User talk:Srich32977/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Request for Comment re Death Penalty lawyer Bio AfD

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

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

Lee Ohanian

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

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

Newport International University‎

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

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

FRINGE RfC

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

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

Fringe RfC

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

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

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

ABCT

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

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

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

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

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

Hi the chart is not accurate or complete, so I think it should be removed. On ABCT, the source we discussed a while back, Quiggs I think, does indeed say that MOST economists consider the theory incorrect, so please revert your latest edit. I believe the recent edits are by a sockpuppet of the banned ID "Karmaisking" and should all be reverted. Please consider.[[1]]'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

re: SPECIFICO

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

Rothbard

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

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

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

A cupcake for you!

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

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

re: Pat Condell

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

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

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

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

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

ABCT -- User Amanski

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

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

euclid listing in unaccredited page

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

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

ABCT

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are you complaining about? In this edit [2] I restored your version and I urged the warring editors to reach consensus. Abetting a banned user? Using such a term implies a lack of good faith on my part. ABCT is not at an impasse -- you provided the last edit. What I do not like is wholesale removal of material based on shaky or poorly described rationale. Go ahead. Fix it. But don't say MI is not RS for academic theory -- WP is not a textbook. Please be discrete. Labeling different sources as pseudo-science or fringe can lead to problems; that is, "WP is supposed to limit itself to mainstream thought", "AS is heterodox", "heterodox is not mainstream", "not-mainstream is fringe", "fringe does not belong in WP", therefore "AS, as fringe, does not belong in WP" or "AS should be labeled as fringe". (This syllogism has problems in that it omits the requirement that schools "significantly depart" from the mainstream.)--S. Rich (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Question

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

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

Use Tag

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

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

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

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

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

Moving on...

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

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

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

Girard B. Henderson

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

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

Quotes

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

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

learning an appreciative of your help and patience

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

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

Thank You

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3RR warning

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

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

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

PROD notices

I'm afraid you used the wrong template. {{csd}} notices may be removed by anyone except the (usually only) article author. {{PROD}} notices may be removed by anyone, with or without comment. {{AfD}} notices may not be removed.

X occassionaly interprets guidelines correctly, but I'm almost sure it's an accident. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to revert when he deleted. I restored it, but reverted myself and added hat notes. I don't recall that I've AfD'd in the past, so this was a learning experience. In any event, the article is an opinion piece that should go. Thanks for the message.--S. Rich (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Tough Mudder

Rich - people are constantly trying to vandalize the Tough Mudder Wikipedia page with unsubstantiated and obviously biased opinions. I am simply trying to keep that kind of information off Wikipedia, which is consistent with the values of the community. Why do you think that this information should be left on the site when it has no basis in truth and is clearly being added by a competitor company to try and disparage Tough Mudder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.156.240 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the conflict of interest guidelines that are posted on the Tough Mudder page. I have several concerns. Vandalism is one of them, and spamming is another. In all editing, I try to follow the WP:FIVE. I urge you to do so as well. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I will accept the removal of the "Let's run" posting because it is a blog and violates WP:RS and WP:ELNO. In fact, I will defend the article from repeated additions of that particular link. (And I will defend the article from being used by Tough Mudder for advertising.) – S. Rich (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Rich,

You are right, I displayed towards SPECIFICO a behavior similar to the one I blamed him for (being unfriendly, emotional, etc.). Taking a 24-hours break, and your remarks, have helped me realize that. I shall henceforth resume focusing on productive contributions. Thank you for your sense of diplomacy and your advice. Alfy32 (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Alfy. I greatly appreciate that you have taken some time to send me this message. And more importantly I thank you for "ho de anexetastos bios ou biôtos anthrôpôi — ὁ δὲ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ" [3] yourself. – S. Rich (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

sfn instead of the ref tags for the Foundation for Economic Education article

First, are the instructions usable? Second, have I convinced you that sfn is needed?--Abel (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Abel, I'm not clear on why you've asked me. The first question sounds technical, so I couldn't answer. For the second, I like what you've done. Perhaps you were thinking of someone else? – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote it to provide a solution for, "Footnote [ZZ] would read Leonard Read was the abc of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce from 19xx-xx, Donaldson Brown was the efg of General Motors Corporation from 19xx-xx, Leo Wolman was a Professor of Hij at Columbia University from 19xx-xx, etc." --Abel (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Solution-wise it seems to work technically. Layout-wise, I don't like the footnotes having footnotes, even though it is kinda neat to see the target footnotes "light up" as we point to the numbers. – S. Rich (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The ref tags won't let you cite different page numbers while at the same time reusing references and bundling citations along with explanatory notes. sfn seems to be the only option that has it all. Abel (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Helmut

