User talk:Srich32977/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

NOTICE TO VIEWERS

delThis editor is a deletionist.

I intend to keep this talk page clean and simple. Comments regarding particular articles should go on article pages -- please use this page to alert me. But once the topic here is exhausted I'll delete IAW WP:OWNTALK. Thank you so very much.

--S. Rich (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token a4250426e0f5fba7e263ae6aa0f8be40

(I can't remember WTH this token is for!)--S. Rich (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it came from the Free Image Search Tool at http://toolserver.org/~magnus/fist.php Sbmeirow (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps

Thank you the fixes to the article. You have a keen eye. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jonancy, Kentucky

Hi. You were right to prune the above article. There was too much extraneous information. But I did restore a couple of sentences since the origin of the name of the hamlet or village is certainly not "material only tangentially related to main topic". Hope my updates are to our mutual satisfaction. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks..

...for the Barnstar I need to find some time to really go through the Bolger article and find some other sources to add to DMZ 66-69. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi not sure how to reply to your comment. Yes have been distracted by other things, but hope to redo the entire Korean DMZ page soon. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Crab Wars merge with NLL and the end of the Korean War

Hi, I agree with your proposal to merge Crab Wars with the NLL and have stated my thoughts on the Talk page. I see that you are also having some arguments with pedants who insist that the Korean War is still going on because there was only an armistice and not a peace treaty. Using the same logic Israel and Syria are still fighting the Six Day War...is there any way that we can close this issue off once and for all? Regards Mztourist (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you please give me your thoughts on this proposal for the consolidation/rationalization of the various Korean conflicts articles: Division of Korea is renamed Korean Conflict or something similar, but all incidents and incursions are removed and placed in one of the following:

Otherwise all the various specific incident pages would be unchanged other than being stated to be part of the Korean Conflict and the relevant incident category. regards Mztourist (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide your input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean maritime border incidents. regards Mztourist (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Again. If you look at the ANI page you will see my comments. I can't believe how much time some people have to pursue non-issues. regards Mztourist (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Military Brats Reversion

I am actually the person who added the Wertsch, Musil and Great Santini Wikilinks in the first place (in the "See Also" section)--

But then I worried that they might not be appropriate and so I then removed them (after I added them).

However I'll take your revert of my deletion as a vote of confidence in those links, and I'll leave them there.

Thanks,

Telemachus.forward (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Manning Reversion

The Bradley Manning case has generated various factions, some of which are highly polarized. Clearly, the role of whistleblowing in American democracy is of significant historical interest. For that reason, the opinions of well-known public figures and organizations regarding Manning are not WP:SOAP, but rather a snapshot of the views held by those who represent various aspects of an important national debate. The Wikipedia deletion policy encourages you to repair any imbalance you might perceive in these citations by enriching the article further, rather than removing well-documented and relevant content that is already in place. For this reason, I've both undone your earlier reversion, and augmented the page. To safeguard against someone who actually might use this section to hop on their own personal soapbox (or delete one or more sides), I've placed the page under a watch. Hopefully, this will avoid problems with WP:SOAP, yet allow us to capture the views of noteworthy groups and public figures. JonDePlume (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

High critical standard

I do not construe an "edit war" at Military Demarcation Line. Rather, I see your edits as appropriate. We agree that you are applying a very high critical standard in reviewing my edits because no maritime Demarcation line is encompassed in the KAA text. Your goal is that of ensuring the academic credibility of this article. --Tenmei (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please share your opinion at Talk:Military Demarcation Line#Request for Comment. What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing the focal point?

Please consider Military Demarcation Line#Usage and conventional misuse.

Conventional usage offers a potentially useful focal point.

In the previous version of our article, a dichotomy was established between land-based demarcation and ocean-based demarcation. A potentially helpful alternative parsing strategy might be found in emphasis on a dichotomy between

  • the precision of the formal KAA-defined term and acronym and line; and
  • the imprecise usage and "misuse" which is documented in news stories of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, etc.

I hope you will not hesitate to edit any or all of the re-written text which I have added. --Tenmei (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please notice small edits at Military Demarcation Line#Usage and conventional misuse. --Tenmei (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar, which is very much appreciated. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And my thanks to you for the cookie! Nandt1 (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations .. you're welcome

No problem fixing your page. Someone might have just been having a bad day and wanted to take it out on you. Cheers. Wikipelli Talk 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Mess

Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you.--S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why yes, S. Rich, you are quite right. I shall use the links you suggest and clean up the userspace draft that I've created. Thank you so much for your suggestion. Perhaps I shall give you a wikicookie or barnstar for being so, so helpful! --S. Rich (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pseudo-Cushing's syndrome

Had to shuffle the mental Rolodex, since I copyedited that article as part of last month's GOCE drive. It still looks like that bullet-line contradicts itself, unless I'm missing something (always a possibility); I'm not a medical person either, but I don't understand how an identical lab finding used to diagnose a disease can be used to rule out the same disease. A citation would probably clear everything up. Wi2g 15:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On the theory

On the theory that you might like to clarify your recent note suggesting that I may have mis-read something, I submit the following facts to your attention:

  • I am the primary author of the WP:ELOFFICIAL section.
  • I was involved in the creation of WP:ELNO #19. It was added in response to a complaint about this linkfarm, and its primary purpose is to deal with similarly egregious linkfarms.
  • Click here, here, and here for a little data about my involvement with the External links guideline.

