User talk:Srich32977/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Please check your understanding of 'fringe'

Your failure to understand what the term 'fringe' or 'fringe theory' means, as evidenced by your attempts to differentiate "heterodox" (the politically correct term for 'fringe') theory from fringe, systematically undermines your attempts to contribute to the AE articles.

Note the Wikipedia definition of fringe theory: "an idea or a collection of ideas that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. It can include work done to the appropriate level of scholarship in a field of study but only supported by a minority of practitioners, to more dubious work." I also recommend you consult an online dictionary. Steeletrap (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not fail to understand fringe. You mention the WP article about fringe theory; but WP:FRINGE is another matter. The non-WP definition, as you quote, can include "work done to the appropriate level of scholarship...". When there is an appropriate level of scholarship, the theory falls outside of WP:FRINGE. But it seems that editors are adding their personal evaluation when they say "fringe" because they want to use the "more dubious work" end of the spectrum (and therefore, by implication, within WP:FRINGE]]. Read on ... "Dismissing a theory based solely, or in part, on a fringe characterization may deviate from the spirit of the scientific approach and may limit new advances and insights." If you believe the Austrians or others are "fringe" in the WP guideline sense of the word, bring up those concerns on the WP:FTN, and do so with evidence. Otherwise the use of "fringe" in talk page discussions is simply a deviation from the spirit of the scientific approach. Moreover, much of the debate we see simply involves political and/or economic philosophy. One could say "the theory of total state control, which we see exercised by Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four), is clearly fringe because it is outside of the mainstream view, and therefore has no place in Wikipedia". No. We do not do that. We allow for and encourage articles about all aspects of philosophy and science. Thank you for your comment and suggestions. And please feel free to respond. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's nice to hear you endorse "the spirit of the scientific approach", but the defining characteristic of this branch of economics is that it rejects the scientific approach. This is precisely what makes it fringe. Our job is to keep fringe views out of general articles and identify views as fringe when they show up in such places as biographies. MilesMoney (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you think this is nice to read the rest of the introductory paragraph to the fringe science article. But it seems that many areas of study do not accept or use the scientific approach. History, art, politics, literature, (more or less) among them. And certainly those fields have many academics who work "outside the mainstream." And I can see how well science is developed and applied as I read various articles mentioned in Outline of economics, Index of economics articles, and JEL classification codes. But I just can't find that Science of economics article or where economics is mentioned in scientific method. I wonder – if science is not well grounded or laid out as a "defining characteristic" in any economics article, then perhaps every economics article should be excluded from Wikipedia. What do you think? – S. Rich (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I won't use the c-word that upsets you so terribly, Srich, but I really think that you're ill equipped to be editing these articles except in your Helpful Housekeeping mode. That last post is way off the edge, and to think that you would insinuate such ruminations into any aspect of WP is apalling. 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

I'm tempted to rant about humanities and sciences, including soft sciences. I'll spare you, because I'm not convinced I can explain it clearly enough that you'd understand. Still, if you wanted to do some independent research, you might benefit from it. If anything, it might be helpful if you did this before making too many more edits on the subject. MilesMoney (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"C-word"? Not being used, I couldn't become upset. And I doubt I'd get upset even if the actual word was used. But I'll speculate: canard? carrot? combat? cunt? cedar? confused? conjugate? counterconditioning? Well, I guess I'm not a very good ruminator. Still, Specifico, you needn't be too appalled. You actually know I am quite competent. – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney: Actually, Miles, feel free to rant on this usertalk page. I might hat the rant, but I won't remove it. I'm guessing you'd say something like "soft social sciences are bullshit because they dress up their analysis with untestable hypothesis .... yet present it as true science." (But this is just a rough paraphrase of what I think you might say. I do not want to presume or put words in your mouth.) Still, I don't know what you mean by "the subject". Do you mean economics as (or is) a science? Well, if that is the case and if the Austrians are saying "We don't think science (what is mistakenly described as empirical evidence) applies to economics", then what's the beef about the Austrians? Like I said, English majors admit the humanities are not "science" subjects, but that does not make their subject "fringe" simply because it does not involve science. For that matter, no soft science (or protoscience topic) should be dismissed as "fringe". It only sounds like "I don't like it, therefore it's fringe." Or "In my opinion (e.g., we don't have RS) it is fringe, therefore we must keep it out of WP." – S. Rich (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, the field of English is in the humanities. While it's in no way anti-scientific, it's also not a science. It has relationships with some branches of science, such as linguistics, but is still a distinct field. Economics, on the other hand, is not in the humanities; it's a social science. It's not a hard science, like physics, because it has to deal with us soft, squishy humans, but it's as much a science as sociology or psychology.

