Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:35, 26 January 2013

This is Srich32977's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 3 months

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Jack Swanstrom

I just happened upon the following edit you made to Jack Swanstrom:

cur | prev) 17:01, 16 August 2010 Srich32977 (talk | contribs) (1,112 bytes) (del cats as article does not discuss; IMDB may have this info, but there is no verification) (undo)

I've restored the removed categories and refer you to:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:BSM_full.JPG

I can respect a desire for some type of official authentication/verification of veterans awards -- but you should be aware that these records are seldom available to the general public. And let's face it, if someone said to a newspaper reporter that they had an Bronze Star and it was printed -- well, does that make it verifiably so? Does every newspaper reporter verify the military records of every interviewee?

Notes to self

--S. Rich

Pass rate analysis -- saved here as a MFR

Your input is appreciated

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Austrian_School#addendum Byelf2007 (talk) 11 October 2011

Broken image links

Can you take a look at your edits to Fractional reserve banking? There are now two redlinked images. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I took a look and discovered that you had reverted the whole set of edits. Fixing the links was fine, but you reverted the other useful edits I had supplied. I confess I was lazy in not using the preview button (shame on me!). But my mistakes could have been fixed by restoring the hyphens I had converted into spaced dashes. In any event, these minor copy edits are restored and I did use the preview button to make sure all was OK!--S. Rich (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Austrian School and Fractional Reserve

Hello. Quick comment as I'm in the midst of storm prep here on the New England coast. The reverts you made on two of my recent edits don't make sense to me. The cited sources do not support the statements in the articles. Please scrutinize the sources. Also those writers are very weak sources and there is a wide-ranging and cogent body of critical literature on banking and monetary economics from which substantive statements from academically and publicly recognized sources could be drawn. The fact that the German wiki site has not yet reviewed and expunged that one writer doesn't change the fact that he flunked the English language review process, as if there were any doubt that better sources could be found. Frankly, finding credible substantive critics of fractional reserve and critics of Neoclassical Economics is like shooting fish in a barrel. I suspect too many editors are either ignorant of the economic context or too lazy to click beyond what's linked and reprinted at the valuable but not comprehensive archive at Mises.org. I can discuss this further at another time. Meanwhile, I ask you to revert some of your recent edits, esp. my accurate quote from one fractional reserve critic, which you expunged. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

you're wrong

What im saying is not incorrect. I went to the school for over a decade i know EXACTLY what is true and what is not about it. the nformation i put on the page is in fact constructive and informative. i will continue to put the information back on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.102.65 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you say this isn't constructive?

By definition, constructive is "serving to improve or advance." Advancing the public's knowledge of what General Ham is being ordered to do in the name of OUR United States and possibly being arrested for, is absolutely serving to improve or advance our knowledge of this American leader.

Who are you to disregard a constructive petition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.146.128 (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

External links to online petitions are not permitted, even if for a good cause.--S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Whose rule is this? Is this a Misplaced Pages published rule? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.145.100 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a Misplaced Pages rule. See WP:ELNO #4.--S. Rich (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also see "Misplaced Pages does not exist to promote your cause, however noble". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

San Diego State University links

The entire "California Indians and their reservations" website was moved a year or so ago. In the time it takes to post a deadlink template, the link could be simply be updated. A-C is <http://library.sdsu.edu/guides/sub2.php?id=195&pg=193> and M-P <http://library.sdsu.edu/guides/sub2.php?id=195&pg=195>. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Cheers back at you. Looks like the dead link tag functioned well -- you fixed it! And i appreciate getting the fixed link from you to use in the other articles. But tell me, what is the correct number at Cabazon? 38 tribal members v. 806?--S. Rich (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the SDSU numbers are up to date but they're the best I can find. Regarding Cabazon 38 is the number of enrolled tribal members and 806 is the population on their reservation. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

So is it save to say "reservation population: 806 enrolled and non-enrolled" perhaps "population 806 (enrolled and non-enrolled)"? E.g., do we have only 86 Cabazon members remaining, or are there Cabazon Indians amongst the 806? Or shall we post the question on the talk page?--S. Rich (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Jackie Devereaux edits

Hi Srich32977,

I'm unclear which sentences/paragraphs you deleted this time. I'm concerned about not being allowed to include my Magna Cum Laude status from UCSD. How can I prove this to you? I have my diploma which states (through a special blue ribbon) that I graduated with Honors of High Distinction (aka magna cum laude) from the University of California, San Diego in 1984. I worked hard for that honor and earned that designation. How can I prove this to you? Please tell me.

