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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I know that you mean well but this has, I think, been pointed out to you by others on past occasions. Best not to stick {{ resolved}} etc on boards such as ANI. Let the admins do what they do. You gain nothing personally by tagging as such and you risk the accusation of stifling discussion in a non-admin role when you are in fact involved in that discussion. - Sitush ( talk) 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you also working for Rubin? [1] [2] Or do you really want me to search for articles which link KI to the TPM? MilesMoney ( talk) 22:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I very much appreciated your feedback and I'm glad we were able to improve the article. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow! (But so early in the morning?) Appreciated – I'll have to wait a while before I consume. Ping me for more reviews as needed, and please be patient if I don't get back as quickly as you like. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
no more discussion is warranted |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ MilesMoney: your comment in this edit [3] had nothing to do with article improvement. You simply said certain editors were wrong, and your comments about abuse and censorship violate AGF. If you think someone is abusing or censoring WP, then bring it up on the ANI and supply the diffs. Track record? What bullshit! – S. Rich ( talk) 06:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense at all. Since when is a general statement somehow unacceptable? I see you making them all the time; perhaps you have different standards for yourself. The fact remains that you still haven't addressed the issue. MilesMoney ( talk) 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC) |
That last one. Fiddle Faddle 17:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite new to editing on Wikipedia so forgive me if this is a newbie question. May I add the logo for Santa Clara Law? I see that other law school pages (Harvard, Vanderbilt, Stanford, etc.) all have their logos included on their page. It would be nice if the page for Santa Clara Law had the same. The logo is located here: http://law.scu.edu/wp-content/themes/responsive-child/images/scu-law-badge.png.
Also, I am a librarian at Santa Clara Law. Is it inappropriate for me to correct references or is that also considered a conflict of interest?
Thanks,
Davidbrianholt ( talk) 02:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. Also, the logo for the high tech journal used on the page is no longer used.
Davidbrianholt ( talk) 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I have permission from our dean of external relations to use the logo. Is that sufficient?
Librarian at Santa Clara Law 03:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbrianholt ( talk • contribs)
I don't know. Try posting a {{ helpme}} template on your talk page. And resolve the COI declaration! – S. Rich ( talk) 03:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought putting my "COI" in the signature was recommended. Sorry for being such a newbie but what else am I supposed to do? Thanks!
David Holt - Law Librarian at Santa Clara Law ( talk) 03:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
As I read WP:COIDEC, you create your user page that says "I'm David Holt, librarian at SCL." And you "identify the articles related to your COI and confirm your intention to follow the conflict of interest guideline." At that point your signature is modified to reflect the COI declaration. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this right? Thanks!
User:davidbrianholt 04:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to alert you to an on-going discussion at Admin's Noticeboard/Incidents. You are one of five editors to issue a behavior warning to MilesMoney. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 09:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Please don't add this source as a reference unless actually used to source a fact in the article, and also since it is a specialized encyclopedia it is not generally useful for articles that are not directly related to its focus, namely libertarianism. I have removed the source from a number of articles where it was not a relevant source, and where it was not used to support specific facts. Adding sources is of course helpful - but it can look like spamming or promotion of a specific book when added in this way across articles where it has only a tangential relation to the topic. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll reply on the noticeboard. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey SRich, I hope all is well with you. 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) 00:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
When you said see talk on dark money, which talk page was this? Hcobb ( talk) 19:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Jeez! –
[5]. At least one editor thinks I posted a "perfectly legitimate query".