It's not unusual for legitimate sciences, especially soft ones, to nonetheless harbor factions that are unscientific. For example, psychology has the Freudians, whose beliefs were never empirically supported and have since been empirically refuted, yet have not been abandoned. In economics, the Misean Austrians are actually worse than the Freudians because their anti-scientific views are explicit. They're proud of not caring about the evidence, and this makes them fringe within the field. Ironically, Misean views are common among libertarians and other conservatives, much as other fringe beliefs -- such as climate change denialism and evolution denialism -- are. MilesMoney (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, this is the nicest comment you've made in my recollection (limited as it is). Sincerely, I agree with you in many respects. The Freudians once had the explanation about dreams, ego, id, etc. and we still use Freudian terminology every day. And I think the Miseans, as you contend, take pride in their "not caring" about data (as compared to evidence) – they are simply being honest. But that does not make them fringe – any more than the humanities proponents who "don't care" about "scientific evidence". (Jeez, permit me to comment without much precision in this thread. It's getting late. The humanities crowd use scientific analysis in many aspects, but they don't describe their disciplines as science. If the Austrians say they don't care about the "data", then let them stew in their own pots spurning the data.) Where do we (you, I, and others) differ? The conservatives have their motives and this tends (compels) to skew their views as to climate change because they see government regulations as unnecessary or 'obstructions' to prosperity. (Who is correct depends on POV.) In the long run we will see if one side or the other is correct. Moving on, denial of evolution is a silly debate because it is strictly a religion bug-a-bear. I don't think libertarians give a shit one way or the other. (They are, I believe, concerned when a government agency promotes a view in this area. So?......) In any event, our task in Wikipedia is to strive to present the material to readers in a non-POV-pushing manner. (And when you see me pushing POV in these areas (as opposed to presenting), please let me know.) Thanks for your comments. – S. Rich (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that economics is a science, so any faction that doesn't want to be scientific doesn't get to call itself economics. Consider Intelligent Design, which claims to be part of biology but rejects the scientific method. Ultimately, it's up to the mainstream of the field to decide what counts as fringe. MilesMoney (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the analogy between the creationists and Austrians is a poor one. The creationists dress up their argument with sciencey terminology. The embrace the cloak of science and become Category:Pseudoscience. The Wikipedian way to approach their nonsense is illustrated in Intelligent design – the result is a featured article no less. If we could write up the Austrians to such a standard, we'd really accomplish something. Even better would be a writeup of Economics as a science. I agree that economics studies goods and services, their production and distribution. But why are there so many schools of economics, so many economic systems, so much debate about economic measurement, etc? (Is Marxian economics part of mainstream economics? Is it science? Is it fringe?) Good hard science knows how to get to the Moon, about the chemistry of rocket fuel, what happens to humans biologically in space, etc. Science observes, classifies data, uses logic, conducts experiments, forms hypothesis, makes predictions, achieves confirmation, and expresses findings mathematically. At present, though, I think econ is more in the protoscience realm because of the difficulties it has when trying to do these things. And it seems the Austrians are even more proto than the mainstream because they focus more on human behavior when they look at methodological individualism, subjective theory of value, etc. Are they right? Are the mainstreamers right? Frankly, I'm skeptical of all of them. But I think the debates will advance by expanding our knowledge of the subjects and the articles which discuss them. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you have 2 problems, the combination of which is insurmountable: 1. You don't know what you're talking about. 2. You have no clue that you don't know what you're talking about. You may be knowledgeable or expert in some fields of knowledge, but like hundreds of millions of other delightful human beings on our planet, you are utterly ignorant on some subjects. Such is the human condition.

If you wish to participate in good faith, go to the library and research the extensive literature on the methodology and application of social science and economics. It will take time and effort. It is not light reading and you'll need to branch out into all the real-world issues that gave rise to the methodological and operationsl framework of economic science. Read a history of economic thought such as Schumpeter or Blaug have written. Follow all their references. See whether you're able to assimilate what they present. It's not OK for you to turn this collaborative WP enterprise into a dance around the maypole of your ignorance. That's really not what WP is about. SPECIFICO talk 20:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's my recognition of the value of expertise that encourages me to put up with your patronizing attitude. You're insufferable, but you're right and I've learned more about Austrian economics from reading your comments than from all of my education in the field. So when you point at reliable sources showing that the Miseans are fringe, I don't just blow them off like Rich does. MilesMoney (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

With such remarks in mind, I might post this on my userpage:

This user is a mediocre+ Editor.

– S. Rich (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories in User Talk page and Reorganization of article

Thanks for pointing out issue with categories on my talk page, and for suggesting a fix. I have a question - are there any guidelines for reorganizing an existing article? I am working on the Institute for Justice page. The main issue is lack of good references. But I have also noticed that the article seems disorganized to me. Historical information is in several topics, information on activities is in several different topics, etc. As I find good references for information (and possibly add information), I would also like to move historical information into the History category, start a new Activities category with sub-sections for each activity type, etc. Should I just do it? Or should I put my plan on the Talk page for the article first? Or should I try to contact others who have edited the page? There doesn't seem to be a well established way to reorg existing information. Any advice appreciated, and thanks again. James Cage (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Be Bold, James, and Just Do It. I suggest you look at other articles for ideas and leads. One thing I'd remove is the listing of people. WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so the non-notable staff and attorneys should go. You can keep the key people in the infobox and retitle the people section as "Notable IJ personnel", using the two people who have WP articles. The connections with other institutions can be referenced via institution webpages - like the UofC LS page must have something about the program. The listing of cases IJ has worked on is problematic. Lots of organizations file "amicus briefs" with the Supreme Court. In the cases you mention, did IJ represent the parties? If so, you might provide linked case citations. But that might get you into no original research territory. Have fun. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice! I followed your suggestions, and the result is basically a rewrite. IJ litigated 5 cases at the Supreme Court, as well as the Vera Coking/Donald Trump case. If you have a moment, take a look. This is my 3rd article, so I'm still learning. Thanks & happy holidays! James Cage (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