Not a problem. Appreciate your notice. PS...Thanks for your service to the country from a lifetime 4F. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're quite welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

POINTY bears

I believe you are correct. It was an attempt to make a point, and possibly a secondary effort to see or test if anyone reading the article understands the concepts being discussed. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

And I regret that the talk page discussion has nothing in it focused on article improvement. WP:TPNO. Pointy behavior is "highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban." I left my comment open-ended (I hope) to allow leeway for a natural and acceptable explanation. If X had offered the same explanation that you attempted, then the Bears addition may have been acceptable as part of the new article salvo. I do not think that was his motivation. – S. Rich (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

COI Declaration

I posted a COI Declaration on my user page. Please update the COI banners on my Wikipedia article pages and contributor templates on talk pages. Thanks, - Greg Henderson (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe I got all of them. Feel free to ask for help at any time. Best regards. – S. Rich (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Manning edit

Sorry for the deficient edit. I am new to editing and need practice. There is a cite in The Guardian but I can't seem to get the format correct: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/30/bradley-manning-keeping-sane-madness

I will practice and try more another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaufieldH (talk • contribs) 03:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your ANI thread

It's...pretty long. Might I suggest moving most of the stuff that Blackmane hatted into a user subpage, and then linking that subpage to the ANI thread? Even hatted, it still makes the edit window a bit of a pain to scroll through. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Blackmane hatted? – S. Rich (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here. He didn't hat or close the entire thread or anything, but he collapsed the long list of diffs to make the page easier to browse. I'm just suggesting going a bit further and moving it to its own page, but it's no big deal if you don't want to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh – I see what Blackmane did. But what good will it do to move to a subpage? (The saga is what it is, and will likely continue. While I should have submitted an ANI much earlier, somethings gotta be done.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing substantive; it just makes it less to scroll through if someone's trying to make a comment. Even when it's collapsed the way it is now, the entire long list shows up on the edit screen, and one has to scroll all the way through it if one wants to make an edit in the bottom. If you move it to a subpage, then it's a lot less to scroll through. Like I said though, no big deal either way. Writ Keeper ⚇♔

Brady Haran

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuck you, Spinelli, there's no edit war going on. I told you there was a CRYSTAL problem with the article in a most polite fashion. And then I responded fully and clearly to your concerns. You may disagree, but you don't have grounds to back up your position. I did a one-time removal of your WP:CRYSTAL from the article and I have not touched it since then. Posting this level three warning about a non-existent "edit war" is simply a crappy maneuver on your part. Take your high handed shit elsewhere. I don't want to see it again. Don't post anything on this talk page again.– S. Rich (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Hello, Spinelli. If you are looking at this, I am saying WP:SORRY for my WP:UNCIVIL response. I do not like the fact that you posted your warning, but I do apologize for my reaction. Feel free to respond. – S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Pleinair Lago di Braeis

Dear SRich, that is not right! I'm an enlisted Wikipedia corrector and professor in traditional outdoor painting and design. You didn't see any results. Pleinair Pragser Wildsee - Lago di Braeis is originally working in high quality just like the old 100 years old Blue Rider art colony Munich or Barbizon, Paris did as well. So I do hope you don't kill the link any more. Thanks Uli... http://www.schaarschmidt.it/cms/schaarschmidt-it/pleinair/ click in any album to get it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulischaar (talk • contribs) 06:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Main problem -- the link is non-English, so WP:NONENGEL applies. It did not translate well with Google Translate, so it is not helpful to the English reader. Nor does it provide much info about Plein Air. Sorry, it is not acceptable. (Also, it is not a "See also" so you posted it in the wrong area. Your edit was not a "minor" edit, so that notation was incorrect.) – S. Rich (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Service Number