If you meant to say that I mis-read something else, then please feel free to specify the something else: it wouldn't be the first time that I skimmed right past a critical detail, and I'd be happy to take a close look at whatever text you believe I overlooked. However, if you meant to say that I mis-read the guideline, then you may want to re-think that idea.

Since you say that your professional background is in law, let me add that the EL guideline is much more akin to a case law system, or even a pure custom system, than to a statutory system. The history of its promulgation and actual use are more important than the exact words used to express the issue. But if you're going to wikilawyer over exact terms, then I hope you'll take a few minutes to think about the meaning of the words "normally" and "generally", which are significant in interpreting the ELNO section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Wikilawyering can be a problem, but I am more concerned about the balance of the article. (Others have complained, but I have tried to improve it especially before SlimVirgin came in.) In fact, I added a reference to the Code Pink article about their support of Manning.
And for my part, the Bradley Manning story will work its way through the military court system slowly but surely. His civilian attorney -- Mr. Coombs -- is a professional and is doing quite well in this regard. (I have high professional regard for him.) Eventually, though, I think Manning will be convicted by a jury of his peers and spend a lot of time alone.
But it is amazing that people complain about him sleeping naked or that he must expose his body for inspection. He is in a jail and such procedures are routine. Rough blankets? Oh, gee whiz. (Thank goodness he did not join the infantry!) In any event, are such details encyclopedic?
But let me get back to the offending link. I just cannot see how or where it is acceptable under the guidelines. Saying such links normally or generally are not allowed in this case simply opens the door for other links. (Just like those I added in my Camel's nose effort.) If this were not a controversial article, then such a link would be fine. But when the link is allowed, it looks like an exception to the "rules" is being made in order to help the manning support group -- that exception only serves to unbalance the article.
People will have no problems finding the bradleymanning dot org site. Indeed, it already has a good rating as per http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bradleymanning.org. But should Wikipedia be one of the websites that links into it?
--S. Rich (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Your fourth paragraph is a common argument, and is usually abbreviated WP:SEH. You might enjoy reading that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks !

Ooorah., on the Defense Department Whistleblower Program assistance; can you review this one, too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Intelligence_Community_Whistleblower_Protection Thanks you for your national service ! IndtAithir (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

MFR

I believe it was once titled at "Marine Forces Reserve" or some derivation of that, but it was moved sometime in the last year or so for reasons I didn't look into. You'll probably want to check the logs and talk to that editor.
To your second question: I'm fairly certain that attached Navy personnel (corpsmen, doctors, chaplains, etc.) are all Navy reservists assigned to that Marine unit. It makes sense to me: the Corps has learned that attaching personnel just prior to any sort of mission or deployment hinders developing that valuable unit cohesion; medical care while inactive can be received from whatever clinic/hospital is closest to the reserve center. However, I can't reference that reliably. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the Barnstar, I'm not sure how to move it onto my main page, can you guide me? regards Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Korean People's Air Force and my edits

this is copy of what I wrote as response for your edit on my Talk page, feel free to delete after you have read it, just wanted to make sure it reaches you, sorry for the trouble. Fair enough, though I'd like to point out that as far as my edits in KPAF -article go, the map coordinates for Kwail/Pungchon airbase, which true enough were already there before my edits, with reference to the map service I used and the date when I used it, are IMHO together enough to verify the information I added, the coordinates point a little south-west from the runway I mentioned, link pointing to the runway: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.425296,125.018742&spn=0.03,0.03&t=h&q=38.425296,125.018742 Ape89 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Kwaku Duren

Am I right that you added the neutrality box to this article? Box says to "see discussion on the talk page," but there is no discussion. Can I assume any dispute is resolved and remove box? David Watson (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct, my tag. Please see B. Kwaku Duren's talk page for response.--S. Rich (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

NNSC

Good addition, thanks for that. It really begs the question what did they do during the 66-69 skirmishing? I guess the inclusion of the Poles and Czechs meant that the NNSC was never able to agree on anything! Mztourist (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, Mz, and I thank you for your contributions. We will never see what skirmishes that were prevented by the NNSC whether or not it had Warsaw Pact members. And according to the Swedes, there is no recent contact by them with the nK. But the continued existence of the NNSC tends shows that the KAA remained in force.--S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely, its tiresome to have to get involved in that whole argument again. Would appreciate you giving your views on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Memorials and the Battle of Lima Site 85 Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments are available off-line. --S. Rich (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Manning

Hello there - could you clarify your understanding of citizenship vis a vis nationality (with references)? I want to reach a consensus here but the reasoning behind your proposed solution is a little obscure to me. Good to know we're almost there, though.

