Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:12, 14 September 2014

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: 2 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.

Your revert on Bitcoin

For my education: does WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALL also apply to the following text in the article, or what is the difference between the following and what you deleted:

The IRS classified bitcoins as a capital asset end of March 2014 and subject to taxes on capital gains. On 8 May 2014, the US Federal Election Commission issued draft guidance to US politicians who want to receive bitcoin donations. The Commission declined to declare bitcoins currency, opting to deem them items "of value." In May 2014, Brett Stapper, the co-founder of Falcon Global Capital, registered to lobby members of Congress and federal agencies on issues related to bitcoin. As of June 2014, there are no new rules at the state level, although the New York State Department of Financial Services intended to propose regulations no later than the end of the second quarter of 2014. As of 11 March 2014, it officially invited bitcoin exchanges to apply with them. In June 2014 California Assemblyman Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) drafted legislation (Assembly Bill 129) to legalize bitcoin and all other alternative and digital currency, such as Litecoin, Dogecoin, Starbucks Stars, and Amazon Coins. However, Dickinson "thinks the federal government should regulate the cryptocurrency" and said "I saw this legislation as a ways of cleaning up the code in California to conform to reality".

It seems to me that what I contributed is exactly the same as the above. Must the above then also be deleted in terms of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALL.

I just don´t see any difference between the above and what I contributed. Homni (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)~

What does "Primary Source" mean? Homni (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say so. But the best place to discuss is the article talkpage. Also, see WP:PRIMARY. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I hereby kindly invite you in terms of WP:BRD to discuss the Bitcoin problem on the Bitcoin talk page.Homni (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have done so. And I expect other editors will comment as well. – S. Rich (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ms. Steeletrap

Srich, I doubt you'd be considered to have "clean hands" at AE with respect to Steeletrap at this point. Tenuous claims or claims that are not obvious on their face are apt to get you into trouble in that context. Let's focus on important matters, not this and that and this and that. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 22:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap has been following my edits, and I will follow hers. Removing the {{Discretionary sanctions}} template was an obvious violation. If she thinks the template does not apply, when the article is is the Category:Austrian School economists she is being stupid. But that is not an excuse for TBAN violations. Perhaps she could take a hint and get someone to revert off-wiki. But considering that Doug Casey is a mises.org-related person, any meatpuppet of Steeletrap who removes such a template had better "edit carefully". – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Question, Srich: If you were to put the DS on, say, Paul Krugman, would I be allowed to correct your error? What if you put AE on my talk page? Clearly the standard of whether I am banned from a page should be whether it relates to the subject of my TB; not whether someone says it does. Steeletrap (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What? Has Krugman had an epiphany? Alas, I don't see any Austrian School or Mises.org relationship in his article so I think his usefulness as a straw man in this case is limited. And without proper categorization I would not put a sanctions template on his article. Do you know of any articles that are improperly categorized? If so, you can ask me off-wiki to look at them. (I'm about 1/3rd through my survey of the Austrian School-related articles.) For your part, I repeat my admonition to steer well clear of TBAN topics, even if you think you are correcting an error. (I'm not sure what you mean by me putting AE on your talk page. I have not done so. (Rest assured that I will not post TBAN topics on your talk page.) If someone wished to discuss an AE topic with you, you'd be well advised to ignore or remove the thread. You'd be free to clean up you own talk page by removing such postings without replying.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I meant to ask: "What if you put the DS on my talk"? If I removed it, would that be a violation of the TB? Steeletrap (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Read what the template says: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully." So, 1. your talk page is not an article and 2. no one has put the DS template on your talk page. I will watch your talk page and immediately remove the template for you if I see someone adding it. And then I'll bring up the editor (or IP) who did so at the ANI for disruptive behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

Srich, is Peter Schiff an Austrian Economist? That was quite a brouhaha a couple of years ago, but eventually the truth won out. Consider whether you're on the side of brouhaha or truth. The choice is yours, but consider you've recently been called out for nitpicking. Let's focus on important issues. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No one has categorized Schiff as an Austrian economist. If they had, and did so based on RS, then Steeletrap would be stupid to edit the Schiff article. As your TBAN does not apply to AE (beyond Mises.org), you could remove the categorization (and any sanctions template based on the category) if it was an improper categorization. So please find another strawman to use in your silly argument. "Called out for nitpicking"? That statement is just more of your bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Gander and the Goose

Have a peek, Srich. The Casey thing is even dumber than the Schiff thing was. And the Schiff thing went on and on and on. Not everyone who writes about economics is an economist. Not everyone who writes about Austrian economics is an Austrian economist. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

WTF? A 4 year old discussion?? Where did I make any comment? Where am I saying Schiff is an Austrian? Who is saying he's an Austrian? What is your point vis-a-vis categorization of the Austrians or the templates I posted? Again, WTF? – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Your views on Casey are even weaker than those views on Schiff. They won't hold up to scrutiny. I suggest you drop the stick. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Just who is coming onto this page to wave some tiny twig around? This is now the third thread that you started. You, Specifico, can't comment (or edit) on Casey because he's related to Mises.org. So I suggest you drop this bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Question about your edit.

Here. What's your problem with "however"? It's contrasting two very different receptions, and such language is used on Misplaced Pages all the time. Otherwise, if readers are just skimming, they might not even notice the shift in reception in the third sentence. To the minimal extent it's "editorial", it's well within our purview as editors. VictorD7 (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"However" is specifically mentioned at WP:OPED. Whether it is used properly or not in other articles is a different question. In this article, with the NPOV debate going on, I'm trying to steer the section into a properly balanced mode. Thanks for your comment. I think the hole section will be extensively re-written by the time all of us are done. – S. Rich (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It says "Words such as but, however, and although may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists", but in this case there clearly is a relationship since one reception is mostly negative while the other is strongly positive. The page simply advises that such words be used with "care"; it doesn't forbid them. Apart from the word "however" simply appearing on that page, do you have an actual argument justifying your edit? Can you explain why you feel it was being inappropriately used in this instance? VictorD7 (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless one source actually references another (like they say "We DGAF what so-and-so says, the film was crap/a masterpiece!"), there is no actual or explicit relationship. We only imply a relationship by contrasting the different reviews with the word "however". But in a contentious article such as this one, we cannot do so. – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is incorrect. As editors we imply relationships all the time simply by page layout; assigning certain segments to certain sections in the sequence we do. What do you think "summarizing" does? It implies relationships among different sources, and I can think of many contexts where words like "but" or "however" are perfectly appropriate. VictorD7 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for realizing the bias in "however".

