I will add a bit of friendly advice. Whenever you feel a personal attack has taken place, contact another editor (or administrator) and ask them (informally) to consider an rpa template and/or proper rebuke to the offender. If they do so, you will be vindicated. If they do not, then you can consider why they did not act on your request. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
...you would have at least waited for Gamaliel's response to my compromise proposal before creating a new subsection for your own that threatens to bury mine, and that you had to know I'd find unacceptable. VictorD7 ( talk) 18:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
[3] Before Gamaliel churlishly deleted the discussion without comment, you posted on his talk page to claim that "fantastic" doesn't appear in the link, and you added the failed verification tag to the article. Two points:
1. The "fantastic" quote had already been removed by Gamaliel, so are you claiming that something else that's still there failed to verify?
2. The "fantastic" quote most certainly does verify. Scroll down about halfway down the page to read this quote: "Dinesh D'Souza's America (2014) had a fantastic hold this weekend. The documentary eased 13 percent to $2.45million; to date, its earned $8.2 million."
Careful. I'm not sure how it happened but it seems as if you've attracted a group of editors who are determined to scuttle your Admin bid. I just notice you railing against Eric Corbett for cussing, but I think you'd do best to keep a low profile in case they search your talk page and find that it's peppered with your own colorful language. Probably best to lay low and stick to the cleanup routine for now. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Notice posted as you are related to, but not the subject of, the ANI.
There is currently a discussion at
WP:ANI regarding Eric Corbett's behavior. The thread is
Personal attacks and incivility by Eric Corbett. Thank you. —
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}} 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi S. Rich. I wanted to let you know that I opened an incident report on EllenCT at the administrator's noticeboard on her behavior at Neonicotinoid. I know you have your self-imposed interaction ban, and this is not a request for comment on my part, but rather I'm just letting you know I cited some of your talk page responses in the process of summarizing the behavior issues on the page so there aren't any surprises for you. Perfectly fine to ignore this one if you want. Thanks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 09:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, counselor. Thanks for your understanding in the Nick DeCarbo AfD. I do a lot of work with sports-related AfDs, if you have any questions, or would like to get more involved with sports AfDs, let me know. I'm happy to provide quick background and a road map for future endeavors. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Thank you for your edits. I think you're right about my tone--I am a bit harried because of a DYK which turned out to be a nightmare yesterday (although it is finally on the front page). Then I come back online and see that an unregistered account wants to delete his page...Anyway, I will take a short break from Wikipedia after this one gets saved I think! Zigzig20s ( talk) 17:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey, just a quick note to say that I appreciate your contributions to ALEC. We might disagree on a few issues but that's healthy. I've been editing the article lonely and largely unchecked for some time and it's always good to get some critical feedback. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Why did you delete these sections? They were improperly archived, appearing in the archives below the archive footer. You are hounding me? I am well aware of the battleground mentality you have repeatedly expressed, e.g., at Austrian Economics arbitration, and I will not hesitate to open an RFC/U on the history of your interactions with me if you do not improve your behavior immediately. EllenCT ( talk) 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for your note.
I do not have an commercial interest in my postings ref Michael D. Echanis.
If you have specifics otherwise please share and I'll be happy to clarify / correct. Please include sources of such allegations if there are any.
Nor do I have a conflict of interest in any regard or respect. Far from it, actually.
I have, in the recent past, self-edited the initial lengthly piece down to a very reasonable length.
It is heavily referenced - more so than many other such pieces I see on Wiki - and certainly more so than previous postings on the subject prior to my becoming aware of and entering into the contributor catagory.
Certainly, however, if you have specifics please let me know and I'll respond in an appropriate manner.
Thank you.
Greg Walker (Retired) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magmaster ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. If being the acknowledged subject matter expert on Michael Echanis is a COI please advise. This as opposed to the initial fabrications, fiction, myth, lies and other less than stellar "historical" information I encountered when I first saw/read this WikiPost. I am the only authority on this subject who has properly researched, to include FOIA, Echanis' military background and stated for the record he was NOT either Ranger or Special Forces qualified as so often quoted. That is not the action of someone seeking to continue to paint the subject in the best of lights...which would be a COI. As stated in the August/September 2013 issue of Black Belt Magazine, in conjunction with the article I wrote on Mike Echanis, I have not asked for or received any financial reimbursement for said work - nor the article in the December/January 2014 issue of the same publication announcing Mike's induction into the BB Hall of Fame. I believe if you will re-read the current Wiki post you will find it quite concise, accurate, referenced and appropriate. Magmaster ( talk) 18:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:@ SPECIFICO: If it is so stupid, if it is so irrelevant, if it is so miniscule, you could leave it alone. But the source found the detail interesting enough to put in his article. Netoholic likes SM and you ( Personal attack removed) remove the wikilink. And then you present Nobel as a straw-man and expect me to report back to you. Hell no. If Nobel's article had a wikilink to the neighborhood of his boyhood playground, no editor would remove it. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not
attack other editors, as you did on
Talk:Stefan_Molyneux. 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.