My response is less moderated – [[File:|25px|link=]]. –
S. Rich (
talk) 18:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Rather than torpedo the discussion set up by Adjwilley, I will post my reaction to Specifico's latest comment here:
The [discussion] question is: "In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute? [emphasis added]" Comment by User:SPECIFICO. "Carol should be topic-banned for at least six months..... 'blah - blah - blah'"
My reaction: What an outrageous posting! Just appalling!! Completely against the spirit in which Adjwilley set up this discussion. Proposing a topic ban has absolutely no fucking relevance or helpfulness as to how Carolmooredc herself might better resolve the dispute! This is just another example of how Specifico abuses the discussion process – he criticizes others when article talk page comments veer off-course, and posts the same fucking garbage himself on the article talk pages. (For more BS, see earlier comments by me WRT Specifico.) And then he has the gall to post this stuff.... [emphasis toned-down] – S. Rich ( talk) 06:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#User:Wran – continued disruption - your attempts to explain policy didn't make any difference. Dougweller ( talk) 19:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"Thanks for the laugh", you said, and "A lawyer looks at the facts and seeks to spot and analyze the issues", you also showed some interest in infoboxes ;) - Look at this (shortened a bit, and by now I can laugh):
A lawyer arbitrator says one user needs to be banned. Guess who? (
help, only if you need it) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 23:18, 12 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)
Banning you from my page several months ago was a misstep (which, for the record, I officially *revoke*), because you are a good-faith peer from whom there is much to learn. But even if the ban was wrongheaded, it is nonetheless disturbing that you basically ignored it (and bans imposed by others, including carol and specifico) to comment whenever you please. Your criticisms, while sometimes useful, are over-the-top both in tone and quantity. And you tend to believe that your interpretation of policy *needs* to be heard, as forcefully as possible, at every given moment. This need to be heard comes at the cost of civility or even policy itself (e.g. the rule to respect other users' wishes regarding whether to stay off their talk pages).
You are clearly an intelligent person who is passionate about the principles of the community. Moreover, you are relatively adept at weeding out your biases in your contributions to articles, and I have often accepted your criticisms of in that regard. However, your 'alpha male' persona tends to facilitate a heavy-handedness that disrespects the boundaries of other users. That is why, for the record, I would hesitate to support you for admin (despite the fact that you have many qualities ideal for that post). I fear investing you with all that power would magnify your 'dark side' and disregard for the perspectives of other users. (Please note that by "disregard" I don't mean disrespectfulness or personal attacks. What I mean is heavy-handedness, overconfidence, and rigidness.) Steeletrap ( talk) 21:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The comments and suggestions are appreciated. A few replies: I appreciate the revocation – it seems that the talkpage comments I posted had come to be accepted without objection. I recognize I can be brusk – sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes not. If there are diffs that explain where I've been wrong – in any manner – on policy, I'd be happy to see them. Moving on, you might note above that 3 experienced editors/admins recently invited be to apply for adminship. (They want me to lend a hand in the dirty work, so perhaps they see that bruskness is an asset on occasions.) And I've received off-wiki endorsements from a few other experienced admins. I've been reluctant because the application process can be less than enjoyable. (See: User:Giggy/Passing RfA for fun and profit! and other commentary for background.) Well, with the different on & off wiki endorsements, I think I can achieve the status. But I do not want (past) enemies opposing me because of old friction. I won't ask for endorsements from you or other editors in the AE struggle, but I do ask that you defer on opposition. In any event, I can promise that WP:INVOLVED will be followed in all cases – if I receive the position. In the long term, I expect to edit until I hit 100,000 edits and then retire. So please let me do me include some admin work in my next 39,000 edits. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 01:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
An interesting dilemma may be developing. The group (or individuals) takes "the negative pledge". I RfA. Does the negative pledge "no statements about contributors" thereby preclude pledgers from making negative comments about me in the RfA process? – S. Rich ( talk) 02:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It is true that RfAs result in a review of editing history, etc. But the decision to add commentary in an RfA lies with the individuals. I would think "the pledge" would have the effect of prohibiting one editor from denigrating another, including that forum. You know, perhaps I should have gone for the job back in July. You might have even nominated me back then. (You can do so now if you like. Simply say I am a wise one and that more Deputy Sheriffs in the admin world are needed.) I certainly understand that friction between us since July may have changed your mind. But I do not think my interactions outside of our AE circle has changed significantly. What is interesting, personally, is that the 3 administrators in the section above want me to apply, if only so that I can take over some of the dirty work. (With that in mind, my sometimes brusk demeanor and commentary may be the virtue that they think is valuable.) And, there are other admins who have done some off-wiki recruiting of me. If you and the other AE "members" will take the pledge, you will free me to go on to other taskings and areas of interest. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Specifico, you've repeatedly made comments about my not knowing, applying policy (or guidelines). On this page (above) you said:
Knowing about policies and guidelines is key to any administrator. With this in mind, I'd like to see exactly how I have erred. You have mentioned that diffs exist, so I invite you to post specific examples.