CIR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WP:CIR. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

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

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 stop. The irony is unbearable.
SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Competence? In this edit you revert a change made 11 months ago. And when I posted the change, I fixed a clarified needed tag. More importantly, I opened a talk page thread. A dozen other editors made changes to the essay in a score of edits. Seems none of them thought my change was not in the spirit of the essay. And what about the 98 editors who are watching the page? But you, Specifico, missed that. Rather, you have the gall to say "Please use talk." Well, if talk was so important where did you open a thread? It wasn't until Steeletrap made the proposal that you spoke up. And then you simply criticize other comments without suggesting any improvement. Next you revert the edit, well before any consensus is made, and add an edit summary about a non-existent "consensus". Indeed. Did you learn this tactic from a cohort? Given that certain editors are prone to cite "competence" in their discussions (when the citation clearly does not apply) it seems promoting "intellectual" competence (or is it intelligence?) is an effort to backdoor some ummpf into otherwise lousy justifications for their "I have a BM degree, I'm more competent than you." arguments. Can't bear the irony? No one is forcing you to sign on or go through my edit history. – S. Rich (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What's this about your BM? The fact is that you were EW and then Mr. Binks followed your example. It's not good form to change the essay in a way which might suggest to future editors that you were trying to avoid being tested by the standard you changed. That's why you should not have re-inserted your preferred version. Now, please consider restoring the revert so and discussion will go forward. SPECIFICO talk 05:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That was interesting

I find it intensely interesting that Miles, suspected to be a sock of StillStanding-247, has just been busted using an open proxy server. Think we can interest a CU into looking at that? Roccodrift (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea if CU would be helpful. Frankly, I don't wish to be engaged in such a pursuit. Miles had said s/he was in North York in the past, which I accepted at face value. And this is one/another reason I do not think Miles and Steeletrap are socks. SPI is an area in which I know less than nothing. You'll have to ask others if a CU is worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Srich -- Look! -- You seem to be the go-to guy when it's time to mount another PA or stalk and harass young Miles. Why do you suppose editors see you as a likely recruit for that brand of mischief? So unfair. Food for thought. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

PA? On who? Miles? But your use of "or" can be read in the disjunctive implying PA on someone else? Either way, give me some diffs Specifico. Better yet, take them to the ANI. ("Hey, LOOK everybody! S.Rich has posted a listing of Miles' diffs. Rich is conducting a WP:NPA#WHATIS!!") Stalk Miles? Miles' spends over 80% of his/her time on the talk pages. It's not difficult to find Miles' comments, and my ANI listing only covered the last 50 edits. Why don't you come out on the ANI and say on the ANI that Miles' behavior is commendable? But as Collect pointed out, Miles posted 29 times on the Rasmussen page alone. (Updates: 30 times + a "snarky" personal remark on the BLPN.) Harass poor Miles? I really think the attention is relished. ~~Drama Queen comes to mind.~~ Another? That word can be read different ways. "Another" as in a new set of observations unrelated to an ongoing discussion, or "another" as in adding to the diffs, observations, complaints, remarks already going on. Either way the diffs of Miles' postings amply illustrate the need for action. – S. Rich (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, "action" here is just a euphemism for "execution". You have voted over and over again in favor of getting rid of me. You have cluttered ANI with out-of-context quotes and diffs intended only to poison the well. Whenever the discussion loses its focus on removing me, you're there to put it back on track. There is no question here about what your goals are. You are WP:STALKING me. MilesMoney (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

At first, it looked like Miles was being force-fed some military-style mentoring, but when Miles had enough of the wet-nurse treatment, things changed forever. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that Rich tried to force-mentor me when I started, but turned against me when I developed a mind of my own. Now the student has become the master. MilesMoney (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

This is unacceptable. Do not repeat your performance or I will report you. MilesMoney (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits to ANI