Also, I am not the publisher of the Desert Star Weekly newspaper, but am the Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief. Again, I worked very hard to start and build this newspaper out of nothing and feel I earned the right to tell the public about my achievements. I'd love to speak with you on the phone or have lunch or coffee someday. Perhaps you can help me build my Misplaced Pages page to better reflect my extrodianary childhood and life.

Also, I had my 2nd Place Win for my script "House MD - The Perfect Storm" removed by someone. I contacted Scriptapalooza about finding proof and they apologized for not having it on the Internet any longer. I can forward you their email that proves I won that prize in screenwriting. Again, I worked hard for that win and feel I should be allowed to include it in my Wiki page.

Again, we need to talk to straighten out all your concerns.

Thank You for your time and consideration in this matter. I hope we can talk soon. You know who I am but I don't know who you are.

All the Best,

Jackie Devereaux

67.49.228.49 (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please look at reliable sources about what is needed to verify information contributed to Misplaced Pages. As is stands now, much of the article is subject to editing/removal because there is no source that supports inclusion. WP editors do not do original research, that is we do not interview people or conduct experiments, etc. to find info. Such would be the case if an editor contacted you and asked for info about your career, etc.This is not a question of trusting or not trusting someone. The test is whether another reader could find the particular info somewhere, preferably info published elsewhere in a book, magazine, journal, etc.--S. Rich (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheap Dime A Dozen Hypocrisy

I was banned for personal attacks. This is a personal attack. Yet you are reverting it as if it has some relevance to the page (it doesn't). It can go on my talk page if LK wishes but he should be banned for this behavior if it continues. As you should if you revert personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.209.200.93 (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The edit referred to above was not quite what I had hoped to accomplish -- it was simply a mistake on my part. Further comments are on the 203.209.200.93 talk page.--S. Rich (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Srich, In light of the IP's confession above, I ask you to consider whether your continued engagement of its comments is appropriate? Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not inappropriate in that every editor is free to contribute IAW WP guidelines. Also, the IP's comment may be based on a misunderstanding as to what I had tried to do, based on my own mistake. But whether continued engagement is worthwhile is certainly on my mind. I think I shall revert only the most scurrilous personal comments. --S. Rich (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, I am new at Misplaced Pages, but are you saying that "every editor is free to contribute IAW WP guidelines" includes the confessed sockpuppet of a banned editor? That is not my understanding. On a related note, I believe it is better to leave recent hostile comments in place on the talk pages and edit comments. They constitute part of the record and context for the article and may assist other editors or admins, in dealing with the IP's behavior.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP guidelines include restrictions on sock puppetry! If the user is a confessed sock, then the WP:SPI should be a simple process. Until the investigation is concluded, a suspected sock is merely suspected, nothing more. With that in mind, WP:AGF guidelines should apply. WP:TPNO says personal attacks are unacceptable and WP:TPO says it is okay to remove harmful posts from others' talk pages. (We do not edit the comments of others.) Is there a difference between insulting remarks and those which are merely uncivil? Yes, but my hope is to keep the commentaries focused on the article contents. ("IAW" = "in accordance with") --S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Srich. In case you are not aware of it, here is the link to the current sockpuppet investigation, in case you see fit to add to the record there.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Karmaisking

War page editing

Hi Srich,

Why I cannot add the following on wiki page about war? "War is the supreme failure of bridging the differences between nations." - Jacque Fresco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radamanf (talk • contribs) 10:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco is an interesting guy and he's said many interesting things. But adding this particular quote has several difficulties. One, we don't add random quotes placed here-and-there in articles; two, we don't have a source from where he said this; three -- most importantly -- Fresco is not a recognized authority on the topic of war.--S. Rich (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Carl Eytel

For FA, I think the amount of information is decent. The keys would be to expand the lead a bit and perhaps fine-tune the prose, perhaps find an independent copyeditor to do so. New eyes are never a bad thing on an article. Wizardman 00:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for the encouragement. It took a year from start to finish for the GA rating. I'll keep you in mind, next year, for the FA review!--S. Rich (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi. I'm just letting you know that there are no compelling reasons for assessing redirected articles as redirects. For one thing, the Redirect class for our school articles will only show as 'NA'. If the redirects correctly contain the {{R from school}} they can be tracked from the category. They are also on the watchlists of active members of the Schools project.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand. My main motivation was clearing California stubs, of which the school redirects were included. Look at User_talk:Nyttend#deletion_requests for more information. --S. Rich (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Happy editing :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mike Gravel status