So here is a user subpage for you (and others) to work with: User:Srich32977/SPECIFICO's listing of policy errors by S. Rich. It contains a table where diffs, analysis, etc. can be added. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: in this remark [6] you did not address MM's behavior or possible sanctions. No matter what, I hardly expected MM to support my candidacy. There is no reason for me to restrict myself before I have admin privileges. (Afterwards is an entirely different matter.) MM has been a disruptive editor from the get-go, and, you in many ways, such as with the off-topic remark you made, have encouraged that behavior. Moreover, as you have supported MM, don't you have a conflict of interest? Even if you did, you would be free to comment on the proposed sanction. (BTW, I await your posting of policy error diffs on the subpage I started.) – S. Rich ( talk) 05:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
PS: Specifico and MM, I promise to keep the table available when it comes time to comment on my application for admin. I will welcome comments from you both. (In fact, produce a WP:TLDR version of the table!) Same holds true for you, Steeletrap. And thanks for the heads-up on AfD/RfA. – S. Rich ( talk) 07:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, since there won't be anything exciting on TV that afternoon, I suppose I'll be getting ready for spring training to prevent the repetition of certain unfortunate event. Hint: I'm practicing kicking field goals, to see if I can get at least one out of four. Drmies ( talk) 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for that. It seemed like a simple format error. Capitalismojo ( talk) 04:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
S.Rich: I have begun changing the language of the Tuskegee Airmen articles that I have worked on to state that the Congressional Medal of Honor was given to the group as a whole. If it is known if the person in question was in attendance at the public ceremony where the medal was presented, I include that information. But I make it clear that the award is not being given to the person per se but to the group en toto. Hopefully, that will avoid any confusion about whether that award establishes notability or not. I am working to establish notability on other grounds. Cheers. Stevenmg ( talk) 00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the original comment about the Federal Reserve was mine, I was just signing it properly. That was the only change made to the actual comment.
Your change results in a deletion of the entire comment instead of reverting back to an incorrect signature. Disestablishmentarianism 07:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixoplic ( talk • contribs)
@ Mixoplic: your username is Mixoplic. Your user signature looks like User:Mixoplic. When you add a non-Wiki markup word, like Disestablishmentarianism, it looks like vandalism. For more information, see WP:USERNAME and WP:SIGNATURES. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: WRT your question here, I don't think I shall answer. One, to do so on that thread would needlessly distract (and disrupt) from the subject at hand. Two, if editors, including yourself, wish to open an ANI regarding other users, they can do do. Then diffs pertaining to that other editor can be laid out. (As it is, the MM thread already has too much distraction.) In such cases, I will comment when I think I have some small helpful points to add. Please let me know when or if you open an ANI regarding persons of interest. Thank you. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC) BTW, thank you for the complement on the correction.03:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You (and this applies to User:Binksternet and User:carolmooredc as well) appear to completely misunderstand WP:Academic. Cursory mention in half a dozen RS does not come close to establishing notability; you have to demonstrate that an individual has substantively influenced mainstream dialogue. I suggest that instead of a swift and cursory Googling session (which in the case of Bink, often leads to pretty egregious errors, e.g. citing an undergraduate's paper as an RS), you both read sources to see what they say about a scholar's influence. As to how to test whether a scholar meets WP:Academic notability standards, User:Randykitty puts this better than I could on the Thornton AfD page. Steeletrap ( talk) 16:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC) To illustrate the point: By your and bink's standard, virtually all academics would have Wikipedia entries (including me, which is absurd at this stage of my career), because everyone with a (non-professional) graduate degree has to publish in journals. Steeletrap ( talk) 16:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
If you have a chance, please take a look at the subsection part of my response. I'm interested, either way, in your input re: non-notable, genealogy based articles.