Thanks!

Naomi

Auerfeld (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My noticeboard comments may help a little, but this area of the law is a bit abstruse. I do not think we "as WP editors" can actually reach a conclusion. Moreover, when one editor or another posts RS on Manning's article they are actually seeking to reinforce a POV. The question of Manning's citizenship or nationality is actually a non-issue as far as his court-martial and confinement is concerned. --S. Rich (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lee Seokwoo

Please take a look at a stub article about a law professor at Inha University. Perhaps you may have suggestions or comments? Perhaps you may add something? --Tenmei (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done some editing about Inha. Basically good, but has a lot of WP:BOOSTER. I am not sure which law professor article your are refering to. (Duh - Lee Seo Kwo of course!)--S. Rich (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)22:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

Seriously, I've made a lot of edits on biographical pages, adding the United States template to each infobox for dynamic contrast & a more pleasing aesthetic. Thanks for enlightening me on this MOS:FLAG guideline. Bullmoosebell (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we deleting images of rank in infoboxes of military personnel? Images in the infobox, according to MOS:INFOBOX, allows "readers to identify key facts at a glance."
However, I understand how some infoboxes contain more info than other and, as a result, present an opportunity for a cluster of images and links. So, is that out intent, to delete images from infoboxes, or are we going by a case-by-case basis (for instance, the article of George Washington has flags & images in the infobox, yet is a good article). Lemme know what you think!
Bullmoosebell (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
LTC Rich, I was enlightened with this section: WP:MILMOS: When dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death.
My opinion is to allow flag icons in Allegiance and Service Branch sections of the infobox only, and perhaps awards icons in the infobox to be limited to Valorous/Personal decorations (U.S. and/or foreign), in other words, excluding unit, service, campaign, training, and marksmanship awards. Any advice on further edits?
Regards, Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested in an open discussion

I invite you to participate in a discussion at Talk:Audie Murphy before it becomes an edit war. Thank you, in advance, Bullmoosebell (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Verifying New Palgrave

Hi! I was confused by this edit and its summary [1]. The two citations reference articles at the bottom of our article's page. Their links should go respectively to the NYT archive (which is one-page on-line) and to the JSTOR archive, neither of which I can access this week. Was there a problem with you having a subscription but not being able to locate the cited proposition(s)?

Sincerely, 07:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fixing the cite right now.--S. Rich (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Please specify the criticism by each footnote. Solow is cited four times (for his on-line article, whose printed pagination cannot be distinguished without visiting an archive), so it would be helpful for you to state what you had trouble verifying for 1-4 of its citations. (I had thought that Solow's quotation comparing fringe economics to bone-crushers would have sufficed.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Take a look. I've fixed the one cite, but have not addressed the other three. The problem is basically fixed via access to the NYT article.--S. Rich (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops - Actually I was working on Marxian economics --S. Rich (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
In the article on Marxian economics (lifted from New Palgrave), I quoted Stigler and gave a page number. Are you claiming that that quotation cannot be found on that page?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Please look at Stigler again. If you have JSTOR access, then search (control-F) on the pdf for a substring of the quoted text. I can imagine mis-typing the page number, but such an error should be readily fixed.
(Please respond here. When putting YGM templates on talk pages, please do not put them on top of the other users' pages, but rather put them at the bottom in a new section. Thanks.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Gordon S. Heddell Article

Counselor, can you take a peek at the article captioned supra, and the comments HERE. I reviewed the work history of the author, and this appears to be a first effort. So I do not want to bite the newcomers. Is there an issue, and what can be done? Thanks. Cmagha (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Thanks for the cite. I've created new categories, [[Category:Thomas Jefferson School of Law]] and [[Category:Thomas Jefferson School of Law people]] (obviously the latter is a subcat of the former), to accomodate the new Wisconin State Senator who takes her oath tomorrow, having beaten one of Walker's Republican henchmen. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Tomb of the Unknowns

If the badge revocation is tangental, I would think almost the entire section abotu the badge would also be so. (eg the status being made permanent) - however, I did not notice the note that included that information. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cricket in Afghanistan