Hi, I just saw this comment of yours. As I'm the main editor of that article, I'd be interested in knowing why you think it isn't up to GA standards. (I know there are some dead links and I really should put in a separate Bibliography section, but I imagine you have additional things in mind.) Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Portions are waxing eloquent -- too eloquent. Here is an example: "On August 5, the Nixon administration pleaded for a renewal before the Senate went on recess, but Gravel successfully blocked Stennis's attempt to limit debate, and no vote was held." I'd rewrite as "On August 5, the Nixon administration asked for a renewal before the Senate went on recess, but Gravel blocked Stennis's attempt to limit debate, and no vote was held." Another one was "passionate advocate". Without looking, I wonder if the source said "passionate".

This portion is awkward: "In 1978, Gravel authored and secured the passage into law of the General Stock Ownership Corporation, that became Subchapter U of the Tax Code under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. While that was originally done as a prerequisite to a failed 1980 Alaskan ballot initiative that would have paid dividends to Alaskan citizens for pipeline-related revenue, it also turned out to be significant in the development of binary economics." Is the "GSOC" an actual corporation, or a provision of law that allows for the establishment of the GSOC? If the 1980 ballot initiative failed, then what happened? Was GSOC enacted so that a corporation could have paid dividends? I have no idea what this is about.

Because the article is long, and because I'm focusing on other, more gnomish endeavors, I'm reluctant to tackle this editing. Overall I really like the article and I made my comment so that a critical re-look could be made. It didn't take too long to scan the article and find these examples for your consideration, so I suspect there are more.--S. Rich (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and I understand your not wanting to buy into a full-scale review. I will concede that I am among those WP writers who try to present a narrative that is a little more engaging to the reader; I do not believe that WP articles have to be dull as dishwater, which many are. But regardless of that, in your first case, the source reads "Despite a plea from the President today ...", so I think "pleaded" is justified. I have removed the "successfully" however as redundant. Regarding "passionate advocate", I've added a couple of sources which say his effort has been 'quixotic', which incorporates 'passionate' but also conveys he isn't getting anywhere, and I've changed the lead to that. As for the GSOC portion, going back over the article history, I see that I originally put in some of this, and the sourcing, at the end of 2007 ... but I don't remember it at all and have no idea what it's about either! I guess I've been here too long :-) Will have to dig further. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. You really do have an achievement and I hope it will improve to FA status. My one GA is Carl Eytel and it took me a year from start to GA, so I certainly appreciate your contribution -- and most engaging writing!--S. Rich (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Snowbirds (People)

About my recent changes to the Snowbird page - do you think you can put the sources in for me? I don't know how and don't have time to learn. For now, I am enclosing the links to prove my assertions. In the links, you have to add together the low and high temperatures in each of December, January, and February - devide by 6 and presto - come up with an average.

According to the links...and assuming you properly perform the calculations - you'll discover that the historic mean (average) winter temperature in Discovery Island, Canada is 46 degrees (rounded); Atlanta, Georgia 45 degrees; Greenville, South Carolina 44 degrees; and McKinney, Texas 43 degrees. McKinney, Texas is officially a suburb of the Dallas-Fort Worth, Metroplex. Discovery Island, Canada also registers warmer winter seasons than Frisco, Texas - another suburb of Dallas.

Just remember that in the links, you're looking at the mean(average) temperatures. Calculate the mean temperatures (average between low and high) for each winter month. That's how meteorologists define a warmer winter season, and Discovery Island, Canada's historic mean (average) winter temperature is higher than all Deep South locations referenced above.

Here are the links to those sources:

Discovery Island, Canada (within Greater Victoria)

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/statistics/summary/cl1012475/imperial

McKinney, Texas

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USTX0861

Greenville, South Carolina

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USSC0140

Atlanta, Georgia

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/USGA0028

So then...are you able to remedy? Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyepz4 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you want to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Here is a link to the tutorial for you to learn more. But see how I emphasize you? In other words, I do not want to carry your water. The other problem with your request is improper synthesis. That is, it seems you want to make a point about one particular location in BC and are selecting data which you hope will prove something. This is not allowed in Misplaced Pages. In any event, I hope you enjoy your editing endeavors. --S. Rich (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: Why don't you add the weather info about DI to the Discovery Island (British Columbia) article? But keep in mind that we do not make comparisons between one place or another unless the comparison is notable. For example, Death Valley often has weather extremes, so we can comment about those measured extremes, as long as they are supported by WP:RS.--S. Rich (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

