User talk:Srich32977: Difference between revisions

Your thoughts, please

I am going to request that the BLP violations be removed from the article, and would appreciate your advice on how best to present the request. I was advised to make the request on the article's TP, so I imagine a ping would be appropriate. I believe all the arguments for and against were well presented on the article's TP, but I've seen nothing that would validate inclusion of the contentious labels and pejorative terminology in the lead. Atsme☯^Consult 01:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You use {{Edit protected}}. See WP:EDITREQ for guidance. Be specific in what you want changed (by quoting the words) and why they are a BLP problem and what you propose to use as alternative language. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Question - should World Without Cancer be included in the lead? I think it is more appropriate for a BLP to include the first book he ever published along with his most notable which would be The Creature.... The body of the article can include other widely recognized titles with brief overviews highlighting areas of interest. Atsme☯^Consult 13:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you feel progress is being made at the Griffin TP, and if so, in what regard? Atsme☯^Consult 17:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And one aspect of this is the involvement of User:Callanecc, a WP Oversight member. This is a level above Administrator and these Wikipedians are quite rare (41 total). Please consider that Callanecc has done and what advice has been given.

I'm totally in support of Callanecc, can't help but admire his accomplishments. I just don't see the progress at Griffin. I went back through the edit history, and saw how the article transitioned to what it is today. It was actually in June of this year that the contentious label was added. It was attempted once before back in 2008, but the team of collaborators at the time wouldn't allow it. There may have been other attempts, but I didn't comb the edits that closely. I just want to get the article policy compliant, and then improve where necessary and expand it for a DYK candidacy. As you know, there are time constraints between the time of expansion and nomination. Editors can't possibly meet that timeline under the circumstances we're having to work under now. Some of the editors who are acting as guardians haven't even contributed any edits to improve or expand the article. Makes me wonder why they're so determined to revert the work of others. Atsme☯^Consult 05:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you are misinformed about DYK. Please look at WP:WIADYK. Note that I did two reassessments on the article – Class from B to C in August and to a Start class last week. To get a DYK the article needs a recent Good Article review. Next, if the article does not have an interesting "hook" it won't pass DYK muster. In this regard you must remember that Griffin is in many ways a kook given his promotion of laetrile, Noahs Ark, etc. Well, if the Ark was actually discovered or if laetrile was actually accepted by the medical community, then there'd be a hook. Since this ain't gonna happen, a DYK is not in the offing. Moreover, many in the WP community would oppose a DYK nomination because the nomination would be seen as promotional. And I am included in that group. Why? Because I'm more interested in making sure that WP keeps its BLP nose clean. And that is why you see me opposing the efforts to SYN a negative taint into the article. I dislike Griffin's kooky ideas, but I won't let WP become a vehicle to bash him. – S. Rich (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich, thank you for your transparency. I actually maintain an agnostic position with regards to my editing, which is probably a result of 30+ years as a professional writer/publisher/producer. I guess after you've spent lots of $$ (six figures) for errors & omissions policies over the years, survived several defamation and copyvio legal challenges, sat on numerous discussion panels, etc., one tends to learn the art of neutrality, the laws of copyright, and how best to keep one's nose clean. Unfortunately, insurance companies don't offer policies for one's "duh moments" or standing strong on principal, all of which can get pretty darn expensive, especially if you have an auto immune disease of the adrenal gland resulting in OCD to get things right. (I have no idea what I just said). My reference to DYK was actually for articles that, within the past seven days, have been either ..... expanded at least five fold.. I've done 5 DYKs this year, and got them all promoted to GAs, one of which became an FA which will be featured on the main page Dec 24th. I actually do have a pretty good understanding of the process. It's impossible to know all of WP's policies inside and out, but the policies I do know, I know well, and that includes BLP. I realize my edit count is flimsy compared to some of our seasoned editors who have chalked up numerous FAs - actually one of my goals here - and I feel extremely honored for the opportunity to have worked with some of the best editors on Wiki. There is a huge difference in publishing/writing/editing/producing magazines, screenplays and television specials VS contributing what little one has learned over the years to help aspiring writers, editors, etc. on WP. I am not immune to making mistakes - I am after all, a mere human - but I still believe Griffin could be a candidate for DYK, possibly even GA if it's written properly, and adheres strictly to policy. That's what I specialize in, and enjoy doing most. Thank you for your unending patience, and tireless contributions. Your efforts are much appreciated. Atsme☯^Consult 14:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Special greeting...