My frustration comes about because the editor is blanking any reference to cricket in Afghanistan. The editor denies that it is the most popular sport in the country (which multiple sources exist for). Not to mention the fact that Afghanistan appeared in the 2010 ICC World Twenty20 - its first World Cup appearance in any cricket format. This in a period in which just three years ago the national team was unheard of and pretty much a non-entity. The national team also had One Day International and Twenty20 International status - this is no Seychelles or France - it is now considered a major cricketing nation. It plays first-class cricket too, last year it won the 2009-10 ICC Intercontinental Cup at its first attempt. I cannot understand why the editor feels the need to blank any reference to cricket without giving an adequate reason to doing so: either the editor is ignorant to crickets presence there, or for ethnic or personal reasons doesn't like the sport. Perhaps a warning should go his way for disruptive editing? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I must admit in the red mist of annoyance I did miss your change of the section. All I saw was the said editor had blanked it again and the rest is history! Thanks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You haven't got email

from me, anyway. You're welcome. I didn't think things got quite so hot in those quarters. Makes the North Cyprus/Armenia/Azerbaijan/Transylvania/Muntab questions look relaxing.... Peridon (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian bias on Wikipedia

If you doubt my theory about this, well ... see my recent edits to Milton Friedman. Note the before and after: the preferred narrative apparently has Friedman converting from Keynesianism to something like total opposition to it. The reality is far more nuanced -- as Friedman points out in the PBS interview I cite, the conundrum of "stagflation" (a prediction of Friedman's lauded by none other than Keynesian Paul Krugman) was only the end of "naive Keynesianism", not Keynesianism full stop, with Keynesians of various sorts learning from that experience and refining the theory. Friedman also praises Keynes highly in that same interview. The Milton Friedman WP bio goes all the way back to 2001 (created by none other than the self-described Objectivist named Jimbo Wales.[2] Stark oversimplifications and outright errors of fact, in the WP bio of a very popular and well-known economist! How did they stand for so long? What other explanation could there be except that the narrative confirmed the biases and preconceived notions of most editors? Wikipedia should be better than this. Yakushima (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that libertarian perspectives are heavily overweighted on Wikipedia, and that this bias is pretty blatant. BigK HeX (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for these interesting observations. A few years ago I spent several months in Djibouti. As a result of my experience, I have a definite and conscious POV regarding the region. And I observe that DJ as a subject is severely "underweighted" in WP. I have an interest in the subject, but I am not knowledgeable enough to make many meaningful contributions. (I do watchlist various DJ articles and make some Gnomish edits at times.) I also note there are many articles regarding the piracy situation and the Blackhawk Down incident. Does the existence of such articles mean that Somolia is improperly overweighted compared to its neighbor? No. (Or, for another example, consider that Little Barrier Island has 3,900+ watchers. Can we draw a conclusion that this article "overweights" WP one way or the other?) The policy WP:WEIGHT deals with "each article or other page", not with WP as a whole.
WP recognizes that POV-pushing occurs as editors pay attention to their side of the WP:POLE based upon their particular POVs. And with 82,000+ active editors (plus the IPs) and 15,000,000+ registered users, it is inevitable that individual articles will suffer from UNDUE. But does this mean that all of WP is "biased" because the various pushers and pushes? Again, no.
Inevitably, as we [Category:Wikipedia_essays_on_building_the_encyclopedia|build] WP there will be over- and under-weighting in various subject areas. Tens of thousands of contributions are made daily. Several thousand new articles are created daily. Who has any data to show that one subject area or another is "biased" as a result of these contributions? And so what? If the individual articles are well balanced and well written, then readers accessing those articles (new and old) will benefit.
This leads me to another observation. You both say libertarian perspectives are overweighted on WP. And as a result WP as an institution/project is biased. (Thankfully we have Conservapedia and other on-line projects to balance out this bias.) How about Facebook? Does it have comparable biases? Does YouTube? Are we able to look at the number of individual pages on these projects and compare how many have a libertarian bent? Doing so would give weight to the contention that WP (or FB or YT) has a libertarian bias.
And then there is contention (of which you are both aware) that the Austrian School is a minority position in the Economics academic community. It is interesting that some editors complain about the weight that is given to AS views in WP. (I am unclear -- are they saying that individual articles are improperly weighted or that the number of AS related articles demonstrates that WP has a bias?) If we have a large number of AS related articles, could this be a result of the contributions made by the 80,000 contributor/15,000,000 user community? Perhaps -- I don't know of any data, but if the bias is blatant we should be able to measure it -- the large number of AS related (or AS perspective) articles stems from the fact that this minority community is making a large number of contributions to the AS article realm. If that is the case, then the majority community of "mainstream" editors should get on the stick and produce more non-AS/non-heterodox oriented economics articles.--S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
PS. I just counted up the number of pages with more than 1,000 watchers. There are 193. (See: [3].) The subject area with the most watchers is WWE with 10 entries on the list. Many/most of them re-direct to List of WWE personnel (1395), but this data suggests that WP users have a WEIGHT bias in favor of these heavyweights. WWE (973) beats out Socialism (847), Libertarianism (837), and the Great Depression (778). Hmmmmm. --S. Rich (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Judicial Activism and ANI

See WP:ANI#External links at Judicial Activism, if you haven't already, for background on this. Shadowjams (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment made on ANI. Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Austrian school promotion

Dear Srich,

I appreciate the work you do here, and how you've tried to create a congenial working environment for all contributors. However, I have to protest your promotion of Austrian economics on other economics pages.[4] Austrian economics is a small minority view in Economics, especially in academia, where they are essentially a fringe viewpoint. Austrian school economists themselves readily admit this (Boetkke has written that AS is a "distinctly minority position"). AS should not be given undue weight in articles not devoted to the school itself. Doing so would be active promotion of the viewpoint, which violates Wikipedia policy (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX).