dead link v. broken citation

Hi S. Rich. I believe that the Citation Broken template is for references that work, but are not specific enough as to where the information that is being cited is within, say, a web page or a book. Whereas Dead Link is for an internet site that is no longer available, which is used to alert people to the fact that the link to a website no longer works. In this case you were correct to replace it with Dead Link. I was merely going though broken templates as many don't support exact dates (e.g. 5 December) as they categorise problem articles by only month and year. If a date is included in the template it is flagged as broken in a special category. Hope this helps! Cheers Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

c-ten

hi I am writing to you concerning C-ten (Customized Transepithelial No-touch). I read your msg where you wrote that you didn't accept a page with a c-ten description. actually it is a tecnique no touch to make refractive surgery, very interesting to know it. please provide to put the description on wikipedia. thank you ~~Giovanna Greco~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.30.224.50 (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Giovanna. You are referring to your submission to ] early last month. I removed it because the paragraphs regarding C-ten did not have a reference and because the language was very promotional. I also see that you set up a C-ten new article that was declined. Here is my suggestion, add the C-ten info to the refractive surgery article as a new section, make sure the language is not promotional, and use the two references from your new article in the refractive surgery section. Don't simply cut and paste the wording from the two sources. You need to extract the important parts and re-write it in your own, simple clear style. Leave a message here on my talk page for more help. And thanks for your contributions. You are new to Misplaced Pages, so it may take a few tries to get it right. (You can learn more at the tutotial.) --S. Rich (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

I'm afraid those last three articles aren't mine. Must be a different "Arthur Rubin". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone at IEEE has stolen your name. I shall delete.--S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment re Death Penalty lawyer Bio AfD

Please comment re application of WP:SIGCOV to career defending people on death row: >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_17#Stephen_Aarons <<<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.23 (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Rather than comment on the AfD, I've taken a few wacks at the article itself. --S. Rich (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Lee Ohanian

In regard to this page, the deletion rationale WP:CSD#G8 does not apply. That deletion rationale should only be used when there is something wrong with the target page of the redirect -- usually that the target page no longer exists. If you can find a different speedy deletion rationale to apply, you can re-submit the page for speedy deletion, or otherwise you can take the page to WP:RFD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a note to your page explaining what I intend to do.--S. Rich (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Newport International University‎

Hi, Many thanks for the amendment and edit of a hatnote! You're right, it is better this way. Audit Guy (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You gave me the idea. Thanks to you--S. Rich (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC).

FRINGE RfC

Hi S Rich, regarding your comment in the FRINGE RfC, you added it to a subsection that asked a different question from the main proposal (which is whether FRINGE should be applied broadly or narrowly). If that's what you intended, that's fine, but the RfC is very confusing now, so if you intended to address the main question, would you mind adding a comment to the Responses section here -- Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#RfC_on_the_scope_of_WP:FRINGE? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 22:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought -- at the time -- that I could move the discussion along and perhaps achieve some clarity. But I agree that the RfC is hopeless. With so much to wade through, I'll pass. Thank you, though for your suggestion. Only you overestimated what I might accomplish! :-) --S. Rich (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