You've posted text which falsely attributes inappropriate views, feelings, and motives to me. This is not acceptable. Because you've recently made considerable progress in avoiding such behavior I have decided, rather than proceeding immediately to pursue a remedy, to extend you the courtesy of this warning. I request that you redact the
inappropriate personal remarks you made about me. Thanks.
SPECIFICO
talk 20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You're on increasingly thin ice in this stupid little mess, Srich. Your edit summary on the move is sarcastic and misrepresents and belittles the simple objective reason for my having contacted you about your initial misstep. I don't know whether you can fix it, but this will serve as an additional warning to you not to represent the motives or opinions of other editors and to exercise at least the level of care you would marshall to the paraphrase of a source reference in a WP article. This post will serve as a record that you are fully aware of the problem with your recent actions. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Kindly undo your premature endorsement of the lede text. We operate by consensus. I don't like the change for reasons which I've stated. As I recall, there are two others who prefer the more complete version. You know better than to short circuit an ongoing discussion. Frankly, your behavior had the effect of facilitating edit warring, battleground, and ownership behavior for the other editor who was only waiting for the clock to run out on his already fourth revert before again jumping the gun on attempted resolution on talk. Please undo your proxy edit. There was no consensus for it and a short lapse in the talk dialogue is no reason to jump the gun, particularly in light of the recent history of this article. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I made the change, and if it is accepted it becomes consensus. I posted a note about the change on the talk page and invited editors to comment. Take a look at policy, which says "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing." – S. Rich ( talk) 19:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Do yourself a favor, kimosabe, and don't repeat the "everyones behaving like children" nonsense after it's died its natural ridiculous death. What's the point? That's not grown up, is it? SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think your help would be appreciated in the discussion Here, since you closed the previous discussion about Tesla's birthplace. There's some dispute regarding the conclusion of that discussion. It would be helpful to clarify whether the consensus determined that the present wording should stay, or that there was no consensus to change the present wording with the suggested formulation. Asdisis ( talk) 14:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to do, but in my view you are putting yourself at some risk of being found to violate WP:HOUNDING. If you are convinced that EllenCT has an established pattern of disruptive editing, it would be better to open an RfU and have the community act, rather than acting yourself. RfUs are a lot of work to set up soundly (and it is important to do that, lest the effort boomerang on you) but that is a better road to go down. You have done everything you could do talk directly with her in a civil way. Jytdog ( talk) 12:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jytdog, for your support. And I understand the risk. I'm hoping my comments will generate more support and eventually get her to stop the soapboxing etc. But I think an RFC/U will be next. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You may or may not have looked through the history of the page in question. SPECIFICO removed almost all the content on the claim that it was "unsourced", leaving the article a stub, which I reverted today. I noticed that you have added a request for more citations on the page -- can you explain what sort of citations you believe are currently lacking? I will then look for them. -- Pmetzger ( talk) 02:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't show you the diff of your hatting because some stuff has been revdel'd but I can show you the diff where Tarc reverted you here. The next time you intervene with something I'm involved in at ANI with an administrative action even though you are a non-administrator, I'll be seeking some sort of sanction against you. Your officiousness is becoming silly and disruptive in its own right: that's why so many people are reverting you or telling you to go away when you post admin-type messages on their talk pages. Drop it, please. - Sitush ( talk) 19:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Netoholic: rather than clutter the ANI thread with a response to you, I'll answer here: I really don't consider myself a victim of his behavior. That said, I do not think a site ban will result. I've proposed an IBAN for the two of them in the past, but hadn't garnered support. Seems, though, that an IBAN will go through this time. And it ought to be two-way – because I don't think CMDC would be following Specifico. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
For my education: does WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALL also apply to the following text in the article, or what is the difference between the following and what you deleted:
The IRS classified bitcoins as a capital asset end of March 2014[169] and subject to taxes on capital gains.[170] On 8 May 2014, the US Federal Election Commission issued draft guidance to US politicians who want to receive bitcoin donations.[171] The Commission declined to declare bitcoins currency, opting to deem them items "of value."[172] In May 2014, Brett Stapper, the co-founder of Falcon Global Capital, registered to lobby members of Congress and federal agencies on issues related to bitcoin.[173] As of June 2014, there are no new rules at the state level, although the New York State Department of Financial Services intended to propose regulations no later than the end of the second quarter of 2014. As of 11 March 2014, it officially invited bitcoin exchanges to apply with them.[174] In June 2014 California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) drafted legislation (Assembly Bill 129) to legalize bitcoin and all other alternative and digital currency, such as Litecoin, Dogecoin, Starbucks Stars, and Amazon Coins.[175] However, Dickinson "thinks the federal government should regulate the cryptocurrency" and said "I saw this legislation as a ways of cleaning up the code in California to conform to reality".[175]
It seems to me that what I contributed is exactly the same as the above. Must the above then also be deleted in terms of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALL.