So, as someone who actively supports AS, I think it's best if you don't go around inserting material about AS in other articles, as that may be a violation of conflict of interest rules. For example, I am a committed Georgist, and believe that the world would be a much better place if all governments instituted high land value taxes and citizen's dividends, but refrain from adding these topics into the articles I edit.

Thanks & regards --LK (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I am glad that we could come to an agreement. Sunshine Warrior04 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about frocking

Hi S. Rich, since you were a JAG officer, I was wondering if you may be able to help me understand something. When is comes to frocking, I know that once an officer has been selected for promotion and received authorization to be frocked, he or she can assume the rank. My question is why does the military set a limit on the number of authorized frocking for each fiscal year? Neovu79 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hard to answer. The references in frocking may help. I can add that Congress sets limits on the number of people (officers and enlisted) that serve at any particular time. The services report those numbers to Congress. So, a reserve officer may be serving on active duty, but have to come off of active duty in order to keep the numbers below Congress' max. Similar restrictions and/or adjustments may occur when it comes to frocking. With 1,000,000+ personnel to keep track of, this more of a personnel (adjutant general) domain rather than JAG.--S. Rich (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Image files from german wiki site.

I am trying to put a better image for the Schützenschnur badge. However when I try to use the images of the badge on a German uniform without any luck. I have done this with other files from non-english versions but never had any problems with it like I am having now. Any advice?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Armed_Forces_Badge_of_Marksmanship

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%BCtzenschnur Articseahorse (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ich habe nicht eine Antwort. Danke so sehr für zu fragen, aber es tut mir leid ich kann mir nicht helfen. (Use Google http://translate.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wT to read.) --S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not speak german, I am trying to move the file from German to English. Thanks for any help.

Articseahorse (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

[5] I have no answer. Thank you so much for asking, but I am sorry I cannot help you.--S. Rich (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the help.

Articseahorse (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!
Thank you very much for welcoming me to Wikipedia! Es282 (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, S Rich

I received your message on the rules regarding talk pages and I shall not do it again starting from now. 71.102.3.122 (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Glad to help out with your Wikipedia'ing and the Inland Empire.--S. Rich (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

barnstar thanks, and page view?

thanks. so much more to do. Did I break the article's "view history/page view statistics" function? From 5-10,000 a day it showed zero viewers a couple of days, now nothing is registered. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I see [6] the page view stats. No idea as to what's going on. You are certainly welcome. The Barnstar is to let you know your efforts are noticed and appreciated.--S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Srich32977, and thanks for looking after my talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly.--S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Carl Eytel, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
  • The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
  • Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
  • If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

re: Mises

I see you reverted and then restored my edit ... I think someone was trying to convey the fact that Mises spent his later years in the US, and he may have obtained US Citizenship, but that wouldn't change his (genetic) nationality -- 'Austrian-American' as I said suggests that only one of his parents was Austrian, when both were.

Thanks for ultimately not stepping on my logic.

-ecsd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decahedonist (talk • contribs) 05:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Taliban

If my edit was a pov-edit (which it was not), then this edit is too. There are enough varying sources about which side Pakistan is supporting. So, either Pakistan should be on both sides of the infobox (as it is playing a double-game according to many reliable sources) or it should be on neither side. Thanks for considering. JCAla (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the "supported by" line out. --S. Rich (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:UCXRGV6DB54TF2G8JXEVEUN862122GD7MRK.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:UCXRGV6DB54TF2G8JXEVEUN862122GD7MRK.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've sent an email to permissions and provided the letter I received from the State Library.--S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey - Just wanted to say thanks for your recent help with the AnnaMaria Cardinalli article! (I'm still pretty new, and it continues to amaze me that nice folks like you come along and make things better!) Georgegreenrow (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Wikipedia is a remarkable community. You've now got a lot of buddies willing to assist. We put our favorite pages on our watchlists, revert vandalism, improve articles, and enjoy stimulating discussions. All through volunteer effort.--S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

UCI Law page

Hi Srich! First off, thank you so much for catching the revert on the UCI Law page. I'm not sure if you looked at the further history of the page, but I have made some edits to the page. Per my talk page and the article's talk page, I have a conflict of interest in editing this page.