ABCT

Hello Srich. I reviewed the linked reference. The beginning of the source appears to me to support the statement in the article which you tagged. Are you saying that the article misrepresents the source? Could you elucidate? Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year. I did a quick scan of the article and did not come up with key words that matched. (A very cursory search, to be sure -- too much to think about otherwise.) The reverts were for specific reasons: e.g., no explanation for the removal, and then because you said you could access the article while I had tagged for failed verify. No problem as far as I'm concerned if a knowledgeable editor such as yourself removes the tag. Cheers!--S. Rich (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged, thanks for your reply. I will try to add some additional material from the source as well. Happy New Year to you as well'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Srich. Thanks for the snack. I don't see any indication on that chart of its authorship or attribution. The website appears to be a collection of material intended to promote a conferencing business, but even with respect to that there is no indication of who or what is behind it. Please check out the site. Regards.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy the snack. By far your edits are most well done, and I actually enjoy them. In this case I reverted and mentioned the copyright down in the lower right hand corner. As CEE portal holds the copyright, that looks like attribution. In any event, WP:ELMAYBE #4 analyaia does not pass or fail based on RS criteria. (So who or what CEE is, in particular, may not matter too much.) To my quite uninformed view, the chart is interesting and looks correct. And, if accurate, it is more helpful than an outline. If is not accurate, then it should be removed.--S. Rich (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi the chart is not accurate or complete, so I think it should be removed. On ABCT, the source we discussed a while back, Quiggs I think, does indeed say that MOST economists consider the theory incorrect, so please revert your latest edit. I believe the recent edits are by a sockpuppet of the banned ID "Karmaisking" and should all be reverted. Please consider.]'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead & remove the chart. It's no big deal. As for ABCT, I hope I put a stop to the edit sparring over a minor detail. As I understand, economists consider the alternative, so that is what I did. I'll defend that edit. Since I've opened the failed verification and elucidate tags for discussion, I will leave them as is.--S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read the source. You will see that it says *most* economists say the ABCT is wrong. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Woods is Off Topic for this paragraph's statement. Soto is fringe and "fall of the dot coms" is non-RS. Please revert. Cheers.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. In addition to reverting the redundant citations on ABCT, you also deleted the important "in part" regarding the Nobel committee citation for Hayek. Please re-insert. Woods is Off Topic for this paragraph's statement. Soto is fringe and "fall of the dot coms" is non-RS. Please revert. Cheers.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"in part" is restored. Woods is now in further reading (has a chapter on the boom&bust cycle). RS is not a criteria for WP:ELMAYBE (#4), besides, mises.org is RS. Soto has a WP article & is published by a RS (name now linked), so "fringe" is POV.--S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding Mises Inst. as a RS publisher, I have seen several editors assert that it is not an RS publisher for scholarly work. Of course it is RS for its reprints of previously published notable works and for evidence as to the opinion of otherwise notable experts' views. Soto is not a significant scholar worthy of citation on the *economic theory* of business cycles, Austrian or otherwise. Please consider. '''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am considering, but some other taskings have my attention at the moment. I will provide commentary later today, hopefully. Cheers.--S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

--NICE JOB. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Fringe RfC

I noticed you closed the Fringe RfC that you were involved in. I think it would be best to revert the closure and ask for someone brave enough to write a detailed closure (you can use request for closure which gets transcluded to AN). Even though it seems like a mess, I think there were useful points of rough consensus that emerged. At a minimum, a good closer could summarize the major positions for potential future discussions. I commented on the RfC so I can't do it. Gigs (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When SlimVirgin said that the RfC was confusing and both CarolMooreDC & originator said train wreck, that was enough for me to WP:BLOWITUP! The only consensus was no consensus. It is a WP:DEADHORSE and closing it was a "natural end".--S. Rich (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, but I'm not going to make a big deal of it. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

re: SPECIFICO

Hi, I can't help but notice that you sometimes get into a back and forth with SPECIFICO and I'ld like to give some friendly advice. As far as I can tell, you are both here to improve the Encyclopedia, and are both open minded enough to see and accept good faith evidence and arguments even when it initially contradicts your point of views. Actually, as far as I can tell, the both of you have very similar world views, at least compared to the liberal pinko keynesian rule-ignoring utilitarian humanist that I am. So, I would just like to say, try not to revert each other, be excellent to each other and party on dudes! You agree with each other more than you know. Best regards, --LK (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard

Hello Srich. I don't understand why you moved my note to the talk page on Austrian School. Under bold-revert-talk, you could have brought the question to talk rather than revert. My note was intended to ask you to reconsider your action, not to open up the topic for discussion. If your moving the note to talk constitutes a negative response to my request, it would have been clearer for me if you had just explicitly stated that you declined to revert yourself. As it is we now have yet another unresolved minor issue on talk, with the article previously needing a lot of work as it was. Please consider. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD (which is not guidance or policy) suggests bringing the question to either the user talk page or article talk page. Obviously I disagreed with the removal of the Rothbard stuff, otherwise I would not have restored it. My reason was in the edit summary -- it looked like Rothbard was discussing ABCT. If, after reconsidering my action (per your request), I had decided that I was wrong, I could have self-reverted my edit. But what if I reconsidered and decided to leave the stuff there -- would you have left the edit as is? (E.g., with the Rothbard stuff still there?). I would not want that burr to remain under your saddle, so I thought other editors might jump in and help resolve the question -- the article talk page is the best place to get that done. (And other editors are probably more qualified than I to discuss the question intelligently.) Now if you think this is a minor issue not worth discussing, just add a note to the talk page and move on from there. Or modify the Rothbard stuff to make it fit better. Or, if it really shouldn't be anywhere in the article, remove it. (If you do, I won't revert.) Best regards. --S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll remove it and in the next several days I will search for a more specific Rothbard ABCT statement to put in the body of the article. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for kindly pointing out my mistakes, thus enabling me to learn from them without feeling like I need to be slapped with a trout. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