For the longest time, I thought I was the only one that bugged. Then just yesterday (maybe two days ago now), I found another editor doing this elsewhere and thanked him. Now this. It's good to know there are similar eyes out there. Good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:01, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. It is not an overt bit of bias – we just have to be careful. – S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I usually reword when I find it as at least in my experience it's been used to make an argument by suggesting a relationship. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean you didn't know about WP:OPED until now? I've criticized use of words like "however" and "though" before too, when they were inappropriate. But sometimes they are appropriate, and policy allows for that. In this case two clearly different reception results were being contrasted, so there's no legitimate reason for removal. VictorD7 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In the case we have in mind, especially with the NPOVN going on, I think I did well to "disconnect" the two sentences. "However" was being used to compare the reactions of the audiences and the critics. The article will progress quite well without the "however". – S. Rich (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Friendly advice.

I hope you have the presence of mind to reflect on how many Admins have rebuked you for your interpersonal lapses over the past 6-8 weeks. I suggest you stay away from situations which you find too "stimulating" for you. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. Utter bullshit. You refactor my comment to imply that I had made a personal attack. Nothing of the sort had occurred. Why don't you take your concerns to the ANI. I'd like it. – S. Rich (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Further comments: If you offer me friendly advice (or even ask me to look at certain articles), then why complain about my posting on your talk page? That is speaking out of both sides of the mouth.

Regarding your talk page comment:

...You can confirm for yourself that I did not say you are "in denial" -- a statement which would be ad hominem and require an evaluation of your psychological or emotional condition. I stated in simple terms that any attorney should find routine that you deny the proposition put forth by the cited link. Reading "deny" to mean "in denial" is bizarre and further suggests you might benefit from a breather on these challenging articles..... SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You have a strange way of reading "deny". You said:

I was referring to this, which Srich appears to deny. ...

I replied:

Bullshit. I have not denied anything....Add it yourself, Specifico, or are you denying that the material is noteworthy?

I did not contend that you were saying I was "in denial". (Moreover, the fact that I choose not to add material cannot be construed to mean I deny the material.) But what really matters is the fact that your comment on the article talk page was not directed towards article improvement. It was a dig at me, pure and simple. Dig away if you like. I've got a bigger shovel than you. And having shoveled a lot of shit in my life, I know how to use it. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I will add a bit of friendly advice. Whenever you feel a personal attack has taken place, contact another editor (or administrator) and ask them (informally) to consider an rpa template and/or proper rebuke to the offender. If they do so, you will be vindicated. If they do not, then you can consider why they did not act on your request. – S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You two might be happier if you had a mutual interaction ban. Don't ya think? SPECIFICO - there is no reason to provoke S.Rich. You know that your comment is not going to be taken well from S.Rich so there was no point in coming here to say anything. Anyway - what is the latest dispute, can I help at all?--v/r - TP 05:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy. Indeed, Happy Happy Joy Joy is my theme song. Provocation? My mother and her step-father were at Hickam Field when some Japanese pilots provoked the USAAF, so my family has a history of dealing with provocation. Dispute? There is no latest dispute – Specifico seems to think/agree that a 19 year old $5k donation to The Independent Institute from Philip Morris is not significant. But Specifico can't convince me to something else to the article. Anyway, I do not think Specifico would agree to an IBAN. I might apply for adminship and Specifico would like to comment if I do. While Specifico once thought I'd be a good admin, I wouldn't want to deprive Specifico of the opportunity to try and frustrate me. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That's funny you'd mention Hickam. Did I tell you I am stationed at Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam right now?--v/r - TP 06:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I do wish...

...you would have at least waited for Gamaliel's response to my compromise proposal before creating a new subsection for your own that threatens to bury mine, and that you had to know I'd find unacceptable. VictorD7 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If I read the UTCs correctly, Gamaliel has edited since you posted the idea. I posted after he edited, but I was not looking to see what he had done. I have de-sectionalized the proposal. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean for you to undo the subsection header. I'm not sure what good that even does since there's still a bolded title and a lot of text. Undoing the edit jump may make it even harder to find where discussion of the previous proposal had left off. I wasn't calling on you to change anything. I was just letting you know for future reference that it might be better to let a proposal sit and simmer for a while before trumping it with a new one before the first one had even garnered a direct response. VictorD7 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What is it you're claiming failed to verify here?

Before Gamaliel churlishly deleted the discussion without comment, you posted on his talk page to claim that "fantastic" doesn't appear in the link, and you added the failed verification tag to the article. Two points:

1. The "fantastic" quote had already been removed by Gamaliel, so are you claiming that something else that's still there failed to verify?

2. The "fantastic" quote most certainly does verify. Scroll down about halfway down the page to read this quote: "Dinesh D'Souza's America (2014) had a fantastic hold this weekend. The documentary eased 13 percent to $2.45million; to date, its earned $8.2 million."

"fantastic" is a silly item. Hollywood puffery. Let's be encyclopedic and omit it. (JFC, the important aspect of the article is the criticism of .....!) "only" is editorializing, not acceptable for us as WP editors because we are making a comparison that is not in the source. I do not see "12.8%" – have you done your own calculation? If so, you might explain the math in an editor comment. (I've added an editor comment next to the failed verify tag explaining the tag.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that an industry writer's telling description is mere "silly" "puffery", since it imparts to readers who likely otherwise don't know a sense of how strong the hold was, but that doesn't address why you claimed it failed to verify. Did you just miss it earlier? If so, do you now retract that comment?