In Australia at least, the service number is not "military trivia". It is the key that enables you to find records at the databases at the Australian War Memorial, National Archives, Department of Veterans Affairs and (God forbid) Office of War Graves. Also, contributions to wartime publications were often signed with the service number only. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the links do have the service number as part of the url and they remain accessible in the target documents. Is listing the # as a title on the url description helpful, or can my more general description suffice? Hawkeye, I am quite aware of the importance of the service numbers, having worked up the RAR graves at the United Nations Memorial Cemetery, Pusan, on FindaGrave. Also, I see the English tradition of listing SNs in the London Gazette. Still, if you think the #s are proper please feel free to revert (and let me know). Likewise, I won't do edit summaries as trivia. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Shall I continue to change the url descriptions for the Aussies? I'm trying to cull unnecessary service numbers as a privacy/potential ID theft issue. In this regard, I want to remove the service # parameter from the mil person infobox. It is rarely used. -- – S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Brady Haran

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to Brady Haran. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Templates on the articles might distract and confuse the readers, use them only when necessary. You can instead discuss the issues on the talk page. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"In use" template -- pasted from Talk:Brady Haran

[The following was cut from Talk:Brady Haran for pasting onto my talkpage here. The placement of my username at the front of the sentence was by the OP, Hugo Spinelli]

User:Srich32977, please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, as you did here and here. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Userbox

Thank you for your suggested userbox for my userpage, which displays vandalism count. I had given up counting; is the total you suggest accurate? I did in fact display this userbox for some time in my earlier years here, but when I became an admin some years ago my userpage was vandalised with such frequency that I both removed the box and fully protected my page. It is generally belived in the admin corps that this box tends to actively incite vandalism. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, Anthony. I've had some interchange recently with User:Bwilkins and he's on my WL. So your message came up. I thought I'd check your count and then add 1 (as a sort of friendly vandalism joke). When I didn't see it, I posted it and added 1 based on your message to Bwilkins.

Well, as I write, this gets me to thinking -- if adminship incites vandalism on their pages, how about a sort of interactive "target" icon on their page that says "Vandalize this page 'here'". The vandal clicks the target, some bells & whistles (visual) go off, and the vandalism count goes up by one. Not just admins could use the target. Giving vandals a sort of harmless outlet might lower the rate of vandalism elsewhere. (Like in different areas of cities, graffitti on certain walls is never removed. It just gets "hit" again and again as a sort of outlet for the graffettists.)

Technically I have no idea how it might work. But what do you think? – S. Rich (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Two points; firstly, I do not want to encourage vandalism in any shape or form, and I have no confidence that vandals who come deliberately to vandalise a userpage would be happy just to trip a counter; secondly, as my userpage is fully protected only admins can edit on it, and admins by and large do not vandalise.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere in the bible Jesus said "The poor will always be amongst us." And so will vandals. Now if they had a WP target that was essentially benign, but had some fun stuff to look at as they triggered it, it might satisfy them and deter vandalism on article, user, and talk pages. For example, San Luis Obispo has its' Bubblegum Alley. I wonder if graffitti in SLO is less or greater than other cities. A WP vandalism target could be an experiment for some enterprising grad student or researcher. (I am not suggesting that your page be the test bed!) These were my simple and simple-minded pre-coffee ruminations, which have now expanded into over-caffinanated rantings! Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Matthew 26.11, Mark 14.7 and John 12.8. Mark goes on to say "but you can help them..." which may not be appropriate in this context. Vandals come in several types. Some edit here spontaneously with inappropriate posts, and yes they just come to have what they deem to be fun. But vandals who target admin pages generally speaking are attempting to retaliate against deletions or blocks, and they want to cause damage, not to have fun. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As you have been the target so often, I think you've got the experience to evaluate. So the solution is to develop a tough skin, and full page protection. Thanks for perusing my idea, and taking the time to reply. – S. Rich (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I have a pretty tough skin, and a fair amount of experience. You also have a lot of experience, and while that is largely in article-space that is no bad thing. how tough is your skin, ahould it be tested? Serious question.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Closed ANI

Dude, pretty much a week ago you were told that the only way forward was an RFC/U. Why did you continued to extend the thread? You've pretty much used up the goodwill you had generated. Xero's not going to be blocked unless he makes another major fuckup - but an RFC/U will be able to get the community to tell him how his bunch of little fuckups are leading to one big pain in the ass (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I thought the discussion would be closed by you on the 14th with a "take it to RFC/U"! That did not happen so I made my suggestion for the ER, etc. re-eduction program the next day. Then it looked like consensus was building for a block. (Wishful thinking on my part?) Well, that did not occur and the drama continued. My previous experience with these ANIs is pretty limited, but I see that lots of drama takes place.