Cemetery

There are notable cemeteries. I think one in Los Angeles, and another in Barre, Vermont. I'm sure there are others, but most aren't. I would guess that 99%+ of place articles do not have cemeteries mentioned, because they are not notable. Student7 (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The editing question is WP:NOTEWORTHY, not notability. So Los Angeles has several notable cemeteries in the area, and many of these cemeteries have their own articles. – S. Rich (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Alleged TB violation

I am perplexed by your allegations. Can you please specifically describe to me how I violated the TB? (Emphasis on specific.) Do you think Raimondo is affiliated with LvMI? Do you think removing unsourced content that contains the word "Murray Rothbard" is a violation? It seems to me that you are ignoring the intention of the TB and instead adopting a literalistic and tendentious interpretation of its tenets. Steeletrap (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you playing dumb? I don't think so. Rather, you find a article that you want to do a little WP:RGW-on and then fail to consider the consequences of your edits. Again, I advise to take a little time to review WP:TBAN – especially the fourth bullet example. When you edit material related to Murray Rothbard or Lew Rockwell, who are associated with Mises.org, you are violating the TBAN. Earlier I said I would report your violations, but I relented on this latest violation. Please don't think I am crying wolf. Be on the safe side and carefully consider whether the topic or the people or the references are related to Mises.org. Your taunts about competence and fringe will not deter me. – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

On law school exams at San Diego U, were you able to get away with just stating your conclusion without a supporting argument? Steeletrap (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have raised this at AN since I believe this type of recidivist tendentious editing on BLP issues simply cannot be ignored.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate: actually, because the edits involve violation of the specific TBAN and because they involve BLP violations, the proper venue is Arbcom Enforcement. – S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was suggesting a potential broadening of the topic ban beyond the topic of Austrian Economics and thus raised it at AN as such a broadening would not fall within the scope of the discretionary sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've hoped that my admonitions would be sufficient, but Steeletrap seems to be putting her head in the sand. Now, above, she taunts me about law school. (She ought to try attending law school and taking the Bar Exam.) Even so, I had expected to wait till 2015 to pursue this. So I'm glad you've initiated action. As I read your comment, you are asking that Steeletrap's TBAN be expanded. Perhaps into topics involving libertarianism (and other topics)? I'm just not familiar enough with the process. I surmise that an Arbcom member could do so (e.g., broaden the scope of the TBAN) independently from the ANI process. – S. Rich (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Srich you're making a warthog out of a chipmunk here. Stand back. A small content dispute and you wish to pursue draconian sanctions? Really? SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Quit being so sensitive, soldier. I wasn't taunting you about law school. I was trying to bring you back to your former studious self. The point was that you must (given your education) be capable of making real arguments, as opposed to bare conclusory statements. Steeletrap (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You are being naive. The conclusion will be rendered by an administrator or Arbcom member. I think you will be on vacation for awhile. (But I am glad that you appreciate that I am a sensitive person.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC

Also, stop victim playing. Last year, when the Arbcom was underway, I commented during the discussion and the Arbcom decided to impose a TBAN. The TBAN was based on the evidence and arguments presented. Later, despite my gentle admonitions to behave, you persisted in Pushing the Envelope (album). But pushing the envelope ≈ POV-pushing. Consequently, I expect further sanctions are in the offing. – S. Rich (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. I'm not going to get banned, because most people (including many who hate me) disagree with your muddle-headed interpretation of my TB. You are belatedly recognizing this and, knowing that the thread will close without action, are trying to lead the way in a closure so that you can say that the closure doesn't reflect a victory for Steele. Steeletrap (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Srich32977!

Happy New Year!