As for the rest, the pertinent source, which supports more than one sentence, got pushed down some. A poster split it into a second paragraph for some reason, and now it follows the second sentence in that second paragraph. Did you check this reference? Looks like mystery solved on that front. Regarding "only", it's not OR considering the source called it a "fantastic hold" that "eased" back 13 percent. Most Misplaced Pages text is paraphrased or summarized, not directly quoted, and "only" accurately reflects the author's tone and point. If anything, it understates it. VictorD7 (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The MoJo article uses the term "fantastic" three times on one page. It is just a throw-away term. And for WP purposes, it should be thrown away. You do not have my support to include it. 12.8% is verified, but in a reference not cited. Provide that link as a citation. But leave out "only". That is an interpretation. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why using the word "fantastic" three times in a long piece covering many movies and singling out a few examples of exceptional performance in various aspects makes it a "throw away" term, but, since you now acknowledge its appearance, you never did explain why you earlier claimed it wasn't there. I'm not trying to berate you, I'm just genuinely curious why you went out of your way to post a claim that it failed to verify.

The "12.8%" link is already reference "15" in the article. I just told you where I found it. It follows the sentence ending in "...its total gross to $8,211,791." You failed to address my point that "fantastic", throwaway term or not, was expressing the author's sentiment that the receipts only dropped around 13%. Do you deny that? VictorD7 (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

12.8% is "supported" by reference 13. Straighten it out. Stop conflating. Use "only" if the source uses only. Be precise. The sources should directly verify the text, not be posted elsewhere in the text. – S. Rich (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the "12.8%" fact is supported by reference 15 (13 follows that sentence and was added to support the "fantastic hold" quote), precisely where I said it was. I didn't put it there though, so don't blame me if you think it belongs somewhere else. You're free to move or duplicate it (maybe via ref name). That said, I'll point out that multiple sentences cover the second week results, and it's common and acceptable on Misplaced Pages for references to support more than one preceding sentence. The Synopsis source currently sources a few paragraphs, lol.

Speaking of precision, do you retract your claim that the "fantastic hold" line didn't verify? I'm not asking if you support its inclusion, I'd just like you to acknowledge that the earlier claim was incorrect lest someone believe it, especially since I did add that source. Regarding "only", do you deny that the author was commenting on how small the drop was? I'm not insisting you agree with me, but please answer these reasonable questions so we can at least work from a common set of basic premises. VictorD7 (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

America

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please. You've reverted your own content now, "docudrama" Please use talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. You are the EWarrior in this case. First you wanted "polemic" (unsourced), then you wanted "fantasy" (based on your own interpretation of what "imagine" might mean), then you removed docudrama from where I had added it. (Why – because you don't like the term?) But then you add docudrama. Victor restores "documentary" here. His edit summary is clear and correct, and the discussion supported documentary, So who is edit warring? You are, when you again put in docudrama here. I did not revert my content. I'd prefer to have my "Styled as a docudrama" line. But that isn't good enough for you, is it? No, Specifico. This is just another of your lousy Bullshit messages. Just bullshit. – S. Rich (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I accuse you of gender bias. You wouldn't keep cussing at me if I was a girl, would you? Now in fact you appear to be increasingly confused about this article and the sequence of edits. It was you, Srich, who added "docudrama" in this edit: so it appears that your love of WP:battleground skirmish has shaken your faith in your own previous addition of well-defined, wiki-linked, and fully appropriate content to the lede. Have an ice tea and please undo the damage. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Fuck yes, I would. Now I wouldn't use words like "Jane, you ignorant slut", because of the gender denigration in such a statement. When I say Bullshit, I only refer to the crap you post here. It has nothing to do with your gender, Mr. Specifico, retired businessman. And note I have bolded my remark about adding docudrama; i.e., I am not confused. So, keep your WP:ASPERSIONS about gender bias to yourself please. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2014 (UT)

FYI, I only said I was male so as to avoid gender-based wikihounding from male editors whose behavioral lapses are widely noted. So far, it has been successful. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I assumed good faith when you said you were male, and I would not treat you any differently if you said female or LGBT. Sadly, you create a "Heads I win, tails you lose" with your accusations. If you are male, I am "guilty" of gender bias because you suppose I would not say bullshit to a female. But if you are female, then you accuse me of "manspeaking" to you and others. But neither accusation is based on evidence. (FYI, you should take a look at the edits I've done with Jennifer N. Pritzker or Chelsea Manning. All strictly within WP:5P and policy and MOS.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"Some of my best friends are women" SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Srich, do I have permission to refer to you as (Personal attack removed)? I understand from the Binksternet saga that using nicknames without the consent of the nicknamed individual is grounds for expulsion from Misplaced Pages. Steeletrap (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

OK people, that's enough. Move along unless you have something constructive to say. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I don't mind them posting here. While the comments speak for themselves, I am free to respond as I think appropriate. At the same time, if they (Specifico and others) don't want me to say "Bullshit", they can stay away from this page. If they feel that feckless jabs at me with accusations and aspersions are worthwhile, they can post here. In response, though, I can comment, reply, revert, {{rpa}}, hat, archive, ignore, tell them where to stick it, etc., as I see fit. – S. Rich (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD, etc.

Hey, counselor. Thanks for your understanding in the Nick DeCarbo AfD. I do a lot of work with sports-related AfDs, if you have any questions, or would like to get more involved with sports AfDs, let me know. I'm happy to provide quick background and a road map for future endeavors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite alright. Today I've doing backlog stuff on Bio templates. Adding living or dead, BLP/BLPO stuff. I reached a point where I thought "what's so great about this guy? is is worth posting "living=no" or shall I just template for an afd. Your quick response and guidance is appreciated. I'll leave the sports afds to others. – S. Rich (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Templates

I hope you know that I respect both you and Specifico as editors, and have never understood the animosity between you, given that you're both likely on the same side of many issues. However, given the history between the two of you, it's probably not a good idea to leave tags like this on his talk page. (It's probably not a good idea to template the regulars.) LK (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks LK. Given that Specifico has templated me on numerous times re 3RR, all of which were inappropriate, it seemed proper to place a template. I was tempted to report the EW, but I chose to template instead. Mike V has blocked both of them for the EW. Thus the templating was validated. – S. Rich (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Closure