One problem with X is that his sniping is insidious. Patience and hope that he'd fly right resulted in the 100+ listing of comments. (I guess I coulda posted something at 50+.) Well, I'm going to study the RFC/U process, both the procedural aspects and other RFC/U threads. (Oh, dear, if I start the RFC/U it will be more harassment! I must give that aspect some thought) Stand by – will the curtain go up on the next act in the next few days? (If it does, you are invited to sit in the front row.)

Or should I go back to Wikignoming and less dramatic endeavors? In any event, Bwilkins, I do thank you for your comments and for closing the ANI. Your help has been most worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I rarely close threads: once a few people say "RFC/U", then the OP is usually expected to follow that route without specific closure of the thread.

Personally, I think the RFC/U will be wise: if nothing else, it may force a promise to follow community standards - it's also a first step towards ArbComm and often even for Bans. An RFC/U is not harassment, especially when the community knows he is or is becoming a royal pain (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Srich32977 states: "he only "determined" the concept would work after implementing it." Sir how did you come to this conclusion? Is it from your experiences in the Army Special Forces? Or are you drawing upon your experiences from conducting COIN operations against insurgents?Bravosix11B (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Tirey L. Ford

I have declared my COI here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greghenderson2006#COI_declaration. Please consider removing the COI banner from the Tirey L. Ford, Emile Kellogg Boisot and Byington Ford pages. - Greg Henderson (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It shall be done. Not tonight as it is getting late, so please remind me soon if I forget. Thanks.-- – S. Rich (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. – S. Rich (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Are you aware that you've done more than 3 reverts in less than 24 hours in Brady Haran? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "left Australia" or what? Seems that each of the changes made improvements to the syntax of the paragraph. The "made more than one a day" phrase was vague (and very similar to the particular language in the RS), so "more than 1500" was actually more in keeping what the RS said. And we clarified that the work was done in the discrete 5 year period. Seems that each of the edits improved the paragraph. If you think I'm wrong, make more changes. I might modify them, but I won't WP:UNDO them. Without wanting to be patronizing, there is a difference between reverting edits by another editor and making further edits to clarify the text. So please compare the version now vs. what we had earlier. If you agree that it is better, then fine.

Yeah, that excuse didn't work for me, you know? I know your reverts were done in good faith (although not using the talk page was not). The point is... you've violated the 3RR, is that enough to block you from WP? I don't think so. If you think my block was a right measure, then you should be consistent and think yourself should be blocked for the same reason. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please report me. – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think its lame and I disagree with that policy. I prefer to be consistent and do the right thing. I hope you do the same. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You could start with a careful reading of the policy, which you do not appear to understand. It's stated in very explicit clear terms. I suggest you give it another looksee. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Brady Haran

Srich, you can find more info about BH here, particularly here. I will not do the edits, since they will be reverted, anyway. I won't waste my time. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking me to be your proxy IOT add these resources? On the one hand I am complimented -- you have done your research and come up with some valuable stuff. On the other hand, I will not carry your water for you. (IOW, you should do the edits.) Still, I'm hoping that our, repeat our, series of edits on Brady demonstrates how a collaborative effort improves the article. You started off by getting info on his various awards and I built on those efforts by providing some more specific external and internal links, etc. And I hope this joint effort demonstrates how focusing on content, rather than bickering about what or how other editors are doing that you don't like, improves the article. (IOW, your warnings, complaints, etc. only served to keep interested editors away from content improvement.) As I said before, I like the Professor and his videos. And I had nothing to do with the AfD on Brady. Indeed, I believe I said I would have opposed it if I had seen it. But, Hugo, if you think that your edits will be reverted, no matter what you do, then you have poisoned your own well. – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"I will not carry your water for you. (IOW, you should do the edits.)" That's what I thought.