Srich32977,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Atsme☯^Consult 13:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Noticeboard

Thank you for writing and finding solution.[1] It is just a normal administrator noticeboard,(AN) not incident(ANI). I know you are aware of it, but I thought of pointing it to you because you have called it ANI. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	As a reminder to keep your greatest life aspiration in sight. Steeletrap (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering that you offered the barnstar as one of your final edits before going into retirement, it is accepted and appreciated. And I thank you for the many constructive edits you provided to the project. Other edits I will praise as having been interesting. (I will add that adminship is hardly my greatest life aspiration.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

After that ARE complaint will be closed, you will try for a RFA? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

At present I'm killing time as a real life/death event sssslllloooowwwwllllyyyy comes to a close. Then, after moving and doing a few Spartan Races, I shall think about those silly questions that RFAs must endure. – S. Rich (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		A beer on me!
		I couldn't find an 18-pak, so just start with this one. You've earned the entire distributorship. Atsme☯Consult 06:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad you agreed with me

Frankly, I was rather puzzled by that edit of yours. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Sloppy of me. I went through the category articles and if I did't see "plot" or "conspi" in the search results, I quickly scanned by eyeball and then removed the category. Actually, I think the category is over broad. It seems to encompass anyone who has accepted or mentioned some sort of conspiracy, even if they had no hand in developing the particular theory. At the moment I'm thinking about adding the category to Hillary's and Reverend White's articles. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me that the category is for people who are substantially known for propagating a particular conspiracy theory, not just people who discuss actual conspiracies. The Bolsheviki were an actual conspiracy; the American Legislative Exchange Council functions as a conspiracy, albeit the existent of the actual conspiracy is not much of a secret anymore. Discussing either of them does not make you a conspiracy theorist. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite so. But as "conspiracy theorist" has become a derogatory term, it is problematic. Take a look at what's going on at G. Edward Griffin. – S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

One click archiver

Question - when I paste the code into my /common.js page, it generates an error symbol. I saved it anyway, but don't see any change. The instructions aren't very detailed, and I'm not that well-versed writing code. Your help will be appreciated. Atsme☯^Consult 04:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I cant remember how I activated the feature. Perhaps on the Preferences section – Gadgets – of your user page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

TY. Atsme☯^Consult 04:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Paring back to a policy compliant version

As you and I have both pointed out on the Griffin TP, the article was actually policy compliant and quite stable in June 2014, and then the contentious "conspiracy label" was added and things went downhill from there. I don't understand why WP:BLP (Maintenance of BLPs) doesn't take precedence: When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version. Sometimes the use of administrative tools such as page protection and deletion is necessary for the enforcement of this policy, and in extreme cases action by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required. Based on what's happening now, shouldn't the article be pared back to the policy-compliant version, at least until the disputes have been resolved? Atsme☯^Consult 17:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America: Imagine the World Without Her". 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 24 January 2015.

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. 19:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning America: Imagine the World Without Her, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A request for Arbitration has been made for America: Imagine a World Without her

The request can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Casprings (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Srich32977, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that this case has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

Interview for The Signpost

This message is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Death

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Death for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 19:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about best practices for adding link to more complete information

Thanks for your note on my talk page, Rich. I understand the policy on advertising. Is there a way I can word the addition I made differently so that it is not promotional but still gets that information out there? The list I edited is woefully incomplete, and I thought the best, easiest way to address that would be to add a link to a more complete, updated list. I'm not going to claim not to be biased -- I know the list I linked to is the most complete because I'm immersed in this issue every day and have contributed many of the updates to the list I linked to myself. But failing a complete overhaul of the Wikipedia list page, which I have neither time nor editorial "authority" to do, what is the best option here? Rebekah Wilce (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rebekah Wilce: Thanks for your message. Please note I've added the SourceWatch link at the bottom of the page in the External links section. We cannot use Wikipedia's "voice" to say 'SourceWatch is the best place to go to for more or complete info'. Because SW is a wiki we do not consider it a reliable source. The acceptable practice is to use the sources that SW editors, such as yourself, rely on to post info. Also, your connection to SW may be a problem in terms of conflict of interest. That is, any time you posted a SW link you'd be violating policy – even more so if was material that you had written. (I think you would be okay if you posted non-SW data.)

Anytime you want to ask, please drop by here. I'm pretty active on WP and like to help other editors. Also, you can see that two other editors are quite involved in the ALEC list pages. You can contact them too. Finally you can post a {{request edit}} on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Italy-USA Foundation and ALEC