I think there has been some misunderstanding regarding the closure of This RfC. From your explanation, it seems that you thought that people who supported the "present formulation" were actually supporting removal of the term "Serbian Orthodox Church". That was not the case. Only 2 people supported "Orthodox priest" while the rest supported "Serbian orthodox priest" (one editor misunderstood the question and his stand can't be determined). Asdisis (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you added a clarification to the RfC. However, are you planing answering this misunderstanding i described? MrX's revert clearly shows that there is a misunderstanding in your closure. I would just like to state that I support your present decision, however out of objectivity I have to put it in question because of reasons I described above. Asdisis (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've modified the text. Describing father as a Serbian Orthodox Church priest is confusing and I hope to avoid that description. Too much of the discussion circled around the history of the SOC. The question could have been better put by asking "What was the church that provided religious training to father and what church did the ordination when he became a priest?" It could not have been the SOC because the SOC did not exist as an official body when father was ordained. (I assume Orthodox priests get ordained.) Does this help? – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure that you had understood the discussion correctly. This time in fact your consensus goes against majority. That is why I thought you misunderstood something(having our previous account in mind). People who advocated "Serbian Orthodox priest" said that they want to "keep the present wording". They were actually in majority in the discussion. Only I and one more editor advocated "Orthodox priest". You in the explanation said that "The consensus is to keep the present text..." meaning that " "Nikola Tesla was born ... to Serbian parents... His father, ... was an Orthodox priest..". That first sentence of your explanation is confusing. It confused MrX, and it may confuse others. To them "keep the present text" means that Tesla's father was "Serbian Orthodox priest". Asdisis (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

COI

Hey, just wanted to check in and say thanks for keeping some of the pages I watch uptodate and honest. Wanted to let you know that my "interest" is as declared as it will be: I'm am a relative of the named article, as is implied by my username. Honestly, I'm not much needed anymore and if I could close my account, I would. I understand COI and the aims of wikipedia. I feel like all of my edits have spoken for themselves and I have not given reason for suspicion. If you disagree, that's ok. I'm sure you're a busy man all over wikipedia, and giving attention to my small contributions is probably more of a nuisance than a joy, for that I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubreygrossman (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 August 2014‎ (UTC)

No apology is necessary, not in the least. I agree that your edits have been helpful. As a WP:WikiGnome I enjoy fixing the small details, so please don't fret. Thank you for your kind remarks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Griffin

It is preposterous to state that Griffin's article or any part of it is covered by Austrian Economics sanctions. Consider whether you would like the community to scrutinize your promotion of that POV. Especially in the context of your dysfunctional skirmishes with Ms. Steeletrap. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is Ms. Steeletrap (talk · contribs)'s edits which are dysfunctional and disruptive. Her edit summaries are incorrect. She removes sourced material. She has removed SYN & SPS tags on portions of the article which are under discussion. (Lieberman is a good source, but the others are used for SYN.) I did not mention Lieberman in the talk page posting, but Steeletrap reacted as if I thought Lieberman was not RS. She is removing references with dead link tags, which means she did not actually look at the citations (and only assumes they are inappropriate). (For example is improperly linked to the Questia homepage, so she cannot have looked at the source.) She is injecting POV into section headings. (Putting AIDS denial into a section heading is UNDUE when only 1 sentence in the 5 paragraph section is about AIDS.) And sadly, although warned, she is editing on the topic Jekyll Island, which purports to be based on Austrian Economics. The TBAN is broadly construed, so it does not mean that Griffin must be an economist or engage in economic analysis. The book, for better or worse, has been cited by Ron Paul and supports Paul's theories, and I provided links to Steeletrap about the AE relationship. One author, Flaherty, said the book described the Jekyll meeting as conspiratorial, but that is not sufficient to label Griffin as a conspiracy theorist. What else? Oh, yes. She is sexist herself when she addresses me as "bub". (I would not use a similar term, such as "babe" to address her.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This goofball nonsense has nothing to do with Austrian Economics other than (possibly) some overlap in the people who may have read the books. By the same token, Griffin overlaps Winnie the Pooh, Julia Child, and the Bible. Anyway, because I like you, I advise you to find some other egregious problem that will benefit from your attention. You are on thin ice with Steeletrap and with your tendentious misapprehension of her TBAN. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Do I read you correctly? You contest the AE TBAN, and nothing else? If Ms. Steeletrap's edits are problematic in other areas, you ought to say so. She may benefit from your guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I may edit the article, I haven't really looked at it yet. I'm just amazed at how quickly you arrive on the scene when Ms. Steele enters the room. Faster than a speeding bullet. A one-man bucket brigade, maybe. But seriously you should consider devoting yourself elsewhere. You must have faith in the Community and know that, whatever your concerns, others will eventually address them -- to the extent, of course, that they are valid. Anyway since you invited me, I will look at the Griffin article. Many such articles tend to have some inappropriate content that's accumulated over the years as well-meaning fans include ill-sourced assertions. Are you a fan of his works? SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do edit the article. (But another editor has recently come in with some changes.) Yes, we are following each other around. Steeletrap follows Binksternet, you follow CarolMooreDC and I. Binksternet is so prodigious in his edits its hard to say what he follows. I don't know what Carol follows. I'm following you, Steeletrap, and EllenCT. On Griffin I attempted to set up a discussion on the laetrile topic and Steeletrap reacts somewhat negatively. Then, while the discussion is going on, she removes the tags I posted as if there was no discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, Sgt., but I do not stalk editors. Your envy of Bink's accomplishments is noted. Over the coming days, consider whether you could just choose a random selection of editors to follow around and see how it goes. Variety is the spice of life, they say. I know you don't generally object to removal tags, because I've seen you in action on Molyneux and elsewhere. Anyway, try to make some new friends. You'll branch out and get some barnstars for your collection. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh? Who said anything about stalking? But this was an interesting thread: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Am I really in violation of something? (And what are you going to do about Steeletrap's sexist remark to me. Aren't you interested in combating systemic bias? I believe Steeletrap respects you, so I'd think she'd benefit from your guidance.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I stalk User:Binksternet for a reason that anyone who looks at his user page can sympathize with: he's a knockout. Is your reason for stalking me equally complimentary or benign? Steeletrap (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Innocuous. But post a photo of yourself. Who knows what reactions, replies, propositions, or proposals you might get. – S. Rich (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Smearing the guy who posted that empty ANI is not a good idea. If you have a beef with him, take it up directly but don't do it behind his back. SPECIFICO talk 21:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Smearing? How so? – S. Rich (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This current WP:AE thread may be instructive in an issue that has come up several times before here and seems related to the one above : A discussion about if a topic is or is not covered by a topic area/ban is itself covered by the topic ban. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SW3_5DL - I have no opinion as to if Griffin is or is not part of AE, but those who have a ban in that area would be wise to disengage from that debate.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Stanton