Hello Srich, I have just suppressed a number of edits to ANI based on an action you took, and I wanted to explain more clearly to you that our harassment policy forbids publishing personal or identifying information about other editors unless they have voluntarily provided it. This provision includes re-posting information you find through slip-ups of the other editor. If you see someone make a mistake and then correct it, you should assume that the mistake was unintentional and therefore it does not give you leave to re-publish. In fact, under pretty much no circumstances should you be re-publishing what you feel is another editors IP or physical location without that person's explicit permission. I understand that you seem to have socking concerns, but if your evidence includes information on the person's IP or location, the case will need to be dealt with privately, by contacting either the Checkuser team (most easily reached at functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) or the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) with whatever information you feel is relevant. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter: No problem. The diff you refer to was probably a mistake, but was voluntary in that sense. Early on in the editor's history, they said/complained that their ISP had caused them problems and specified their location. Also, I do not think the editor is a sock, and have said so. The info which was mistakenly posted actually serves to confirm the non-sock status. In any event, I certainly accept, and will heed, your admonition. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a mistake. Your edit comment insisted that I wasn't allowed to edit your words, which turns out to be false in this case. You knowingly restored information that violates my privacy. I am not satisfied. MilesMoney (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, the mistake I refer to is your post on the ANI when logged off. Early on you had told the community about your ISP and where you are located, so no private info was posted. I apologize for restoring the IP number to my edit. – S. Rich (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In light of the fact that Srich's ongoing animosity toward MilesMoney is an extension of Srich's aggressive editing and denigration of Miles at various Austrian Economics articles, I urge any Admins who sees this to consider what sanction should be levied against Srich for this despicable violation of WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Rich, your excuses are dishonest. I live in one of the largest cities in North America, so my privacy is not impaired by mentioning the city. My IP, on the other hand, could be used to uniquely trace me, and has already been suggested as a way to get me blocked from Wikipedia. You knew why I removed the IP from your response, yet you edit-warred to put it back! I am not satisfied with your excuses. I support Specifico's suggestion that your actions be taken seriously. MilesMoney (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, Wikipedia cannot be broken, and Flutternutter has taken steps to fix the mistakes -- yours ~~and mine~~. Flutternutter also suppressed the welcome message I posted on that IP user talk page. She did so at my request. I'm sorry you are not satisfied. What would satisfy you? Another apology?? Here: MilesMoney, I was wrong when I repeated the IP address you had posted after your listing of talk page, usertalk page, ANI comments, and BLPN comments. – S. Rich (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit comment makes it clear that it wasn't a mistake, it was intentional. Backtracking now adds a lie on top of your original attempt to WP:OUT me. MilesMoney (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, I think most readers will, like me, be insulted and disgusted at your obstinate insistance that your personal attack on Miles was a "mistake." SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

To think that only a week ago, Srich was promoting himself for Admin of WP! What a spectacle. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, Miles, "mistake" refers to the mistake you made when you posted the comment via your IP address. (I thought I had made that clear above.) I am not saying I made a mistake. My actions were, as you say, intentional. But I've stricken the plurality in my comment above to make clear that I am simply referring to your IP revelation as your mistake. There is no lying at all. In any event the "mistake" you made – posting your IP – has been suppressed, whitewashed, covered up. And I've apologized for the "wrong" I inflicted upon you. You can continue to lick your wounds in public, or you can accept the apology I've offered. It's up to you. – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make a mistake: I was logged in. Wikipedia is buggy. Regardless, it was wrong for you to repeat that IP in your response and more wrong to revert it back when I sanitized it. Neither of these were accidental; they were bad judgment, so bad that they violate WP:OUTING. An apology that blames me for things outside of my control is not an apology. An apology that treats your intentional behavior as accidental is not an apology. I am quick to accept genuine apologies, but this does not qualify. MilesMoney (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of the log-in snafu. Perhaps you can report it somewhere in WP and have the techs fix the bug. If this is a frequent problem for you, try using the preview button. What else would you like me to say? – S. Rich (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We're done. And there's no particular reason to defend yourself here, as I stated that the matter was settled. MilesMoney (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean it

When I say you guys do not deserve any respect at all, you carry on like kids, this is what you get. Next step is AE, and this goes for all the people I know watching this page. Grow up, learn to discuss, or I will file an AE on all of you quite happily. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Whew! I'm glad my name is not in that section you archived. And my earlier December comment (in the other section you closed) was an effort to herd the cats. Perhaps your more forceful archiving will work. Here's hoping!! – S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

While I thought "more forceful" would be helpful, I think you are going over the top with the policing. IMO, the tone and flurry of remarks is counter-productive. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

MM ANI

It doesn't matter, the ANI is closed. And everything is visible, just open.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Srich, you have behaved disgracefully today. It's ironic that your final pointless piling-on at ANI made it obvious that it needed to be closed. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In his defense, his behavior today has not been any worse (or better) than his behavior all along. MilesMoney (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hiding

The comments you hid are not about the ANI. They're about your behavior across many pages. It appears disingenuous to suggest they are about the ANI and therefore of no further interest to editors who visit this page. SPECIFICO talk 03:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The ANI is closed, but it was really just the latest sickening chapter in a months-long effort to get me kicked off Wikipedia. It is this ongoing attempt to WP:POV RAILROAD me that is disgraceful, and Rich's shameless participation in it is despicable. I can shower you with diffs showing how consistently Rich violated policy in his attempts to get rid of me. And I will gladly drown Rich in those diffs if he tries to come after me again with some illegitimate RFC/U or ArbCom attack. Rich wants this to be a WP:BATTLEFIELD, but his behavior has provided me with all the arms I need to defend myself. The WP:BOOMERANG will decapitate him. MilesMoney (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Do what you want. Repeat your "Fuck Wikipedia" if you like. Share more Barnstars if you think they matter. But no more comments in this section please. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles

Srich, just walk away. It's not helping Miles, WP, or your Admin ambitions. And apparently Miles has taken a page from your book and is compiling a spreadsheet called "Srich: The Diffs of Damnation" SPECIFICO talk

I haven't walked away. You may expect to see my commentary at the ArbCom. I don't think you'd nominate me for Admin, but when I do go up for it I do not think your opposition (or Miles') will amount to much. And I have yet to see your list of policy violation diffs. On a related subject, you may not realize it but I've received complements like the following: "Thanks. Wow. I must tell you I greatly respect the thorough, policy-based and even-handed approach you take to this matter." "I am stunned by your mastery of the system." and "Good luck, you saintly mentor." But those complements were made some time ago. I've gained more experience since then. – S. Rich (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dumb move. You should have taken the hint and ended your vendetta against me when you had the chance. Nobody's forcing you to chase me around Wikipedia and attack me. TP warned you:

The next step is an WP:RFC/U or Arbcom request. All participants in the disputes at hand here should evaluate their own behaviors before proceeding down either track.