I just don´t see any difference between the above and what I contributed. Homni ( talk) 17:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)~
What does "Primary Source" mean? Homni ( talk) 17:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Srich, is Peter Schiff an Austrian Economist? That was quite a brouhaha a couple of years ago, but eventually the truth won out. Consider whether you're on the side of brouhaha or truth. The choice is yours, but consider you've recently been called out for nitpicking. Let's focus on important issues. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Srich, I doubt you'd be considered to have "clean hands" at AE with respect to Steeletrap at this point. Tenuous claims or claims that are not obvious on their face are apt to get you into trouble in that context. Let's focus on important matters, not this and that and this and that. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Have a peek, Srich. The Casey thing is even dumber than the Schiff thing was. And the Schiff thing went on and on and on. [2] Not everyone who writes about economics is an economist. Not everyone who writes about Austrian economics is an Austrian economist. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Here. What's your problem with "however"? It's contrasting two very different receptions, and such language is used on Wikipedia all the time. Otherwise, if readers are just skimming, they might not even notice the shift in reception in the third sentence. To the minimal extent it's "editorial", it's well within our purview as editors. VictorD7 ( talk) 04:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
For the longest time, I thought I was the only one that bugged. Then just yesterday (maybe two days ago now), I found another editor doing this elsewhere and thanked him. Now this. It's good to know there are similar eyes out there. Good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, July 22, 2014 (UTC)
I hope you have the presence of mind to reflect on how many Admins have rebuked you for your interpersonal lapses over the past 6-8 weeks. I suggest you stay away from situations which you find too "stimulating" for you. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
...You can confirm for yourself that I did not say you are "in denial" -- a statement which would be ad hominem and require an evaluation of your psychological or emotional condition. I stated in simple terms that any attorney should find routine that you deny the proposition put forth by the cited link. Reading "deny" to mean "in denial" is bizarre and further suggests you might benefit from a breather on these challenging articles..... SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to this, which Srich appears to deny. ...
Bullshit. I have not denied anything....Add it yourself, Specifico, or are you denying that the material is noteworthy?
I will add a bit of friendly advice. Whenever you feel a personal attack has taken place, contact another editor (or administrator) and ask them (informally) to consider an rpa template and/or proper rebuke to the offender. If they do so, you will be vindicated. If they do not, then you can consider why they did not act on your request. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
...you would have at least waited for Gamaliel's response to my compromise proposal before creating a new subsection for your own that threatens to bury mine, and that you had to know I'd find unacceptable. VictorD7 ( talk) 18:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
[3] Before Gamaliel churlishly deleted the discussion without comment, you posted on his talk page to claim that "fantastic" doesn't appear in the link, and you added the failed verification tag to the article. Two points:
1. The "fantastic" quote had already been removed by Gamaliel, so are you claiming that something else that's still there failed to verify?
2. The "fantastic" quote most certainly does verify. Scroll down about halfway down the page to read this quote: "Dinesh D'Souza's America (2014) had a fantastic hold this weekend. The documentary eased 13 percent to $2.45million; to date, its earned $8.2 million."
Careful. I'm not sure how it happened but it seems as if you've attracted a group of editors who are determined to scuttle your Admin bid. I just notice you railing against Eric Corbett for cussing, but I think you'd do best to keep a low profile in case they search your talk page and find that it's peppered with your own colorful language. Probably best to lay low and stick to the cleanup routine for now. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Notice posted as you are related to, but not the subject of, the ANI.
There is currently a discussion at
WP:ANI regarding Eric Corbett's behavior. The thread is
Personal attacks and incivility by Eric Corbett. Thank you. —
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}} 04:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi S. Rich. I wanted to let you know that I opened an incident report on EllenCT at the administrator's noticeboard on her behavior at Neonicotinoid. I know you have your self-imposed interaction ban, and this is not a request for comment on my part, but rather I'm just letting you know I cited some of your talk page responses in the process of summarizing the behavior issues on the page so there aren't any surprises for you. Perfectly fine to ignore this one if you want. Thanks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 09:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, counselor. Thanks for your understanding in the Nick DeCarbo AfD. I do a lot of work with sports-related AfDs, if you have any questions, or would like to get more involved with sports AfDs, let me know. I'm happy to provide quick background and a road map for future endeavors. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)