Regarding the article Italy-USA Foundation and the relations with ALEC I would like to suggest this source http://www.italiausa.org/index.php?c=notizia&id=975 I am sorry but I dont know how to include a source in the article, may be you can help me. Thank you. 79.37.211.126 (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done – S. Rich (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on G. Edward Griffin. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

hm, i opened a discussion of this on Talk - you just have edit warred. Shows where each of us are coming from.Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: please note that our closer, an admin with some considerable experience, has restored the lede edit, protected the page {(edit conflict) and suggested opening a new talk page thread). Also, the archiving on the talk page was done in a very modest effort to remove completely non-relevant sections. The talk page is at 350kb, a huge number. There is no reason to put the garbage back in. You are being disruptive. Stop. – S. Rich (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. It is not shared by all. I was actually ready to accept the conclusion to remove "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence, but in my view the implementing edit exceeded the scope of the RfC. Nyytend went too far. I have asked for a review of the close, so we will see where that goes. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed both the comments you added and the ANI. What is disappointing is to see you ignore the guidance and comments I provided on both the edit summary and on the talk page (e.g., procedure for challenging a closure). As for Nyttend, you should have put two and two together (Nyttend's edits and the closing rationale) to see what was intended. Nyttend closed the RFC and based the edit on policy. That new version became the "consensus version" and it was improper to skirt around it with the flimsy "first sentence" excuse. Unfortunately you (and others) are so intent on denigrating Griffen with the CT label that you are not content to see the term used in the infobox, text lower in the article (it its own section), and as a category. And now I see you withdrawing the ANI. Jezz, two dozen edits by you, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. – S. Rich (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: you got upset about how I manually archived a few small threads, but then you agreed to (and implemented) a 45 day archive period. This resulted in 15 threads/100kb being archived. To me this says you are objecting to my edits simply because I am the one doing them. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You could have simply asked a neutral question - the lack of AGF in your question was unnecessary. You still haven't asked me why I reverted (although my explanation was there in my edit notes and in the Talk sections I opened both times) if those aren't clear, please just ask me. thx. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

And now you accuse me of lacking good faith? You posted comments about being "confused" about the small manual archiving and I've tried to explain it was simple clean up of needless threads. (Do you need diffs to see this?) Jytdog, I'm looking for something that will motivate you to look at your own lack of objectivity – it seems to me that if I do something you've got to find or invent some fault with it. IMO you can't see the the contradiction inherent in reverting my small incremental manual archives and then implementing the huge archiving that the bot accomplished. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You are still not asking me anything - you are just telling me things about myself, and that is your goal - not to actually try to understand why I have done what I done. OK. I hear it, that you think I am not being objective. Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Why did you do what you did? – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(so strange.. is it so hard to just ask a simple question - does it really need italics? i don't understand your communication style) When you did your "one-click archiving", you provided no rationale for selecting this or that section to archive. It wasn't chronological, i couldn't see a topical thread.... it seemed random. As far as I could tell, the archives resulting from your one-clicks would be random, and anybody trying to trace what has unfolded would be pretty much lost. that is a bad thing to me. The first time you did it (without discussion first) i reverted and opened a discussion, to which you didn't reply. Which said to me that you didn't really care. I was surprised when you selectively archived things again, again providing no rationale for selecting this thing or that to archive. Again, I opened a Talk page discussion so we could discuss it; this time i offered a suggestion for addressing your concern with the length of the Talk page. This time you responded and we reached agreement on a way to archive the page. The archives created by the bot should be roughly chronological; they should not be not too difficult for somebody (which by now includes me) to follow. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The one-click archive feature does not provide a means for giving explanations. Nor does it allow for marking the edits as minor. Edits do not always require explanations, especially when they are minor or obvious. The archives I did were not random -- they were obviously minor and/or on threads which had closed. Whether done by bot or manually, the threads go into the newest archive, not randomly. (Editors who are interested in old topics can search the archives.) When you could not figure this out you might have given me some credit for knowing what I was doing. Instead of reverting, you could have asked me why. (VictorD7 did so.) You could not see that I had fixed the archive parameters and archived two 2011 threads, a 2012 thread, a 5 month old thread, a closed thread re the BLPN, the resolved American Media thread, the resolved CFP thread, the UNDUE tag thread that was being discussed below, and the PP request that was OBE. Now the threads with Steeletrap were more recent, but you could have "undone" them individually. Instead you did a one-click revert of my selected archiving with a "Sorry, but I don't agree with selections of what to keep and what to archive" edit summary. You mean you thought all of the old threads, etc. should have stayed on the active talk page? That is silly because the bot would have come along sooner or later. Instead you added to the cluttered talk page with a rather silly (IMO) question. Note I replied at 02:33, 7 January 2015. (Specifico seemed to object to [commented on my response].) Again it seems to me that you are not putting much thought into figuring out what I do. – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Crazy. I wonder what the heck happened to your reply in the archives? So what is becoming clear here is that it was important to me that the threads be preserved in a coherent order. It was important to you reduce the length of the Talk page. You attempted to meet your goal by selectively archiving things. I objected and eventually proposed that we let the bot do it, which should preserve the chronological order. You agreed to that. What are we talking about, exactly? We both got what we wanted. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup. We are resolved and can now move on. Why don't you go ahead and manually archive this thread? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