Now I've warned you and Specifico warned you. So when your attacks boomerang, don't look at me as if you weren't warned. You'll find neither sympathy nor mercy. MilesMoney (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's party! Bring it on baby! Yeah!!!--MONGO 04:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk pages

WP:BLP applies to any Wikipedia page. Adding redlinked names of real people in that list, even as a talk page suggestion, is improper. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but do not understand how you are applying it. Please state that basis of your standpoint. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Adding redlinked names (or non-linked names) of real persons and saying they are pornstars violates BLP policy, pure & simple. If they are pornstars, we need WP:RS to verify it. This includes the talkpages, noticeboards, and our own user pages & sandboxes. (Also see WP:WTAF.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your fear, in this matter. I'm in the process (as in right now) of adding a reference for each name. A simple Google search brings up several for each that confirms that a person with that name/stage name is a pornographic actor. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not a matter of fear. It's Wikipedia policy. If you want to draft a list and workup references, you ought to do so off-wiki. But list of names of real people must have RS. And on the subject of porn, the RS is even more important. Also, IMDb is not considered RS. Regarding the names, I'll give one example: C. Nguyen is a real estate agent in Michigan. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

IMDb is acceptable for basic info like since its fact checked by paid staff before its made live. But I'll use IAFD.com if it makes you feel better. By the way, the fact that there is another person on the planet with the same name as a porn actor is irrelevant. You're making far, far too many assumptions to make a valid case for censoring a Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a good essay about IMDb: Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. I have no opinion re IAFD. Overall, though, WTAF is the better course of action. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"Good" or not, its editorial opinion, hence why its an Essay. The same goes for WP:WTAF. If you're going to quote BLP, please leave the Essays out of it. In the meantime I'll cite this policy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, essays are not policy. They do reflect good advice. But more importantly, please do note what the not censored policy says: "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed." I've got no objection to articles about porn or porn stars. Nor do I object to porn itself. I will object to adding non-notable and unsourced names to the pornstar galaxy. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and you can't (or won't) cite what the nature of the violation is regarding BLP. Furthermore, just because someone does not have an article on Wikipedia that does not automatically make them non-notable. It just means they don't have an article. As for sources, IAFD.com has nearly all of them listed. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

A person's association with porn is created by listing a name on a page where the subject is porn. If the person is a notable porn star, then fine. The WP:REDLINK guideline encourages us to write the article first. That way, because the article about the noted porn star is supported by RS, we do not violate BLP. But the BLP problem arises when we put names in a list without RS. This is not a question of censorship. BLP requires us to follow a higher standard. Instead of infringing on BLP, the solution is simple. Develop the lists and potential articles off-wiki. Then add the developed, sourced article to WP and add the bluelink name to the list. – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No, no, NO! A person's association with porn relies entirely on their having acted in a pornographic movie or video, PERIOD. What happens in the real world takes precedence. If there's an RS that confirms their involvement in the Adult Industry, then they can be mentioned. Notability, which is separate from the fact the person "is" or "is not" involved in porn, determines if they get an article in the main space. You don't get to misunderstand or blur the distinction between policies to push your POV. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you are aware of the BLPN notice. In that case, please state your case on the noticeboard. I am not pushing any POV. I am against the censorship of porn, and I am against BLP violations. So, no more posts from you that fail to assume good faith on my part on this page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

This problem has arisen repeatedly in various talk threads with you Srich. It's a fine line and nobody can tell whether you're good-faith unable to understand policy or whether you're tendentiously pushing a false application of policy. In this case it's unclear which one it might be. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In this case SRich32977 is absolutely correct about BLP policy and its application to redlinked names of people who may or may not be porn stars. Having one's name falsely associated with pornographic productions can do real harm to a living person, and thus the redlinks must stay out until consensus can be achieved to keep them. alanyst 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's always hard to understand what Srich is asserting, because he does not quote policy with specific reference to the matter at hand, but why does the redlink or blacklink status enter into the BLP issue? One may be verifiably a porn actor without being wiki-notable or having an article here. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

What immediately undermines Rich's argument is that nobody is making a list of the real names of people and then saying they're porn actors. Rather, it's a list of "professional" names; the pseudonyms used by performers precisely because they don't want the stigma to affect their family and friends. Each name is like Long Dong Silver, not Daniel Arthur Mead. Combined with the fact that the names are extracted from reliable porn-industry sources, the idea that BLP is being violated becomes laughable.