How very nice! Thank you.--S. Rich (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

re: Pat Condell

I was misled by User:Skamecrazy123 who requested for CSD G7 previously, because I didn't check edit history when using Huggle... --Makecat 03:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And I didn't think to check the edit history of the user before placing the tag in the first place. Still, we live and we learn eh? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I only tend to check the edit history when the page was emptied by a red name user. --Makecat 03:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm the big winner in this. As you can see above, I got a nice cupcake. And I've enjoyed interacting with both you. --S. Rich (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A more happier outcome could not be wished for. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

ABCT -- User Amanski

Hello Srich. As I presume you're aware, this userID, (which is tagged as a suspected sockpuppet of Karmaisking) has now made 5 reverts in 4 hours on Austrian business cycle theory and is edit warring over content which was removed for clearly stated reasons. I'd appreciate it if you would consider engaging this ID on its talk page with a warning/request to undo the last revert and cease this behavior. I'm not sure whether a sockpuppet investigation has been started yet. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is correct -- that Karmaisking is sockpuppeting -- then engaging will be of little value. I'd let the SPI run its course, and then you can revise as you wish (until another sock is developed). Also, I'd prefer to actually consider the merits of the particular edits. I don't know who is correct, but it takes too much brainpower to figure out! Some of stuff might be bathwater, so I don't want to throw out the baby. I do appreciate the complement of being asked to assist -- but I'm engaged in some other stuff at present. (Also, you might look at WP:TAGTEAM. Not that I think there is a problem in that regard.) --S. Rich (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

euclid listing in unaccredited page

hello - i can't agree that verifile which is documented as an israeli businessman name ben cohen with an axe to grind is authoritative. or that it can overrule the certifications of various governments to the us government or to unesco. see http://www.www.euclid.int/accredibase_verifile/index.asp euclid might be listed on a list of institutions with some restrictions on use in a few places but not as unaccredited... ben cohen can't overrule the governments that say it is accredited... input welcome. will wait to update. Agrostu (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss verifile at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Let me know if you do and I'll comment further there. (Also, you can comment on Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education --S. Rich (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)02:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