That said, I am very familiar with the relevant policies and hope that allows me to avoid adding material from a non-neutral point of view. This weekend, I intend to make a rather substantial edit to the page to provide more complete coverage of the school based on numerous secondary sources. One of the reasons for a substantial edit rather than small edits is for ease of matching cites. Still, I realize that I may inadvertently present that material in a non-neutral way.

This is why I'm reaching out. I noticed on your user page that you also have an interest in a private California institution. While I might have a reason to be positively biased towards the subject, your connection to another institution might give some the perception that you have a reason to be negatively biased towards the subject.

Based on your declaration on your user page, your recognition and acknowledgement of your interests as well as your application of policy makes me believe you're the perfect person to review my edits. Your familiarity with the subject matter (California law schools), as well as knowledge of policy could help me keep any of my subconscious biases in check. Additionally, if we agree on material, I think that's a good sign that the material is not seriously biased one way or another. Thus, I'd greatly appreciate your feedback, critiques, and revisions to the edits I make.

I don't think either of us exhibit large biases in our edits, but a second pair of eyes is always helpful, even if we're both only slightly if at all on the positive or negative side of the bias line. I'm trying to improve WP by adding my knowledge of a subject to make the project more complete, and would greatly appreciate your help in doing so. Thanks for your time and thanks for your protection of the article with the revert above.--Policy Reformer(c) 22:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Go right ahead. UCI is on my watchlist. (Keep the guidance of WP:BOOSTER in mind.) --S. Rich (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Somehow I hadn't see that essay before and I appreciate you pointing it out. As I was reading through, it seemed that WP:BOOSTER simply emphasizes, clarifies, and give examples of common flaws for WP:COI writing as they specifically apply to Universities. I'm hoping to avoid many of those through my original plan which is to read through articles, integrate similar material, and summarize with citation/multiple citations in the article. I'd rather infringe on WP:OVERCITE and have to back off there than I would on other more typical WP:COI violations. Anyway, I'm going to get back to drafting this. I appreciate your support.--Policy Reformer(c) 01:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark Wilkerson (conscientious objector)

What do you think, has this article still to be defined as an orphan? Or is it time to de-orphan it? Thanks for your answer. -79.192.151.175 (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your inquiry. Orphanage is a moot point -- WP:BLP1E is the real issue. As I suggest in Wilkerson's talk page, the references in his article should be or can be used to support the List of Iraq War resisters article. The Wilkerson article should be deleted.--S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Article II tribunals

I have re-added a section on Article II tribunals in Federal tribunals in the United States, and responded to Talk:Federal tribunals in the United States#Article II Tribunals. Int21h (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and the research. I've commented on the talk page. Again, the idea of "Article II" courts is misplaced. (And moved the material into the Article IV section.) The Constitution does not give the President any authority to set up courts. E.g., the President and Sec. of Interior didn't go out one day and say "Pursuant to the authority given under Article II of the Constitution we hereby establish the Constitution of Samoa and Supreme Court of Samoa". No. They have to cite provisions of the laws enacted by Congress, which acts pursuant to the authority given it by Articles I & IV. We must keep these distinctions between what the Constitution allows and empowers.--S. Rich (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

AFC?

I responded to your question at my talk page. I'm just curious why you are submitting to AFC, when you are obviously an experienced editor? Pol430 talk to me 21:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

List of people from Palm Springs, California

List of people from Palm Springs, California, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sionk (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Taskmaster, B.

You are a brutal taskmaster to rookies but the discipline meted out is most appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polandbelarus (talk • contribs) 21:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody ever gets hurt editing WP, so it's hard to see myself as brutal; but you are most certainly welcome! I thank you for being a good student.--S. Rich (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you boosting your profession on wikipedia?

The sentence I fact tagged is obviously not a quote by Plato. The statement is questionable at best, POV and blatant advert at worst (as has been repeatedly noted by others on the talk page, see the puffery thread) most people consider lawyers crooks and parasites. Your tribe are indefatigible in plying your trade so it'll be the wiki masses against you. In time you will loose, as you will at the societal level as well. End of my involvement. Lycurgus (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point. When you tagged the "quote" with {fact} the result was "citation needed". But the sentence already had a citation. That is why I removed the tag. Now it is correct that the citation does not work; e.g., WikiCommons does not have it. So I have tagged the sentence with failed verification.
Evidently, your POV, e.g., anti-lawyer, has clouded your judgment as a Wikipedia editor. Still, I am glad your involvement is ended.--S. Rich (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The difference is I don't push my opinions on others. Conflating civil society, which I put some work into, with "an independent and vibrant legal profession" is a joke. The latter is rather a sign of decadent and rapidly decaying society as non-productive professions like it crowd out and dominate useful, productive ones. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
As Wikipedians our objective should be to improve WP. I quite agree that "vibrant" etc. is puffery. But I am not interested in re-writing the Law article, and I have not done much editing on it. I simply keep it on the watchlist IOT monitor blatant vandalism. My tag removal and my addition of the tags were focused on improvement of the article, not on promoting or demoting the profession. While the phrase "The first thing we do, Let's Kill All The Lawyers" is a popular slogan, Shakespeare put the words into the mouth of rascals and thieves who wanted to overthrow civil society for their purely selfish ends. They realized that the rule of law would interfere with their evil plan, not that they would be improving things. Indeed, there are scoundrels in every trade, profession, occupation. --S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, 72.228.177.92, you are mis-quoting the article! The "vibrant" refers to civil society, not "vibrant legal profession". With this in mind I have stricken my comment as to vibrant being puffery. Shame you.--S. Rich (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Joaquin law