(For instance, I learned in the last couple of months that small residential farming villages where the only sources I could find were PinCode (postal code in India) web pages, are considered notable.) Thanks!!! CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey @ SPECIFICO: why do you accuse me of disruptive editing in this comment? Steeletrap from the get-go talked about Presley editing her own article. Look at WP:COISELF and you might see how COI comments in the AfD are pertinent. "Strawman" argument? Are you saying my mention of COI is strawman, or my description of it as old is strawman? I'm not "denying" COI, so you are mischaracterizing my argument. I merely said the COI issue doesn't mean shit because it is long past and can be (or is) resolved by subsequent edits. Moreover, editors can write WP:ABOUTSELF so long as they follow guidelines. Why don't you do the right thing, Specifico, and strike your unwarranted and offensive comment? Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Srich, with all your WP:LINKs I hope you enjoy the chuckle from your visit to Sitush's page. [7] Having seen you deny it so many times, I'd guessed you had on at least one occasion read the page. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I presented what I considered a cogent and coherent case with several diffs and a lot of data. Rschen asked for more evidence, which I provided. Steeletrap has been interesting in how he handles this -- I suppose he figures if the water got muddy enough that the case would die. Alas -- I think the data is more than ample for a real examination. A close at this point, IMO, is a disservice to the data and diffs presented. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
such affairs belong behind closed doors |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi, Srich32977. This is just a heads-up about the number to issue bug of citation bot, which I filed in response to your edit to Fahrenheit 451 back on 14 November 2013. I had intended to inform you of the issue at the time but it slipped my mind. Sorry for that. The "number" parameter in cite templates should not be changed to "issue". That's the crux of the matter. Please prevent the bot from making these changes in the future. Cheers, Jason Quinn ( talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I know that you mean well but this has, I think, been pointed out to you by others on past occasions. Best not to stick {{ resolved}} etc on boards such as ANI. Let the admins do what they do. You gain nothing personally by tagging as such and you risk the accusation of stifling discussion in a non-admin role when you are in fact involved in that discussion. - Sitush ( talk) 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted. – S. Rich ( talk) 02:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Are you also working for Rubin? [1] [2] Or do you really want me to search for articles which link KI to the TPM? MilesMoney ( talk) 22:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I very much appreciated your feedback and I'm glad we were able to improve the article. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow! (But so early in the morning?) Appreciated – I'll have to wait a while before I consume. Ping me for more reviews as needed, and please be patient if I don't get back as quickly as you like. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
no more discussion is warranted |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ MilesMoney: your comment in this edit [3] had nothing to do with article improvement. You simply said certain editors were wrong, and your comments about abuse and censorship violate AGF. If you think someone is abusing or censoring WP, then bring it up on the ANI and supply the diffs. Track record? What bullshit! – S. Rich ( talk) 06:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense at all. Since when is a general statement somehow unacceptable? I see you making them all the time; perhaps you have different standards for yourself. The fact remains that you still haven't addressed the issue. MilesMoney ( talk) 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC) |
That last one. Fiddle Faddle 17:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite new to editing on Wikipedia so forgive me if this is a newbie question. May I add the logo for Santa Clara Law? I see that other law school pages (Harvard, Vanderbilt, Stanford, etc.) all have their logos included on their page. It would be nice if the page for Santa Clara Law had the same. The logo is located here: http://law.scu.edu/wp-content/themes/responsive-child/images/scu-law-badge.png.
Also, I am a librarian at Santa Clara Law. Is it inappropriate for me to correct references or is that also considered a conflict of interest?
Thanks,
Davidbrianholt ( talk) 02:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. Also, the logo for the high tech journal used on the page is no longer used.
Davidbrianholt ( talk) 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I have permission from our dean of external relations to use the logo. Is that sufficient?