Template:Third-party is different than Template:COI. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: However, the template pertains to sources which have a "very close connections" with the subject. Just who are the very close connections? Some of the 25 refs have published his stuff, but that does not create a "close connection". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! It is John Stanton writing. I note that I am up for deletion from Wiki and that's not my call, of course. Debate and delete if you must. I DO take offense to Plot Spoiler indicating that much of my writing is "fringe." When I write satire like "Interview with God" that can be considered fringe. But the bulk of my work has been cited in a lot of credible places. Efforts (cited too) for the American Behavorial Scientist, National DEFENSE magazine, papers/presentations for the International Studies Association, and cites in a host of military-related publications can hardly be considered "fringe". Just a few of those are listed below the next paragraph.

I believe that Plot Spoiler is an editor with a notable bias who uses Wiki Law to advance his cause. It is no surprise that Spoiler's call for deletion came right after a piece I wrote calling him out and discussing the recent Israel invasion and destruction of much of Gaza, and the political power of the Israeli lobby in the USA. In that piece I supported the edits made to my Wiki entry but I do not applaud censorship or the attempt to label me as "fringe."

I do not have the time or inclination to revisit this matter. But I have taken this time to dispute the "fringe" label as that is a false indictment.

Written just after 911, this piece Terrorists Will Exploit has been cited, according to Google Scholar, 38 times over the years.

One of the more recent cites to the above piece is this: Information content security on the Internet: the control model and its evaluation BX Fang, YC Guo…- SCIENCE CHINA Information Sciences, 2010 - Springer Abstract Flooding of harmful information on the Internet seriously endangers thephysiological and mental health of teenagers. Due to the user-friendliness of the Internet as well as the difficulty in the authentication for the access of specific categories of. National DEFENSE magazine is hardly a "fringe" publication. My work their under the good offices of Sandra Erwin and Bob Williams led to articles cited by the US military--dozens of them in fact. Here is one: www.carlisle.army.mil/library/bibs/warfar03.htm Baker, Donald L. Terrorism, a New Age of War: Isthe United States Up to the ..... Garstka, John J. "Network-Centric Warfare Offers Warfighting Advantage: ... "Guarding Virtual Borders: In Cyberspace, the Best Defense Is a Good Offense. .....Stanton, John J. "Space-Based Optical Comms Could Fix Bandwidth Problem

My five year coverage of the US Army's Human Terrain System produced over 100 articles from sources I will never name as they have bills to pay and clearances to keep. And in these times, no one dare reveal sources and methods. At any rate those pieces were cited in dozens of publications: The AAA's report on USA HTS, The Tender Soldier by Vanessa Gezari, Wired's Danger Room, The Daily Beast, etc.

My piece on Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience was cited in Rebbeca Costa's Watchman's Rattle...You may also find my work cited at Questia and even in the US Army Commanders Filed Guide for female engagement teams here:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_11-38_v1.pdf and at JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/20179957?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=human&searchText=terrain&searchText=system&searchText=john&searchText=stanton&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dhuman%2Bterrain%2Bsystem%2Bjohn%2Bstanton%26amp%3Bprq%3Dhuman%2Bterrain%2Bsystem%26amp%3Bhp%3D25%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bso%3Drel — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJSX12 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.156.29 (talk)

I can't and won't do anything about Plot's descriptive. It is simply an opinion, and each editor is entitled to assert opinions when it comes to notability discussions. Considering the work I have done on the article, I do think it is worth saving. But I am holding off on commenting for a while. – S. Rich (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Gratuitous personal remarks

Please don't make personal remarks or speculate about others motives when attempting to discuss article and essay content. It's clear that for whatever reason, gender-related or otherwise, Ms. Steele is particularly sensitive about such remarks and your insertion of them on Competence talk is particularly unconstructive. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap injected the POV-vulnerable topic of AIDS (of which she is very concerned) into the essay, and can reasonably expect commentary or response on the effort to do so. Accordingly, the remark was not inappropriately personal or gratuitous. Also, the issue of AIDs has absolutely nothing to do with gender. AIDS is transmitted via sexual contact between all genders. (Also, many hemophiliacs died from AIDS in early years because they were unwittingly receiving infected blood product transfusions.) Are we applying different standards to Steeletrap because of gender? (That is called sexism.) Your own remark about how Steeletrap is "particularly sensitive" is just as personal, just as gratuitous, and just as speculative as my own. So what? Perhaps Steeletrap can take some courage and inspiration from Athena. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing speculative about it. There are certain female editors with whom you seem to have persistently interacted in a problematic way. I have no opinion as to the content in this edit, no opinion as to AIDS denial, and no opinion as to whether I would react to your behavior in the same way as various others have. I do feel confident in observing however, that to respect the autonomy of other editors one needs to understand and be mindful of their feelings and reactions, not invalidate them with denial or denigration. FYI, there is some important discussion on WP gender issues at this page. Have a look if you care to investigate others' perspectives on these issues. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Could CarolMooreDC be one of the female editors that you "have persistently interacted with in a problematic way"? If so, then do both of us a favor and just lay off. You've chosen to make sly (and not-so-sly) WP:ASPERSIONS about me, and they grow tiresome. As for the Gender-gap project, I followed CarolMooreDC over there when she first edited there on June 29th. A few days ago, as you might have noticed, I took care of a slight problem on the Project that was created by the now-indef'd Jim-Situri. – S. Rich (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You know that I do not stalk your edits, so I have/had no idea where and when you edited what. SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Just go back to the Project you recommended an take a look at its history. You will see I have edited on it. Hence your "FYI" was unneeded. Indeed, in two respects: 1. I already knew about it, and 2. I already support editing and commentary that is non-sexist. – S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Srich, because I like you I am going to give you the following feedback. I hope you will calmly reflect on it rather than react with reflexive denial and anger.