mmmm should I laugh? heck i am laughing.. (i hope that was meant to be funny! tone is so hard, in writing) Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Srich, I wasn't objecting to your response. I was just giving you a heads up (correctly as it has turned out) as to how your words would be received by other editors. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux Page

I noticed you reverted another user who was making some edits removing sections and adding poorly sourced material from forums. Looking through it seems this happen now and again and the user made an account and immediately made those edits and nothing else. Do people normally do that to the page? Perhaps the subject themself considering the name? If so I'll keep it on my watch list and if they do things like that again I'll clean it up as well.FlossumPossum (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think most editors start off with IP edits and then move to establish a username. (I did.) And I had the same thought about who the newbie was considering the description as a philosopher & first name usage. Thanks, FlossumPossum, for keeping an eye out for WP quality.

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Reputable references

Hi there, I notice you reverted my cited references and understand your reasoning for doing so, however, I would submit that they are in fact reputable and reliable citations for reference of the information on the page rather than spam. For example, the citation inserted on the Barrister page references material on a legitimate law firm website of a barristers' chambers. I hope you will agree, and that this edit can be restored. Thank you. Danshensmith (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Danshensmith It is not the information on the website that's at issue, it is you posting your website(s) as a reference. There are a lot of barristers, solicitors, lawyers, and attorneys in the world and many of them have websites. Just because the info on their websites is legitimate or correct does not make those pages acceptable on Wikipedia. Same policy applies to Baseboards and the other pages you edited. Thanks for your inquiry, but the links will not be restored. – S. Rich (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Rescue lost ref?

Can you help me restore lost ref comc1112? Thanks Hugh (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC) I found it. Hugh (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Outdated

I tagged List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council as outdated because I was halfway through updating the list of state chairs from the 2012 chairs to the 2015 chairs. Since most of the chairs are different, and many of the old ones are no longer legislators, I thought it prudent to alert readers that the article was out-of-date for the time being. I intended to remove the tag when I was completed with the update. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sloppy

Can't say you're wrong about that (though repeatedly self-reverting typos is better than ignoring them). I've always preferred substance over style. Steeletrap (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You know, I appreciate your calling me out. I'm the smartest person in the room, so my credibility is high. But the typos still diminish it. My problem is that I have no secretary here.

Would you be up for being my secretary? Your job would be to proofread my posts for typos prior to my posting them. Steeletrap (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Eamonn Butler

Hello. Why is there a threatening tag on his talkpage? What happened to justify that?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a "threatening" template at all – simply a notification to please edit carefully. The reason (Austrian economics) is listed. He has written on Austrian economics topics. – S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I know, but why is that a reason to be careful?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

For you, an experienced Wikipedian, there is no particular reason. But the Arbcom which adopted the sanctions involved some POV warriors. A TBAN was issued to two of them. Just to be clear I cast out and tagged all the Austrian econ topics I could find. The idea per {{Ds/talk notice}} is to inform/warn other editors (and POV warriors) who might seek to edit in the topic area with less than care. – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, I did not know it was a blanket tag. He is obviously very prominent, but the trick is to find references to in-line throughout the article. He's very self-effacing and only really ever talks/writes about ideas, so it's not that easy. (I find it very difficult to have a conversation with him as well--he's definitely not an open book.) There are biographical details in Think Tank, Madsen Pirie's book, but that doesn't seem very "third party" as they work together... Btw I could probably take his picture soon if he agrees.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Concern

The ag-gag article is a complete mess. Have you put it up for deletion, if so where is the discussion? Thanks. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin Violation

Greetings amigo. You have done 2 edits, each labeled "my one edit for the week," in a span of 6 days on the Griffin article. I suggest you revert your second edit and wait until a week has passed so that you will not be sanctioned. Patience. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the one revert per seven days restriction ([2] & [3]) on the page G. Edward Griffin, you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."