Have you been following San Joaquin College of Law? Specifically, this? It smacks of COI to me. tedder (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I follow. And I noticed your recent restorations. While COI is there, she is doing reasonably well to avoid WP:BOOSTER. Frankly I don't like the table because it kinda unbalances the article format wise. Otherwise, it is fine.--S. Rich (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the look of the table, but it's convenient she is removing the earlier history where the scores weren't as good. I'm just trying to see if it's me or if the truncated table is okay. Certainly the off-season scores are worthless. tedder (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Manning Discussion Closure/Response

Hey,

We (myself + user:7daysahead) replied with one last proposal at Talk:Bradley Manning, could you check it out? Chris Smowton (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw it. The discussion re male pronoun seems at an end. I do not like the idea of a disclaimer. Perhaps you & 7days can contact SlimVirgin and ask her opinion. She is the master! --S. Rich (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

fyi

This edit puzzled me. Please see Talk:Charles Gittins#responsible use of tags. The addition of these tags raises the question of whether you read the reference next to the statements you challenged The first two sentences of the chapter of that book devoted to Charles Gittins specificially cover two of the sentences you tagged. As per WP:AGF I am going to assume that you don't know how to read google book references, and were honestly unaware that you missed this clear coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Film article moves

Regarding your moves of several films, including Like Father Like Son (film) and Betty (film): Please note that the naming guidelines for Wikipedia in general and for the various WikiProjects (film, music, television, etc.) specify that disambiguation should be kept as simple as possible relative to other Wikipedia articles. That is, preemptive disambiguation from articles that do not exist is discouraged. If a pointer is needed to a disambiguation page or to another article where another film with the same title is discussed, then a hatnote is the correct method. Only if an article is created for another film (or album, or book, etc.) with the same title is further disambiguation of the article title necessary. Regards, --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Your expertise in this area is noted and I shall follow your guidance. I did the name changes because I was searching for some movie titles and came up with promising results -- only to be disappointed when it was not the film expected. (E.g., there is no article for the particular film.) So I thought adding the year, which is common with film names, would be a helpful addition. --S. Rich (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate your cooperation very much. Thank you!!!

I removed information regarding bar pass rates because the author who is a school official did not have the permission of the Dean to post them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawcitizen (talk • contribs) 05:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

And what is your WP:COI?--S. Rich (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Museum guidelines

Hi! I first tweaked the Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Guideline sequence, which wound up reverted fairly quickly, so now there's an active discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums/Guideline about the sequence of sections. You are invited and encouraged to chime in. Please also see the discussion about consolidating several sections which tend to be especially brief. -- ke4roh (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd ponder the idea this weekend and then give some input. Seems Sj has done a lot of work, and I like the results. I'll add a similar comment on the talk page.--S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

University of West Los Angeles

Can you help to add to the history section of the University of West Los Angeles by citing media articles found on http://memostop.com/uwla/ You obviously have the experience and reputation to do it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.104.170 (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. memostop.com is not a WP:RS. I suggest you register as a Wikipedia user, read-up on WP editing, follow WP Guidelines, etc. If you have a particular interest in this topic, you've got to do the homework yourself. (But thanks for the complement and suggestion.)--S. Rich (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomocracy merger

I've adjusted the merger template on Nomocracy to direct to RoL talk. Let's see if they provoke discussion. If nothing comes up, why don't you incorporate the Nomocracy info and then set up a redirect? --S. Rich (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Merger implemented, hurray! 8) -- Beland (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error?