Feedback: If you re-read my comment above, I did not dispute whether you had previously edited wherever. Instead, what I said was that I do not follow where and when you post (except to the extent that it intersects with my Watchlist) and that, because I don't stalk your edits, I wrote my initial reference to the Gender Bias page without knowing whether you'd posted there. In fact, upon checking just now, I don't find your alias in the history of either the article or the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Check this. Since you like me, why don't you nominate me for Admin? You had thought about doing so last year, didn't you? And you know I'd be fair and follow guidance & policy at all times. Also, once I became an Admin, I'd be less likely to "stalk" you or Steeletrap or Carolmooredc. – S. Rich (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be pleased to nominate you. I have seen your exemplary compliance with the voluntary IBAN from EllenCT, and that is why I continue to give you feedback that may help you attain your goals. In order for me to feel comfortable nominating you, I would have to go, say, 60 days without seeing any recurrence of problematic behavior. In particular, I'd have to be comfortable that you're able to cast a wider net in your patrol and problem-solving contributions. I have no doubt you could make the adjustment and give the Community the comfort it would require to approve Adminship. So, if you can show that you can disengage not only from the EllenCT and 3 of us but from any other faves of whom I may be unaware, I can certainly see myself nominating you some time early in 4Q 2014. SPECIFICO talk 22:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please check . Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap: What are your thoughts about SPECIFICO's willingness to nominate me? – S. Rich (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Quit stalking me and I'll consider helping you get promoted, private. Steeletrap (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not asking for your help in getting a promotion. Only that you not oppose me out of grudges or because you think I have a prejudice for libertarianism. (If you think I'd be a diligent, competent, and fair Admin, I'd like the nomination process to proceed without disruption.) As for stalking, I'm saddened if you think this is a negative. After all, we've had several engaging discussions on this and other pages. – S. Rich (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, as an Admin I'd be very wary of any behavior which might jeopardize my promotion. So you have less to fret about in terms of "stalking". I'd seek, as I usually do, to approach you as a co-editor who wishes to collaborate in the project. – S. Rich (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mary Wayte

Hey, SRich. I would be grateful if you would remove your note from the talk page of this article. I came across the issue you mentioned a couple of months ago, and left a talk page message for the editor here. There are presently no changes in the article that were added by the editor in question; I subsequently reviewed and modified any such text. Most of the existing text of this article is my handiwork, and I will continue to monitor the article. If the editor in question reappears, I am certain I can handle any conflict-of-interest issues on a friendly basis, and without embarrassing an Olympic gold medalist in the process -- with an explanation of the applicable Misplaced Pages policies. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to do so yourself and mention my agreement to the revert. I won't object. (But I wouldn't think the mention is embarrassing. Take a look at Authur Rubin for example.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. I am on it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I think the talk page template is far preferable to having a COI template on the article page. Especially when editors declare their connection. I have one myself on a page I once worked on. – S. Rich (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

talk page archiving

Don't be impatient, let the bot do some work :) besides, your script appears to be stuffing everything in /Archive 5, bloating it well over the designated 150K limit. --Joy (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I stopped. (And I didn't think to look at the archive size.) Shall I unarchive it? 16:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joy: I've impatiently reverted the archiving. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's just that if we don't give the bot some time to do its work, we won't know if the new settings are actually all right :) In my experience, it seems to be running at European night time, so it's only a few more hours I think. --Joy (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joy: you are so right. Bot worked just time & actually opened a new archive page for the 179k change. Now that the cantankerous bickering is off the page, perhaps there can be some real discussion on improving the article. Thanks again. – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Good to see. Tonight, we'll see if it's going to move the next section out, where the last timestamp in the upper part will roll over the 1 month mark, and the lower part is tagged for archiving. If it doesn't, then you can move it out manually. --Joy (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It didn't. You can do it now :) --Joy (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Challenge Coin article

FYI: I added a bunch of missing references and did other clean-up to the challenge coin article. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw. I'll look a bit closer in a while. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Lots of good changes. Keep at it and you may earn a Challenge Coin for yourself! – S. Rich (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for calling to my attention my misunderstanding about the meaning of minor edits.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome. Enjoy your learning and editing experience here on Misplaced Pages! – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

etymology of the word "army"

Hello Srich32977

I added the etymology of the word army by way of the Roman historian Tacitus. Martin Luther also drew the comparison between the word Army and Germanic general Arminius. In books I and XII Tacitus describes in detail the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest. In preparation for which Arminius was able to amass a large fighting force (henceforth army) the likes of which the Romans had never before encountered. In 9AD, near the historic peak of Roman power, Arminius and his "army" decimated three Roman legions, more than 100,000 strong including entourage. The victory was significant in permitting Germany, unlike the Gauls and the Celts, to remain an independent cultural and political amalgamation. Arminius' "army" almost certainly protected the Germanic populations east of the Rhine from Roman enslavement as a consequence of the army assembled at Teutoberg forest.

Greece and Rome (Second Series) / Volume 51 / Issue 01 / April 2004, pp 83-94Copyright © The Classical Association 2004 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gr/51.1.83 (About DOI), Published online: 05 April 2006

see also https://en.wikipedia.org/Arminius biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEE-SCAN (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@SEE-SCAN: I reverted the changes you made because no references were provided. Have another go at it. – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars

Ever read WP:DTR? Seriously. I made an edit, missed that a ref got tossed. It gets fixed. The bot was 24 hours late and then you pop by with a template? I have only been working on the article since late March and it passed FAC a few days ago. I do not need random templating with schoolmarmish messages. Chill out. Montanabw 04:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And back atcha! Montanabw 04:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Plip!

John Arab

Hi there,

Thanks for looking over my work at St. Michael's Choir School. I've done my best to correctly implement changes with your notes, but would appreciate your checking back to see if there are still issues.