The other issue is Rich's behavior here, which shows poor communication skills, little grasp of policy, and a willingness to join up with ideological allies (Wolf) to tag-team editors who are just trying to be helpful. Shameful. MilesMoney (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The vitriol directed toward SRich by you and SPECIFICO is over the top and serves only to perpetuate the ongoing disruptive feud, so please knock it off. If the names really are stage names for which there is little real risk of mis-identification with a real, living, and totally different person, then it should be possible to gain consensus for the links' inclusion. But BLP requires caution about such things, and SRich was perfectly justified in removing the redlinks on grounds of BLP in case mis-identification was a real risk; and the burden is properly on those wishing to include them to make a persuasive argument that the merits of having those names in the list outweigh the likelihood of unintended harm. alanyst 23:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Caution is fine, tag-teaming an editor who's just trying to improve the encyclopedia is not. It's this sort of hostility that damages the project by scaring off reasonable people who just don't want to deal with the constant aggression. As for my "vitriol", I believe you're missing some of the context. Scroll up and open the hat. MilesMoney (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If Specifico or MilesMoney really think that I have misquoted, misconstrued, misapplied, or mis-anything with regard to the BLPN I initiated, I invite them to post on that thread. They should explain why and how I am wrong. They should also explain why and how the other contributors to that thread, that article talkpage, and other forums are incorrect. – S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I note that both have posted. Thank you. Now we shall see how the BLPN plays out. 23:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Alanyst: - Hi. No vitriol from me, just pointing out that it obstructs discussion and collegial resolution of various issues when Srich refuses to explain how his interpretations of policy support the arguments he so tenaciously presents. Since you recognize that, per Scalhotrod's statements of fact, it should be easy to resolve this, it is puzzling to find you in the position of defending his behavior after his arguments have been debunked. SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Austrian economics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Specifico's comment on Miles' talk page

Rather than clutter MilesMoney's talkpage with more commentary, I'll make two observations here: 1. Whether or not I have an interest in RfA doesn't matter much to that discussion. Miles got himself banned for his own contentious behavior. 2. This edit [1] is interesting. – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)20:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in that message of mine to indicate that I have any knowledge as to Miles intention, nor to which editors he might communicate his concerns about you, nor what the recipients of such communication might do in the event of such hypothetical communication. Your mention of my name in the context of what appears to be your paranoid fantasy is a personal attack and in the spirit of friendship, I advise you to think carefully about whether you wish to reiterate it now that I have removed such attack from this page. Happy New Year. Please reflect. I have no idea why you'd go to MilesMoney's talk page with insults and disparagement of @EllenCT: but I think it's unlikely your dwindling chances at Adminship have improved in 2014. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that your survival instinct is strong enough to control what I can only imagine was an overwhelming reflex to repeat your personal attack on me. Good work. Keep it up. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the surmise you posted might unfortunately indeed be seen by outside observers as being a specific statement of intent. And I would note that CANVASSing for the purposes of influencing an RfA is likely to be viewed unfavourably by anyone closing such a putative RfA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifico, how is posting your diff in any way a personal attack? Amazing. And, what "insults and disparagement of EllenCT" are you talking about? There is nothing like that on User_talk:MilesMoney! Or perhaps you are referring to User talk:TParis#Please un-ban MilesMoney? Either way, diffs and a specific explanation would substantiate your accusation. – S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Fecklessness

End of discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Srich, I saw your comment about MilesMoney on TParis's talk page. I continue to await your answer to my question at [2]. In particular, do you still contend that the voluntary actions separating the Sheep from the Goats at the Last Judgement are "feckless"? EllenCT (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am at a loss. What is the connection between a 6 month old article talk page comment and MilesMoney? (I see you as seeking to reverse the decision on Miles.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't see the connection between ethical principles of social safety nets and banning some guy willing to make fun of Austrian economics fans for the fact that the peer reviewed economics literature continually calls them mistaken, because the empirical data only very rarely confirm their predictions? Trying to railroad people down the river for calling out that the emperor is running around in the nude is the coward's path, and it's likely to work out about as well as Barbara Streisand's attempt to hide her beachfront property. There is no honor in shooting the messenger. EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ellen, please get a grip. Miles wasn't banned for his views. He was banned for incessant abominable behavior. You do understand this, don't you? Roccodrift (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Srich a question, and await his answer. EllenCT (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything is connected to everything. I pick up trash on the sidewalks, pull down old lost cat signs, and pay my taxes because there are ethical principals involved. I edit WP to the best of my ability and seek to do so ethically. But is there a connection between the beautiful sidewalks in my city and the beautiful beachfront properly that Streisand has bought or built? Well, I suppose so. Economically, I've earned lots of money. So I have free time to devote to WP and old lost cat sign removal. And Streisand has earned lots of money too. So what? As for your question, Ellen, I don't think you'll ever get an answer from me or one that will satisfy you. If we are going to improve WP, we need to move on. (An answer to your question from June will not serve to improve WP, so I am not going to answer it.) – S. Rich (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well. Then I would ask that in the future if you wish to use the words of Jesus Christ to prevail in a content dispute, that you include his criteria for the Last Judgement in your reasoning, lest you be seen as cherry-picking that which is personally convenient over that which is proven to promote economic growth. EllenCT (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not think JC will prevail in any content dispute. As you seem to think my (random) observations are "cherry-picking", I don't really know what we are discussing. WRT MilesMoney, TParis will make whatever decision he feels is right. And we can respond as we see fit. At this point, I'm going to end the discussion. Not because either one of us is right or wrong, but because I really can't see where we are benefitting. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I will not be bullied. You can delete all my text you want, but I will not be silenced against those who use the imprimatur of social and religious authority to try to prevail where they are so obviously mistaken. You went months without answering my question, then you act surprised that I still expect an answer? Then you can't see what it has to do with your love of Austrian economics which you and your compatriots have slathered all over Wikipedia as if it had some basis in rational thought or empirical observation. Shame! Shame on you and shame on those who make the mistake of relying on your opinions! Shame on you for participating in the political railroading of editors, attempting to ban them! Shame! EllenCT (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Shame! You owe me an apology for baseless accusations, and an answer to my question about whether the actions separating the Sheep and the Goats at the Last Judgement are feckless. And you need to apologize to the Wikipedia community for spreading your favored inaccurate selfish economics and religious doctrine while selectively ignoring the words of Jesus Christ. EllenCT (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Bullying Women Editors on Wikipedia