"I'm hoping that our, repeat our, series of edits on Brady demonstrates how a collaborative effort improves the article." Pfff.... you mean me including useful content and you deleting them? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

[[File:|25px|link=]] No. Make your contributions. Just keep in mind that you are not God's gift to Wikipedia and your syntax, grammar, phrasing, etc. can be changed and improved upon. Still, if you think that all of your edits are going to be deleted, then save yourself the trouble and don't make any contributions. You can alway leave Wikipedia and save yourself the grief. – S. Rich (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

ER

I posted a few ideas at the bottom of WT:ER. dci | TALK 21:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. At present I'm on some side-tracks, but will take a look in a few ...who knows. But I am quite flattered that you thought enough to include me in your notification. – S. Rich (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: AFD comments

No worries. I liked this note. You are right, of course, about the myriad bills and proposals that go nowhere - there are literally thousands of them. But I think occasionally you're going to find one or two failed bills that meet (perhaps a strict reading of) our guidelines. Of the three that were created and then AFD'd, I think one fits into that category. But I also think that if you had 100 such articles created and then AFD'd, you'd probably end up with about the same number - one - worth saving. In general, failed legislation is entirely non-notable and I'm glad you nominated them. But I think one happens to have had enough coverage to be notable. Anyway, I like a good AFD, and AFD generally has been a bit boring of late! Stalwart111 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

1. Please, stop removing and editing my comments.
2. Please, stop responding with WP policies, I've read them.
3. Please, stop edit warring.
4. Please, stop using the edit summary as a chat. Use the talk page for comments, questions, etc.
5. Please, revert your last edit on Brady Haran.

Thanks. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

While your various concerns are ill-founded, you are welcome. (As to #5, no.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting it. Please don't do that again. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You are not welcome, as I did not revert my edit. You supplied a citation which resolved the issue. You could have put the citation in the text (which I ended up doing) and then removed the cn tag yourself. Moreover, as your 5 comments to me are completely unfounded and your "please don't do that" is an unwarranted admonition, I think your "thank you" is quite shallow. Be advised I will edit as I please within the guidelines and policies that WP has established regardless of your concerns. And if there is a difference of opinion about my edits, I will happily abide by consensus. But if you think that I am improperly refactoring your comments, making secret edits, edit warring, or improperly using edit summaries as a chat, whatever, then make your reports to ANI and supply them with the diffs. I stand by my edits, and when I make mistakes I stand by my apologies. – S. Rich (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

X

• Hey ... stop poking the other editor ... really. Your post today on his talkpage really does not look good (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Egad, shall I revert or revise the TP post? Or is the damage irreparable? I really am surprised that he did not respond to the AfDs. (If I had seen a wikibreak message I would not have posted the AfDs.) In any event, your advice is well taken (I certainly have no more pokes to make) and greatly appreciated. – S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) (I've revised the remark about subpages.)19:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations

Not a coincidence perhaps. Not only did I add something there, I also added it to an edit made by the president of West Coast University at that article today. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you mean, Doug. I don't see any similar edits to WCU and the IP made only the one edit to the list. In any event, feel free to contact me with questions, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The president of WCU adds a statement that IAO has accredited WCU. I add material about IAO to that and to the list, and soon after that the entry on IAO is removed from the list. Could be a coincidence, they happen. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. Actually I rely on Orlady to watch these lists – she does an awesome job. My contributions are limited to jumping in to revert the more obvious errors. (I'm adding WCU to my watchlist.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Opera

Welcome to Wikiproject Opera! Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Parsifal starts soon. So I gotta get myself down to the cinema. – S. Rich (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Iraq Medal Tweak

First and foremost I would like to apologize for the remark I made. I did not mean to offend anyone. Secondly, thank you for your service, my father served in Iraq in '08 and '09 with the SEALs Lastly, thank you for your invitation to the WikiProject Military History

ScaryT — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScaryT (talk • contribs) 03:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. (Also, please be sure to "sign" your comments with the 4 tildes ~~~~. When you don't sign a bot comes along and signs for you, but that means I don't see it on my watch list because I've set it to ignore bot changed.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Coast Guard Cross

Ok, I just learned of a new medal, tha Coast Guard Cross. Now there is a line drawing on the top right corner, but I found a better picture. I don't know how to replace the picture currently there with the one I found. Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScaryT (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't know much about images. (I've seen red lines on images before. I think they are to discourage copyright violations.) The only actual images I've loaded were from my own camera. Try this - post a question on the article talk page.~~~~ – S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)