I just wanted to explore the issue of John Arab. While he is not a world-famous tenor he is (or was, before his death) well known across Canada generally, and in Toronto specifically. His career with the Canadian Opera Company spanned twenty years and as an instructor, his students included Michael Burgess, Robert Pomakov and Michael Schade, all of whom are significant in today's Canadian opera scene. He also performed with a number of other renowned opera companies, and was active with the Stratford Festival here in Ontario. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Astra Inclinant (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Astra Inclinant: Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Starting an article as a guide when you create John Arab. – S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Swiss Super League/Challenge League playoffs

Hello Srich32977. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Swiss Super League/Challenge League playoffs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A playoff series between two notable leagues is enouogh for A7. PROD or take to AfD. Thank you. GedUK  12:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Vani Hari massive commentary editing without justification

Srich32977, please explain your commentary removal; you removed a significant number of sources and commentary by scientists and reputed, published authors that seems wholly in line with the RS and BLP policies. Also, you left a comment stating " Not improvements (discussed)" when I cannot find any discussion you make of these quotes or sources anywhere. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.193.8 (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I'm sorry that you can't figure out why the Gorski material is inappropriate. The post which IP wants to add does not deal with the science or non-science of Hari's claims. He (Gorski) is an oncologist, and not an expert on marketing, motivations, media, and the like. The edit summary which IP quotes above is mine from the first edit I reverted. I've made a few more, BLP specific reverts. Unfortunately IP seems to be getting upset and accuses me of uncivil conduct. I quite agree with IP about the nonsense that Hari is involved in. (In fact, I've contributed money to support Mark Crislip's edgy-doc podcasts.) But we've got our BLP policies to uphold, and leaving Gorski's comments in the article does not comport with those policies. – S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Tom Humphrey

Hi, I'm wondering if we still need the notability tag on Thomas M. Humphrey's article. What do you think? Vienna.ac (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Tag removed. – S. Rich (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, what do you think about the article on Thomas M. Humphrey? Is it cleaned up enough to remove the clean up tag? Vienna.ac (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The present tag is for COI. If Mitzi Humphrey would declare her COI, we could remove the tag & modify the connected contributor template on the talk page. But the article still needs cleaning up, even without the tag. – S. Rich (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Manning U.S.D.S prisoner

Sir It has been some time since we discussed this so events could become clearer. At our last exchange of views, you did not believe that Manning was in the male facility at Fort Leavenworth . Do you now believe that is correct?Patroit22 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Patroit22: I think the latest on Manning is at footnote 140. How well Manning adjusts to the environment would be speculative on my part. – S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Updating logo in The Heritage Foundation's infobox

Hi S. Rich. I'm wondering if you can help with a quick update to The Heritage Foundation article. I posted about this on the Talk page but haven't received a response so I'm asking you. The Heritage Foundation recently released a new logo, which I've uploaded here. Would you be able to replace the old logo in the infobox with this logo? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thurmant: Sorry, I really don't know much about images. The concern I'd have is about the copyright for it. But what you can do is WP:BB and post it yourself. If there is a problem you'll see your product with the preview button. If there is a copyright problem, someone with more knowledge will come by and tag the image. (Thanks for thinking of me.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Kindness.

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar I've come from the kindness campaign page and I'm feeling in the mood to hand out a Barnstar! :D DangerousJXD (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
	:) DangerousJXD (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruption Thread

You tried to close the "disruption" thread at WP:ANI with a NOTHERE template, which only goes to the top of the article. Then editors who wanted to complain about the thread because they had been complained about continued posting. (That is, they wanted the boomerang to come back at Carol Moore.) So then I tried to close the disruption thread with archivetop and archivebottom, which box off the thread. So then another editor who wanted to continue to complain about the thread reverted my box. What next, if anything, except to let them complain? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

With all the discussion that is posted on ANI and other boards, what harm could it do to leave the thread open while editors are actively coming to the board and responding? I'm not commenting on the complaint or your speculation about boomerang. I think that Srich's action only served to further anger OP and might have the damaging and unfortunate effect of encouraging off-topic meta-comments on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Per the ANI instruction box "How to use this page" the NOTHERE template is appropriate. Only problem is, it does not box the discussion and editors have a tendency to look at the bottom of threads, not at the top. You were correct to box it, but I don't think you have an experience level to make the boxing stick. (I considered boxing myself, but decided my non-admin status left me at a disadvantage.) Two kinds of pork should have left it alone, and if I had seen the unboxing I would have reboxed it with a comment to find another, non-involved experienced editor to do the unboxing. Alas, I see admins posting on the thread (even with my NOTHERE message), when they should be closing the thread. @SPECIFICO: the harm is the diversion caused to the Gender Gap project and WP in general. The WP:CSBOT list will be 10 years old next month. That is where work should be done. So compare – the GGTF talk page has generated a 400k of discussion in the last few months. Most of the talk is archived, which indicates no overall progress (I have not looked at the long archive 2 in any detail.) I strongly suspect that the talk page is overflowing with petty bickering, which has now spilled out onto the ANI. And it looks like the ANI is becoming a back-door attempt to skewer CMDC. She was wrong to start it (as per my NOTHERE comments). It is equally wrong for others to turn it against her. An RFC/U is the best course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I wish you had not commented on CMDC's talk page. 1. She has told you to stay away. 2. I recall that some Admins have admonished you about such comments. So, I recommend that you revert your edit. – S. Rich (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Aren't you also among the "banned?" -- Yes, in the heat of my constructive inspiration, I forgot about that. It's been quite some time since I thought that she might be listening to others' take on things and I foolishly offered a couple of helpful points. As things turned out on the ANI, I think it was best that your close was undone, because now none of the editors, largely canvassed to the thread I'm afraid, will feel they were prematurely silenced. Your closure, though done in good faith, risks being experienced as manhandling and manipulation by those who are preparing to share their views. All's well that ends well. I do think Carol had a good suggestion that you could make valuable contributions arising from your experience in the military where I get the sense that gender-related issues and sexual politics continue to raise concern both within and outside the armed forces. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Srich: reminder you have been unbanned for several months. Relatively copacetic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

As to my ban @Carolmooredc:, I didn't bother commenting on the ANI thread but after it was quashed I did take a look-see. I notice that you cited this link for your claim that I'd been banned from your talk page. Not surprisingly, it shows no such thing, as the Admin points out to you. So if you'd like to ban me from your talk page from now on, perhaps a note on your talk page would seal the deal for you and prevent future confusion or embarrassment. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The October 31 2013 Bbb23 complaint about harassment clarified you had been banned earlier, even if the banning message unfortunately was a bit ambiguous. Yet you kept posting and I complaining: Oct 31, Oct 31, Nov 11, Nov 22, Nov 24, Dec 19, Dec 29, Jan 10, June 30, 9/4, 9/4. Tell me which Admin needed to hear that and I'll post to them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Careful