Librarian at Santa Clara Law 03:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbrianholt ( talk • contribs)
I don't know. Try posting a {{ helpme}} template on your talk page. And resolve the COI declaration! – S. Rich ( talk) 03:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought putting my "COI" in the signature was recommended. Sorry for being such a newbie but what else am I supposed to do? Thanks!
David Holt - Law Librarian at Santa Clara Law ( talk) 03:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
As I read WP:COIDEC, you create your user page that says "I'm David Holt, librarian at SCL." And you "identify the articles related to your COI and confirm your intention to follow the conflict of interest guideline." At that point your signature is modified to reflect the COI declaration. – S. Rich ( talk) 04:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this right? Thanks!
User:davidbrianholt 04:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to alert you to an on-going discussion at Admin's Noticeboard/Incidents. You are one of five editors to issue a behavior warning to MilesMoney. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 09:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Please don't add this source as a reference unless actually used to source a fact in the article, and also since it is a specialized encyclopedia it is not generally useful for articles that are not directly related to its focus, namely libertarianism. I have removed the source from a number of articles where it was not a relevant source, and where it was not used to support specific facts. Adding sources is of course helpful - but it can look like spamming or promotion of a specific book when added in this way across articles where it has only a tangential relation to the topic. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll reply on the noticeboard. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey SRich, I hope all is well with you. 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) 00:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
When you said see talk on dark money, which talk page was this? Hcobb ( talk) 19:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Jeez! –
[5]. At least one editor thinks I posted a "perfectly legitimate query".
My response is less moderated – [[File:|25px|link=]]. –
S. Rich (
talk) 18:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Rather than torpedo the discussion set up by Adjwilley, I will post my reaction to Specifico's latest comment here:
The [discussion] question is: "In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute? [emphasis added]" Comment by User:SPECIFICO. "Carol should be topic-banned for at least six months..... 'blah - blah - blah'"
My reaction: What an outrageous posting! Just appalling!! Completely against the spirit in which Adjwilley set up this discussion. Proposing a topic ban has absolutely no fucking relevance or helpfulness as to how Carolmooredc herself might better resolve the dispute! This is just another example of how Specifico abuses the discussion process – he criticizes others when article talk page comments veer off-course, and posts the same fucking garbage himself on the article talk pages. (For more BS, see earlier comments by me WRT Specifico.) And then he has the gall to post this stuff.... [emphasis toned-down] – S. Rich ( talk) 06:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#User:Wran – continued disruption - your attempts to explain policy didn't make any difference. Dougweller ( talk) 19:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"Thanks for the laugh", you said, and "A lawyer looks at the facts and seeks to spot and analyze the issues", you also showed some interest in infoboxes ;) - Look at this (shortened a bit, and by now I can laugh):
A lawyer arbitrator says one user needs to be banned. Guess who? (
help, only if you need it) --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 23:18, 12 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)
Banning you from my page several months ago was a misstep (which, for the record, I officially *revoke*), because you are a good-faith peer from whom there is much to learn. But even if the ban was wrongheaded, it is nonetheless disturbing that you basically ignored it (and bans imposed by others, including carol and specifico) to comment whenever you please. Your criticisms, while sometimes useful, are over-the-top both in tone and quantity. And you tend to believe that your interpretation of policy *needs* to be heard, as forcefully as possible, at every given moment. This need to be heard comes at the cost of civility or even policy itself (e.g. the rule to respect other users' wishes regarding whether to stay off their talk pages).