Could you please explain more clearly at Talk:Cahuilla Hills, California#Coordinate error what coordinate fix you think is needed? Deor (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

After I changed the data on the WP page, the GeoHack data remained the same. It looks like the data now matches between the two pages. I've left a note on the article talk page to that effect. Thanks for checking. (Should the template be removed from the talk page in order to remove the alert?) --S. Rich (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I added/replaced the tlc template, so the alert should not pop-up anymore. --S. Rich (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Alexander Homes -- thanks

You're most certainly welcome Srich32977, thanks for your message. I personally think that bot runs a bit too often (every 30 minutes on the zeros), and as a result, often causes edit conflicts with those making a series of lengthily edits. Oh well... ;) Have yourself a great day Srich32977. Happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was just going through my watchlist and see that you reverted some vandalism to my userpage from the Trident University vandal. I appreciate you doing that (and for the templates). Regards, 72Dino (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote format for Clare Boothe Luce

Very nice. I appreciate all you clarifications, corrections and revisions. Thanks for all your help. You are a great asset to Wikipedia and me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSA1900 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. You are an excellent student, and a great asset to Wikipedia yourself.--S. Rich (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Our Bar Pass Rate

We have every right to update our bar pass rate to the latest numbers.

We don't think it's right for you to keep reverting to our old numbers.

(Saunders.cj (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC))

Tellingly, you use the pronouns "we" and "our". Please look at WP:OWN. This article is not yours. --S. Rich (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is not mine, but under the rules, you should not be undoing edits without a valid reason.

Our updating our bar pass rate is valid. Reverting to the old rate is not a valid reason for undoing our updated statistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saunders.cj (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Saunders, you are correct that updating the pass rate is valid, but you must have a reliable source that serves to verify the updating you wish to post. As has occurred, you and the IP editor have simply changed the numbers without providing a reliable source. In turn, I have reverted the changes, added editor comments that explain the reversion (e.g., given a valid reason), and pointed out that the State Bar will provide updated pass rates in a few weeks. The rule which justifies my changes is Burden of Proof. If you want to change the 42% ABA published pass rate in the text of the article, you have the burden to prove the new 60% pass rate with a citation. (It is just like in court -- citations for the authorities you want to rely on.) I met my BOP when I added my editor comments giving the valid reason for the changes. (The number in the infobox will have to remain based on the ABA Profile as that is what the infobox guideline calls for. By giving the same ABA profile number for all ABA school infoboxes, reader can make apple to apple comparisons.) As I said before, be patient. The 60% accomplishment will be recognized.--S. Rich (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned template, and ...

Hi, S. Thanks for having added a {{Unsigned}} template to post the new account Touchy Feely Dan (talk · contribs) added to my talk. Just wanted to mention that the template needs to be substituted as in, e.g. {{subst:unsigned | user name or IP | time, day month year (UTC)}} and that while I like helping genuinely new users, too, I've initiated an ANI thread about the account as a probable sock. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ohio. I learned about the unsigned template from SlimVirgin. Now she simply added it to one of my edits without the other stuff, and I quickly filled in my own signature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srich32977 (talk • contribs)

Sure. I agree that taking the trouble to fill in the timestamp from looking at history is overkill in many cases, but if you don't "subst" the template, some bot eventually comes along and has to do it. To be candid, I'm not sure why it's important to substitute it, although the instructions say to; I can only guess. But that bot sure thinks it's important, for some reason, and it just seems so dedicated and hard working that I'm personally loathe to add to its burden. ;-) Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

thank you...

Hey there!

Just wanted to say thank you for helping out with the HTS page - very much appreciated :) the page is in such a state, isn't it?

All best, Loriski (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome. And Thank you for your most valuable edits. They far exceed my minor efforts. (It appears that you are not such a newbie at WP editing.) I went through the course a few years ago, but the transition to full-time employment did not work out. Still, the program is valuable (even if a big boon-doggle) and I have a continuing interest. --S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
:) oh, definitely still very much a newbie - but an enthusiastic one!!! And your efforts seem pretty major to me - the page is so unwieldy that any contributions to cleaning it up are very valuable in my eyes :) Loriski (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Individual Mandate as a "tax penalty"

Regarding your edit summary: "(Well, if the particular cited sources use the term "tax penalty" we can to. But adding the term on our own is improper WP:SYN.)" So, you think a direct quote from a SCOTUS decision is synthesis? Seriously? I find that risible. In my own edit summary, I pointed other editors to a direct quote from within the article. That's NOT synthesis. Reasonable people can disagree about how to characterize the mandate, and that's fine, but people ought to at least find a valid reason for reverting edits. Belchfire (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, the PPACA article is describing the provisions of the Act, not the SCOTUS opinion. And you ought to look at the Slip opinion. Roberts does not use the term "tax penalty" or "penalty tax". (Nor does the PPACA.) We've got to parse these out. Thus we use the term "penalty" when PPACA says penalty, and "penalty fee" when PPACA says penalty fee, and leave out the stuff that says the "penalty is a tax". That needs to be confined to the SCOTUS opinion article/opinion section and kept in the context of the opinion. I think that the article stands correct at present.--S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Srich, Thanks for fixing "my lack of citation" problem. I'm new to this, and its been 45 years since I had to deal with footnotes. (and I wasn't much good at it back then, either.)Thomas Pain 67 (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srich32977/Archive_1&oldid=1142805838"