ABCT

Srich, please don't revert my contributions at ABCT with edit comments that do not address the issue. I state the reasons for these reverts. They are clear. The Allais mention doesn't indicate what if any influence ABCT had on A's work. The Rothbard is just a list of questions which certainly doesn't belong in the lede. R's views are set forth elsewhere in the article. If you don't fully understand the reasons for my edits, please do raise them on talk but I can't take the time to do careful and well-researched edits if they will come to naught. Please consider reverting yourself on this. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit comment reasons you gave were very unclear. Who are the celebrity endorsers? And so what if they are celebs -- the section is about the influence of ABCT, not whether it is correct etc. When you remove lots of sourced material, it is difficult to parse what or how the edit comment pertains to what. And then it leads to inaccuracies. You said Soto is non-RS & non-notable. (But is this the case? I suspect more that you simply disagree with him.) Now if the cited page & quote/paraphrase from Soto's book does not support the fact (alleged) that Allais was a proponent, then say so. --S. Rich (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"so" and as noted, you reverted Friedman restoration and many other valid changes. I would think you'd know by now I don't make arbitrary or POV edits. Read the Soto cite. If anything he says the opposite. Further Soto is not notable and his work is almost entirely published by Mises institute or its Spanish equivalent. The fact that he has a Misplaced Pages page does not make him a RS here. Snooki has a Wiki page too. Soto's page is marginal at best and has no credible sources as to his notability, let alone on this subject. I have no reason to agree or disagree, a priori, with Soto's opinions. I realize that you are trying to make a contribution here but on details of economic theory you are not going to follow the details any more than I would be able to understand all the edits on a neuroscience article. You don't have to weigh in on every edit. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Come on ... Snooki is not cited as RS in economics. (What a lousy argument.) If Soto is mis-cited, then make the appropriate and specific corrections or tags. (As opposed to throwing him out with other passages you do not like.) If you have a beef with Soto as RS or as being notable, bring it up on WP:RSN. (I am not defending Soto in particular -- it is more a question of how you are making these revisions.) Also, you allude to Mises Institute and imply that it is not notable or RS. I'll disagree -- MI has established itself as notable and reliable. (In this regard, unless I am mistaken, your POV shows through.) It is only a question of how much weight is given one way or the other to any particular citation they make available. Please don't get upset over my edits -- I'm hardly weighing in on "every edit". But when I do I think (and hope) that the reasons I give are sound and that my contributions are worthwhile. --S. Rich (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You reverted a lot of material there and you have made the article worse. Mises Institute is not a RS for academic theory. Check it out. Even if you leave self-published non-notable Soto the article is worse for all the rest of that change. Please don't tell me I am making a lousy argument. If you don't understand the analogy it would be more constructive for you to state that. I am an Austrian economist who does not like to see pseudo-science and fringe material mixed up with the great body of important theory developed by serious scholars in our tradition. At any rate I doubt there's further point in discussing this. I urge you to consider undoing your reversion.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you seem to have gotten into a bit of a rut where on at least 3 occasions you have abetted the edit-warring of what turned out to be socks of banned users, the latest one in the Hahn matter. Please do consider my message above about the material on ABCT. That article needs a lot of work, and it's at an impasse over this. Thanks again. SPECIFICO 15:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you complaining about? In this edit I restored your version and I urged the warring editors to reach consensus. Abetting a banned user? Using such a term implies a lack of good faith on my part. ABCT is not at an impasse -- you provided the last edit. What I do not like is wholesale removal of material based on shaky or poorly described rationale. Go ahead. Fix it. But don't say MI is not RS for academic theory -- WP is not a textbook. Please be discrete. Labeling different sources as pseudo-science or fringe can lead to problems; that is, "WP is supposed to limit itself to mainstream thought", "AS is heterodox", "heterodox is not mainstream", "not-mainstream is fringe", "fringe does not belong in WP", therefore "AS, as fringe, does not belong in WP" or "AS should be labeled as fringe". (This syllogism has problems in that it omits the requirement that schools "significantly depart" from the mainstream.)--S. Rich (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you would be specific, it would be more consturctive. For example tell me how Rothbard's questions with no statement of theory or fact belong in the lede? Tell me how vague statements that so-and-so spoke favorably of ABCT provide meaningful information about the theory. And so forth for the remainder of my work which you reverted and which I have not yet restored. If you care to take the effort you will find discussion on WP which concurs with me. Mises is not a vetted source for statements about economic theory. It can be useful for occasional notable figures' statements of their own opinion and as a reference library which contains academic publications in addition to its own non-RS publications. Sorry I don't have the WP pages at hand but you know how to search them. SPECIFICO 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that specific edits in making these revisions is the best way to proceed. I never said Rothbard should stay in the lede. The lede is to summarize the main points of the article. If he's got pertinent stuff that best goes into the text or into a subsection, add it. If different people made favorable remarks about the theory, it indicates the theory had some impact on them or they endorsed it in some way. Same thing applies to people who may have criticized the theory. The article need not focus on the theory in and of itself -- why it is important, or why it was important, is interesting and significant. Your comment about MI not being a vetted source does not make sense. The individuals who publish through or on or via MI are the important sources, not MI by itself. Guidance says: "The word 'source' as used on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist); and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)." (WP:RS). IOW, you can't say MI is non-RS in and of itself, and it is a mistake to do so because MI has qualified as RS just like Random House, etc. (As described by Kyle Wingfield in the WSJ, it is a world class think tank.) If you do not like particular items from MI, don't use them. But if other editors do, and do so without citation error, they meet the WP:BURDEN as a source. This is different than the problem of WP:UNDUE, which may or may not apply when MI sourced material is used. In such cases you must apply your non-Austrian/NPOV brain to evaluate. --S. Rich (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So, I will move the meaningless Rothbard quote out of the lede and future editors can tie it into the substance of the article. I will rename the section that recites celebrity endorsements and future editors will decide whether they are meaningful. I will restore my other edits as well unless you have further objection. You are entirely mistaken about the nature of Mises.org and whether it is a RS for matters other than its bloggers personal opinions. I will post a talk thread on the Economics Project page concerning Mises as RS, and you can raise your concerns there.Thanks for your continued communication. SPECIFICO 22:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

In this edit summary you state "NE is not in glossary", forgive my ignorance, but what is "NE"? LK (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Who knows? WP:G does not list. Sorry, I should've linked it in my summary.--S. Rich (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Use Tag

As you can easily confirm, I finished my edit on OPM only a few minutes after you tagged it. I guess I should have put up a similar tag to warn you. Please rest assured I always respect other editors. Do not assume otherwise. Thanks. Will review your edit now. SPECIFICO 20:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No sweat. I was certainly not complaining about you. I figured you had missed it, so I my edit summary was more of a FYI. I apologize if I was unduly brusk in the tone of my edit summary. (BTW: I did a WorldCat search for ti:"other people's money" . 135 results came up. About 25 overlap, which means 100+ authors have used the term dating back to 1874.)-S. Rich (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. You're not brusque, just enthusiastic ;)

Noted your concern on the other matter, thanks.SPECIFICO 15:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The other topic has been updated. --S. Rich (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving on...