You are clearly an intelligent person who is passionate about the principles of the community. Moreover, you are relatively adept at weeding out your biases in your contributions to articles, and I have often accepted your criticisms of in that regard. However, your 'alpha male' persona tends to facilitate a heavy-handedness that disrespects the boundaries of other users. That is why, for the record, I would hesitate to support you for admin (despite the fact that you have many qualities ideal for that post). I fear investing you with all that power would magnify your 'dark side' and disregard for the perspectives of other users. (Please note that by "disregard" I don't mean disrespectfulness or personal attacks. What I mean is heavy-handedness, overconfidence, and rigidness.) Steeletrap ( talk) 21:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The comments and suggestions are appreciated. A few replies: I appreciate the revocation – it seems that the talkpage comments I posted had come to be accepted without objection. I recognize I can be brusk – sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes not. If there are diffs that explain where I've been wrong – in any manner – on policy, I'd be happy to see them. Moving on, you might note above that 3 experienced editors/admins recently invited be to apply for adminship. (They want me to lend a hand in the dirty work, so perhaps they see that bruskness is an asset on occasions.) And I've received off-wiki endorsements from a few other experienced admins. I've been reluctant because the application process can be less than enjoyable. (See: User:Giggy/Passing RfA for fun and profit! and other commentary for background.) Well, with the different on & off wiki endorsements, I think I can achieve the status. But I do not want (past) enemies opposing me because of old friction. I won't ask for endorsements from you or other editors in the AE struggle, but I do ask that you defer on opposition. In any event, I can promise that WP:INVOLVED will be followed in all cases – if I receive the position. In the long term, I expect to edit until I hit 100,000 edits and then retire. So please let me do me include some admin work in my next 39,000 edits. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 01:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
An interesting dilemma may be developing. The group (or individuals) takes "the negative pledge". I RfA. Does the negative pledge "no statements about contributors" thereby preclude pledgers from making negative comments about me in the RfA process? – S. Rich ( talk) 02:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It is true that RfAs result in a review of editing history, etc. But the decision to add commentary in an RfA lies with the individuals. I would think "the pledge" would have the effect of prohibiting one editor from denigrating another, including that forum. You know, perhaps I should have gone for the job back in July. You might have even nominated me back then. (You can do so now if you like. Simply say I am a wise one and that more Deputy Sheriffs in the admin world are needed.) I certainly understand that friction between us since July may have changed your mind. But I do not think my interactions outside of our AE circle has changed significantly. What is interesting, personally, is that the 3 administrators in the section above want me to apply, if only so that I can take over some of the dirty work. (With that in mind, my sometimes brusk demeanor and commentary may be the virtue that they think is valuable.) And, there are other admins who have done some off-wiki recruiting of me. If you and the other AE "members" will take the pledge, you will free me to go on to other taskings and areas of interest. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Specifico, you've repeatedly made comments about my not knowing, applying policy (or guidelines). On this page (above) you said:
Knowing about policies and guidelines is key to any administrator. With this in mind, I'd like to see exactly how I have erred. You have mentioned that diffs exist, so I invite you to post specific examples.
So here is a user subpage for you (and others) to work with: User:Srich32977/SPECIFICO's listing of policy errors by S. Rich. It contains a table where diffs, analysis, etc. can be added. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: in this remark [6] you did not address MM's behavior or possible sanctions. No matter what, I hardly expected MM to support my candidacy. There is no reason for me to restrict myself before I have admin privileges. (Afterwards is an entirely different matter.) MM has been a disruptive editor from the get-go, and, you in many ways, such as with the off-topic remark you made, have encouraged that behavior. Moreover, as you have supported MM, don't you have a conflict of interest? Even if you did, you would be free to comment on the proposed sanction. (BTW, I await your posting of policy error diffs on the subpage I started.) – S. Rich ( talk) 05:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
PS: Specifico and MM, I promise to keep the table available when it comes time to comment on my application for admin. I will welcome comments from you both. (In fact, produce a WP:TLDR version of the table!) Same holds true for you, Steeletrap. And thanks for the heads-up on AfD/RfA. – S. Rich ( talk) 07:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, since there won't be anything exciting on TV that afternoon, I suppose I'll be getting ready for spring training to prevent the repetition of certain unfortunate event. Hint: I'm practicing kicking field goals, to see if I can get at least one out of four. Drmies ( talk) 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for that. It seemed like a simple format error. Capitalismojo ( talk) 04:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
S.Rich: I have begun changing the language of the Tuskegee Airmen articles that I have worked on to state that the Congressional Medal of Honor was given to the group as a whole. If it is known if the person in question was in attendance at the public ceremony where the medal was presented, I include that information. But I make it clear that the award is not being given to the person per se but to the group en toto. Hopefully, that will avoid any confusion about whether that award establishes notability or not. I am working to establish notability on other grounds. Cheers. Stevenmg ( talk) 00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the original comment about the Federal Reserve was mine, I was just signing it properly. That was the only change made to the actual comment.