Please exercise restraint. Your advice and mentoring of Carolmooredc will appear condescending and controlling to many WP editors who may follow her talk page. I'm sure she can make her own decisions, and the ANI thread concerns Tarc, if I read it correctly. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, too late. Now I see you've again been tagged with the pseudo-admin issue, which is very detrimental to your reputation here. Please take a step back. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please. You asked me to help you get in shape so I could nominate you for Admin. Yet now you've disregarded my counsel, you've got Carolmooredc posting to an ANI which was not previously "about" her but which may soon turn that way. Then you're continuing to jump in on ANI and further inflame the discussion. Please stand back. Let your friends help you here. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You give advice, I give advice. You ignore advice, I ignore advice. You take advice, I take advice, CMDC ignores advice, CMDC takes advice. Nobody is controlling anybody. (People who complain they are being controlled need to ....)

The "pseudo-admin" tag is meaningless. As an experienced editor yourself, you might try some of those "pseudo-admin" procedures. For example, there is a discussion at Talk:Creation Museum#accreditation that is long open and a request for closure has been outstanding. (I'd close it, but I had commented in the thread.)

Turns out my "pseudo-admin closing" of CMDCs ANI thread was validated by Scotty Wong who closed it with the remark that people should behave "like mature adults."

Thanks and you're welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, don't misunderstand. I wasn't bringing up the pseudo-Admin tag again. But given that it's out there, right or wrong, you must take account of the appearances and sensitivities of others. BTW, Scotty waited until the discussion was exhausted before his close and rightly or wrongly the Admin does have a certain authority on ANI when there are contentious matters. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Scotty waited, but the closing of the drama was inevitable. Others were free to ignore my posting, so it had no effect in controlling anything. (And I was aware that it would not control anything.) But who knows, perhaps Scotty was inspired by my contribution. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments on Arthur Rothery Nutt. It's rather frustrating to spend an hour of spare time on an article (with obvious scope for expansion) only to see it deleted in a matter of seconds. I am having similar problems with Richard John Durley who was a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at McGill University and head of gauges and standards in the Canadian Ministry of Munitions during World War I (and awarded the MBE). He seems to me a worthy addition to wikipedia.

For those who don't have ready access to Who's Who or the perseverance to research beyond wikipedia, I feel that many of these characters will be lost to the world if[REDACTED] also deletes them!

Yours, (MJT21 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC))

I do not think the Nutt article will be deleted. I'll look at Durley. – S. Rich (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Abdul Latif Khan Tarin

Dear Sir, apropos your note on my Talk page regarding Abdul Latif Khan Tarin, thank you very much. Ive now left a very detailed reply in the deletion discussion and I hope you will view my perspective kindly, and allow this very new article (only started on 1st Sept 2014)to live on. As stated there, in my starting summary, I DO plan to expand it in time and add more material and references etc too, and the significance of the late Jemadar's role at the battle of Dujaila, where he gave his life, will also emerge. Best wishes, AsadUK200 (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200

These nominations for deletion often serve two separate purposes. 1. They clean out some of the junk we see on Misplaced Pages. 2. They also inspire editors to rescue articles which are not junk. I am not saying that Tarin is a junk article, but I wish there was more to his notability. In many cases the standard for notability for military people is higher than for other people. In the WikiProject Military history guidance, they say notability is achieved when someone receives the nation's highest award or when they receive the second highest award more than once. So, since Tarin received the second highest award (at the time) he is close to achieving notability (for the Misplaced Pages article). Given that you plan to expand the article, I'd say it has WP:POTENTIAL. With this in mind, I will probably withdraw the nomination as a keep. Let's see if the AFD attracts more attention from other editors who might contribute. – S. Rich (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, regarding the nomination of this article for deletion, I have viewed and read many comments on the discussion so far. But am more confused than ever now. What do you propose please? I would value your comments and feedback as you started this discussion. Although I feel that the article should be kept but the fact is, there are very few direct references to the Jemadar's achievements in general and his special role and sacrifice at Dujaila. In the course of my longer book-research on the 1st Punjabis (part of the present Pakistan Army Punjab Regiment) I have so far uncovered only 2 general/previous references/mentions in despatches between 1912 and 1914; and only one (1) reasonably detailed reference in a previously published military history book (1984). I dont know if this would be suitable or enough to establish 'Notability' as posited by many discussants. If you seriously think the article doesnt stand up (although I shall develop and expand it over time, gradually) then I think it might be better to Redirect this page (rather than outrightly deleting), to the Indian Distinguished Service Medal page, as has been suggested on the discussion too. I am not very familiar with the technical aspects but if this is agreeable then I would please request you to make this change thanks. AsadUK200 (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)AsadUK200

Matthew Axelson‎

S. Rich, I know he was a person, and isn't a memorial. But he is portrayed in the memorial. I rather doubt we will have a free standing article on the memorial itself (although there could be). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to The Guardians at the Veteran's Memorial Park in Cupertino? Even so, he does not become the memorial. Compare, the exterior walls of War Memorial of Korea are engraved with every name of every American KIA & MIA from the Korean War. The fact that their names are on the building would not justify a "Memorial Category" on the articles for the notable casualties. (Ugh, I'm not expressing myself very clearly.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

I hear you have been active at Request edits. Thanks, looks like you handled quite a few.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You hear right. (And thank you.) Also, I've modified the instructions to encourage requestors to sign & date-stamp. Show that the requests are getting old may prompt others to work on the backlog. What I don't like is the fact that editors gripe about COI editors, but don't honor the system for helping COI editors who can actually improve the project. – S. Rich (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We tell people not to COI edit, then when they try to do the right thing, we aren't as responsive as I would like.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt

Thanks MJT21 (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A favor

You seem like you have a decent read on the SPECIFICO situation, though I'm not sure if I agree with everything you've said, but your comments are reasonable. You also seem to have a rapport with Neotarf. I just posted a warning on her talk page about making adhominem attacks. Would try to reason with her that these sort of things are not necessary? This has been going on for a while now. I just want it to stop.Two kinds of pork_Bacon 04:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)