Absolutely no more comments please – S. Rich (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've read many comments about such behavior, but until very recently I'd never witnessed it. It has no place in this community. Maybe a female Staff Sgt. in the US Military is tough as nails, but we should not assume the same is true of any editor here, male or female. We do not know the other editors with whom we're dealing and so we should always err on the side of respect and sensitivity. SPECIFICO talk 01:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Show me the diffs about bullying anyone Specifico. Maybe we should report that bully on the ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

When a woman says you that you bullied her, Srich, it's reasonable to conclude that you have bullied her. That's what bullying means... inappropriately aggressive and intimidating. It's relative to the victim's sensibility. When an individual feels bullied, it's time to stop. Your mileage may vary. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, SPECIFICO, that wasn't your opinion in this thread. Or does it depend on which woman it is and who allegedly is doing it? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, when you attacked "female ideas" and made misogynist remarks, that was woman vs. woman bullying. As I recall, I did rebuke you. Women are often guilty of bullying other women and it is no less ugly than man vs. woman. There's also woman vs. man bullying (that is called "cowering") and other permutations, but they're not the topic of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: I was the one who wrote "Generally speaking males often experience strongly held and clearly expressed female ~~ideas~~ [replace later for clarity sake with] words or writings as psychotic rage." in link to section above and your reply was: "What is a "female idea?" Please do not be sexist. " Geez... Get your facts straight, please. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: do you have a diff? ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

[insert] Hi @Adjwilley: Sure [3] It wasn't readily apparent because the thread has been collapsed. Apparently there's a long history of this sort of colloquy from Srich, and as I said to him, it's not a defense to claim that @EllenCT: is too sensitive or misinterprets him or whatever. She has told him repeatedly that this exchange is outside her comfort zone. You know from various past encounters that I don't like to see people bullied, and I often speak up to that effect. SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Specifico, who said I bullied a woman? Please show a diff. Is it EllenCT, who said she will not be bullied in response to my comment that I don't care to discuss a 6 month old topic? Or do you think EllenCT can accuse me of "baseless accusations" (without supplying diffs) and can get away with it by saying "I'm a woman, I think you are bullying me. Therefore you are bullying me, a woman." (Not that EllenCT has made such a statement.) You, Specifico, certainly are eager to make an accusation and read the unsupported accusations of others, and then immediately conclude that the accusations are true. You did not "witness" any bullying, Specifico. You witnessed someone reacting to a comment that was objectively not bullying. Hence your false accusations that I was bullying someone. – S. Rich (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty ugly stuff, Srich. I said above the test of bullying is whether the target feels bullied. Your statement sounds more like "blame the victim" -- it's very ugly stuff. I won't even utter what it sounds like to me. SPECIFICO talk 02:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I was asking for a diff of the bullying itself. (If diffs of people saying they won't be bullied counted as evidence you could be blocked several times over yourself for comments made by Carolmooredc.) Bullying is a very serious accusation, and serious evidence is needed. I ask again, do you have a diff? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO seems to have trouble interpreting material, as I note above... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll supply a stinking diff of my interaction with EllenCT. Here: [4]. Since I posted it, there has been one interchange on her talk page. The one where I brought up her "lurking" comment about TParis. (And since TParis did not read the lurking comment as offensive, I've stricken it.) EllenCT is welcome to come to this talk page anytime. She can say "shame!" all she likes. Maybe I'll respond, and maybe I'll close the thread. But to be accused of bullying. My gosh! – S. Rich (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Srich's attempts to try to intimidate editors with political railroading, selective interpretation of religious scriptures, baseless accusations, threats, acting offended when answers about the reasons for his behavior are asked, and now repeated censorship of my comments here are not successful attempts at bullying, but I strongly object to the attempts. If his "award" of a barnstar to me had any value, I would melt it down and split the proceeds from sale of the scrap between [5], [6], and [7]. Characterization of a lengthy discussion trailing off into an unanswered question as "one" interaction is a further attempt to dodge responsibility for his actions. EllenCT (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry to see you've apparently been accused of bullying women editors [8]. That's a serious charge, for which I saw no evidence implicating you. I am glad to know, however, that User:SPECIFICO believes "When a woman says you that you bullied her...it's reasonable to conclude that you have bullied her. That's what bullying means...inappropriately aggressive and intimidating. It's relative to the victim's sensibility," [9] and "the test of bullying is whether the target feels bullied" [10]. Of course, not SPECIFICO, or any other editor, supported me when I, a female editor, told User:MilesMoney that I felt attacked and bullied by his conduct toward me [11], and my complaint was summarily dismissed by the aggressor [12], [13]. Perhaps I don't have as much of a right, as a female editor, to feel bullied when I'm perceived to be on the wrong side of a content dispute. I'll suck it up. I'm sure it's just my fault for becoming an editor on Wikipedia in the first place, and I suppose I really shouldn't have worn such a short skirt or had that third wine cooler. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Safehaven, I think I'll sleep on your comments and reply a bit later. For now, though, I'm going to move them up into the hatted section as a sub-section. That way I hope to minimize the importance of the issue and restrict the forum for personal remarks. (In other words, I want to respond to you without flack coming in as a distraction.) At present, though, I simply don't think my attitude with women (or men) in Wikipedia or elsewhere is an issue. In my career with the military and in law, I've served with, under the supervision of, and as a supervisor of many women. Everyone of them has been my comrade. Wikipedia is a different arena, of course, so I don't want to make a comparison at this time. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've never felt bullied by you, but of course I can't speak for others. I was merely pointing out how convenient it can be to play the "victim's advocate" when it's advantageous to do so, and how easy it is to be silent when there's nothing in it for you. It's no fun to be a pawn. Safehaven86 (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me congratulate Safehaven86 for coming forth re: MilesMoney bullying and re:Specifico's lack of response to such bullying. Usually I run into MilesMoney in concert with SPECIFICO so I see their efforts as re-inforced bullying.