Your change results in a deletion of the entire comment instead of reverting back to an incorrect signature. Disestablishmentarianism 07:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixoplic ( talk • contribs)
@ Mixoplic: your username is Mixoplic. Your user signature looks like User:Mixoplic. When you add a non-Wiki markup word, like Disestablishmentarianism, it looks like vandalism. For more information, see WP:USERNAME and WP:SIGNATURES. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 16:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: WRT your question here, I don't think I shall answer. One, to do so on that thread would needlessly distract (and disrupt) from the subject at hand. Two, if editors, including yourself, wish to open an ANI regarding other users, they can do do. Then diffs pertaining to that other editor can be laid out. (As it is, the MM thread already has too much distraction.) In such cases, I will comment when I think I have some small helpful points to add. Please let me know when or if you open an ANI regarding persons of interest. Thank you. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC) BTW, thank you for the complement on the correction.03:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
You (and this applies to User:Binksternet and User:carolmooredc as well) appear to completely misunderstand WP:Academic. Cursory mention in half a dozen RS does not come close to establishing notability; you have to demonstrate that an individual has substantively influenced mainstream dialogue. I suggest that instead of a swift and cursory Googling session (which in the case of Bink, often leads to pretty egregious errors, e.g. citing an undergraduate's paper as an RS), you both read sources to see what they say about a scholar's influence. As to how to test whether a scholar meets WP:Academic notability standards, User:Randykitty puts this better than I could on the Thornton AfD page. Steeletrap ( talk) 16:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC) To illustrate the point: By your and bink's standard, virtually all academics would have Wikipedia entries (including me, which is absurd at this stage of my career), because everyone with a (non-professional) graduate degree has to publish in journals. Steeletrap ( talk) 16:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
If you have a chance, please take a look at the subsection part of my response. I'm interested, either way, in your input re: non-notable, genealogy based articles.
(For instance, I learned in the last couple of months that small residential farming villages where the only sources I could find were PinCode (postal code in India) web pages, are considered notable.) Thanks!!! CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey @ SPECIFICO: why do you accuse me of disruptive editing in this comment? Steeletrap from the get-go talked about Presley editing her own article. Look at WP:COISELF and you might see how COI comments in the AfD are pertinent. "Strawman" argument? Are you saying my mention of COI is strawman, or my description of it as old is strawman? I'm not "denying" COI, so you are mischaracterizing my argument. I merely said the COI issue doesn't mean shit because it is long past and can be (or is) resolved by subsequent edits. Moreover, editors can write WP:ABOUTSELF so long as they follow guidelines. Why don't you do the right thing, Specifico, and strike your unwarranted and offensive comment? Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Srich, with all your WP:LINKs I hope you enjoy the chuckle from your visit to Sitush's page. [7] Having seen you deny it so many times, I'd guessed you had on at least one occasion read the page. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I presented what I considered a cogent and coherent case with several diffs and a lot of data. Rschen asked for more evidence, which I provided. Steeletrap has been interesting in how he handles this -- I suppose he figures if the water got muddy enough that the case would die. Alas -- I think the data is more than ample for a real examination. A close at this point, IMO, is a disservice to the data and diffs presented. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
such affairs belong behind closed doors |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi, Srich32977. This is just a heads-up about the number to issue bug of citation bot, which I filed in response to your edit to Fahrenheit 451 back on 14 November 2013. I had intended to inform you of the issue at the time but it slipped my mind. Sorry for that. The "number" parameter in cite templates should not be changed to "issue". That's the crux of the matter. Please prevent the bot from making these changes in the future. Cheers, Jason Quinn ( talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)