I boldly assumed this would satisfactorily address the concern that prompted you to raise it at ANI. So I went nuts with the hats and whatnot in the interests of moving on from a couple of things. Can only imagine you have no substantive objection. If that assumption is incorrect, feel free to apply liberal helpings of trout. But something tells me... On a semi-related note, I ran into a few similar issues and this essay was highlighted by a respected admin. Stalwart111 05:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I endorse your efforts. What happens on the 22nd remains to be seen.--S. Rich (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that's true, but everyone is entitled to as much rope as they want. :-) Thanks for the star and for the co-operation. Stalwart111 09:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Girard B. Henderson

I noticed you asked for a citation regarding Henderson working at the Cheney Silk Company. When I provided the following citation it was removed: "Henderson, Girard, B., “So Long, It's been good to Know You”, Las Vegas, Nevada, page 12, unpublished autobiography". I feel it is worthy of citation as it is coming from an autobiography created, written, and self-published by Henderson and is not unduly self-serving or an exceptional claim. --Greg Henderson 21 January 2013.

The problem is even more fundamental than SPS. The autobiography is not even published and as such it is completely unacceptable. (And then, if it was published, it would likely be via a self-publishing printer verses an established publisher. Would it then be stocked in libraries, sold in stores, made available in general?) It is a primary source type of material that a biographer might be able to use. (And then a WP editor could use that secondary source.) But you cannot be that biographer when editing Misplaced Pages.--S. Rich (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Quotes

You cited WP:LONGQUOTE as the justification for your recent edits. However, what you cited is an essay...not Misplaced Pages policy. Please undo your edits. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

True, it is guidance. And it is good guidance. Moreover, it is guidance cited & linked on the very {{Template:Over-quotation}}.You can post your concerns or desires on the article talk pages and try to develop a consensus to keep the quotes. But I don't think you have much success in that regard. --S. Rich (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

learning an appreciative of your help and patience

I am trying to post a page about our church building under the list of United Methodist churches in the United States. I was trying to give some basic information about its history, brief for now, its relationship to other UMC in the state and a historical link of those who had served as lead pastor. Where did I go wrong. I'm on my second attempt at creating this page and don't know if I'm getting flags from the first, second or both. It's rather confusing. What part has me tagged for delete? ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oikos2 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two issues of concern for you. One is posting the church on the List of Methodist churches page. I've fixed it for you. Two, you'd like to create an article page for the church. In this regard, you will have problems. (I see it is nominated for deletion.) The basic problem is in creating an article about the historical building verses the current congregation. Take a look at ] for a listing of churches from 1845. You can see that they enjoy WP articles because of their historical significance as buildings. E.g., many have listing on the NRHP. Now if you could develop your article around the building and its history in the city, that would work, provided you document the article with WP:RS. Look at the tutorial I posted on your talk page. That will help.--S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the talk message and welcome.Dshrager (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Please note my additional modifications with explanations provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshrager (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Sorry I've had to go back and pare back some more of the promotional language. When editors are connected to an organization it can be hard to restrain their enthusiasm. WP wants "Just the facts".--S. Rich (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, after a second go around, I believe your level of editing of my relatively minor contribution to the GMU Law School page is a bit excessive. Edits have been made beyond those that improve content accuracy or help conform the few sentences to Misplaced Pages standards.

I chose to edit the GMU Law School Page because a failure to mention the library is a significant omission, especially when it is an institution that is designed to further enhance information access---one of the purposes of Misplaced Pages. I ask that you respect my contributions to the extent they are accurate and do not violate any Misplaced Pages protocols.

Freedom to edit should be exercised in a manner that encourages support of this project. It is important to exercise restraint so that everyone is willing to take the time to share accurate information for the benefit of all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshrager (talk • contribs) 23:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Dshrager (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if my edits were too bitey. Please feel free to go back and improve the prose. --S. Rich (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, D, take a look at WP:1ST for some very good guidance.--S. Rich (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Tax choice shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. I know that you're being provoked, removing unsourced material which is being repeatedly re-added, but that's not an exception to 3RR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A complaint about you has been filed at WP:AN3#User:Srich32977 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)