Seriously, SRich, why don't you just disinvite certain editors from your talk page? It just causes you aggravation, necessitates others watching your talk page and even responding, and thereby inflames the situation. Editors have to stay more civil on article talk pages and stick to editing issues instead of launching into these dubious attacks; that's why I banned the trio long ago. It's gotten to the point where even Admins are commenting on SPECIFICO hounding editors on their talk pages because they disagree with him on ANI. See this close at current link. Let's do what we can to decrease the drama and make sure legitimate complaints go to ANI and illegitimate ones do not assail our tender eyes. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Srich, I suggest you strike the comment above, made after you closed this thread, and this comment of mine as well. Otherwise I have no choice but to respond to the baseless personal attack CMDC has just made on me (concerning a post by Safehaven86 on MM's talk page -- a post which I'd never seen.) Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

United States Army Rangers

Hello:

You left an OR tag on United States Army Rangers. Please leave a note on the talk page specifying what you are referring to so editors can address it. If it is simply a general observation summarizing the section tags about lack of references, please just briefly note that. Thanks for your time and interest. Airborne84 (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Airborne84: I'll be going back myself to look at the dates established. Please note the recent changes. (Perhaps OR was not the right tag, but it simply came to mind at the moment.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

RSN comments

Specifico, for the third time you have said the RSN is not the appropriate place for the Brad DeLong blog material. But you have not commented on the material itself on the RSN, the article talk page or on the BLPN. You vaguely mention notability, but have not nom'd the article for AfD on that basis. You've said the RSN is the wrong place, but other editors seem to disagree with you because they are discussing the issue. (Editors are certainly free to ignore discussion board.) If you are going to contribute, why don't you actually do so? Or you might request an admin closure of the thread. But once you add your 2₵, you should just leave the comment stand for what it is worth. E.g., exactly 2¢. Saying the same thing 3 times gives a value of 6¢. – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC) I do see that you expanded your comments as I was writing this. But your comment is not helpful in the least. The editors have cited and quoted the appropriate material! 02:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. As I recall, I was just replying to your unhelpful comment. Just because Ms. Steeletrap affirms that we have RS does not mean that she acknowledges any valid reason to doubt that. I'd have thought that was obvious, but when a post of yours indicated that some editors might not see it that way, I thought it best to elucidate. The problem with these cowpie Noticeboard threads is that once an editor posts them, they sprout weeds and attract all kinds of off-topic or unfocused comments. We've had several of these recently in the Austrian-related articles. It would in my opinion be much better to let talk page discussion develop until we know whether a particular Noticeboard posting would be appropriate and helpful. In some cases, an RfC on the talk page might be the better road. On one recent premature Noticeboard thread, regarding Thornton I believe, there was never a clearly stated RS issue and OP had actually removed, not added, content. The thread is all over the lot, it's still open, and it appears to have been pointless. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 02:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

History of Macro FA

Do you really think the FA should be withdrawn? If you plan on making substantive changes that would interfere with the FA nomination, I'll withdraw it. So far you've just said that the lede could use some more detail. Is there much more to change? I realize the discussion with Ellen might create problems in the future as well, but she effectively left the discussion and I tried to accommodate her input. Sorry for venting my frustration. Before both FA noms I've tried to solicit feedback from the WP:Economics project, and no one says much until I've gone ahead and made the nomination.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll look at the article some more in the next couple of days. I did some editing on it to demonstrate my good faith and confidence in the article. But I'd like to see more basic changes. It starts off saying "Macroeconomic theory has its origins in the study of business cycles and monetary theory." My recommendation: Be more basic. "Macroeconomic theory, the study of ....., has its origins in...." Then say "'Classical" theories' macroeconomic theory, which said ..... where popular in ..... JMK expanded upon/attacked those theories and ....." (The problem is we don't have the ground work for why JMK did the attack. I'm trying to look at the article from the perspective of a reader with no prior knowledge about the subject. (Not a hard thing for me to do.) And those first sentences jump out at me. But give me a bit more time, if you wish, and I'll give more hints on what I think needs doing. – S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Austrian economics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)