User talk:BasedMises/Archive 1

This is an archive of User Talk:Based Mises. Please keep in mind that this is simply a record of the changes in the talk page of BasedMises. BasedMises Mont Pelerin 16:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rick Peterson (Politician)


A tag has been placed on Rick Peterson (Politician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Rick Peterson (politician) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rick Peterson (politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Rick Peterson (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Mcmatter BasedMises (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leslie Dan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warsaw radio mast
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warsaw radio mast you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Localrussan -- Localrussan (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warsaw radio mast
The article Warsaw radio mast you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Warsaw radio mast for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Localrussan -- Localrussan (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

SPI
Hello. There was a recent sockpuppetry investigation that you were involved in. I have closed it without action, but I would like to ask you to note my comment here. Thanks and best, Blablubbs&#124;talk 15:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Friedrich Hayek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative movement.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please put your actual user name in your signature. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also blocked you from the Mises article and its talk page for three months. Please use that period wisely, to learn how to edit and to communicate. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is reasonable. I already understand the basic manners you seem to hold as being above me and treating it as a false premonition; however, do keep in mind, I got extremely heated because I had already been doing this for 1-2 months now, trying to revert vandalism. 3 months is reasonable, although the "ban" on editing the entirety of Wikipedia is extremely short-sighted and naive. Could you also provide some insight on what to do in an edit war like this (I'm not exactly sure)
 * Yes. Walk away. I saw you had been doing this for a while and was on the verge of blocking you indefinitely. Walk away, ask for protection, ask for other editors to get involved, warn the other editor, bring them up on a noticeboard, report them at [{WP:ANEW]], any of those things--but you didn't, and now we have a hundred edits in this edit war clogging up the history. Good think you have other interests on Wikipedia: your opponent is blocked indefinitely, so I guess that ends the edit war, haha. If you browse around and look into these options I have summarized for you, you might indicate in an unblock request that next time you will know better what to do, and you might get unblocked. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking back at it, I should've kept my cool for much longer. For the unblock request, I honestly don't care that much about editing Mises's page, because it was mainly about reverting the 1-2 months' worth of edits. Next time probably be less angry and after 3-4 minutes of back and forth reverts I'll probably use the noticeboard you added. Thanks! (also, for signatures, does it have to be your username or is it just a thing that's followed? Can't find anything explicit) F. A. Hayek 03:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Some people don't include their full username, but it's generally considered best practice, and per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. What constitutes easy identification is probably open for at least some interpretation, but I'd recommend you just stick to "BasedMises" in the signature – it's far less confusing for others. -- Blablubbs&#124;talk 09:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Thanks! M. Friedman Mont Pelerin Society 14:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Permanent income hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Character.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Permanent Income Hypothesis: Good Improvement
Thanks! M. Friedman Mont Pelerin Society 19:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN controversies
Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, your bold edit has been reverted and objected to, and it is incumbent upon you to gain consensus for your proposed change to the CNN controversies article. The longstanding version has implicit consensus. I note that describing something as a "crime" which no reliable source describes as a crime, and which resulted in neither charges nor a conviction, may violate several Wikipedia policies. You must open a thread at Talk:CNN controversies, propose your changes, provide reliable sources to support them, and gain consensus for them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for letting me know. However, I don't believe in whitewashing doxxing. BasedMises Mont Pelerin Society 02:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Our article discusses what some people claim about the incident, and discusses that other people disagree with that claim. For us to declare that one side of that argument is right and the other side is wrong, would require a clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources. If such sources exist, you're welcome to present them on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree in the same way that the legal definition of murder is murder. Thus CNN performed blackmail. I don't exactly like or dislike CNN, but it is fairly idiotic to presume that they did not blackmail the person. I also dislike the branding of it as "right-wing". Anyways, this is pointless. Next time I will make more reasonable changes and get a consensus on the talk page first. BasedMises Mont Pelerin Society 02:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We also can't describe something as a murder unless there was a conviction for murder. See, for example, Shooting of Trayvon Martin or Nicole Brown Simpson. While many people believe Trayvon Martin was murdered, the person who shot and killed Martin was acquitted at trial - therefore, we cannot label his death a murder, or his killer a murderer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, I do not want to get into a debate. Next time, I'll obtain consensus on the talk page. I certainly understand your concerns, especially because those who complain about CNN excessively tend to be vandals/etc. BasedMises Mont Pelerin Society 02:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"Prager Academical Institution" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Prager Academical Institution. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Grover Furr is a maoist
Grover Furr is a maoist ok

not necessarily. He has written quite extensively on the Soviet Union, not The PRC. BasedMises Mont Pelerin Society 03:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement imminent
If you do not cease making unsupported claims of fact about a living person, to wit, Grover Furr, I will file an Arbitration Enforcement request asking that you be topic-banned from his biography and any related subjects. No matter what we think of someone, they are entitled to fair treatment on Wikipedia. If you cannot find sources which support your additions, they cannot be made, period, end of sentence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not my opinion. It is a fact. I will refrain from editing, as long as Wikipedia does not kowtow to the whitewashing of pseudo"history" that you are pushing. Thank you for the message. I will keep that in mind while filing my report. BasedMises Mont Pelerin Society 23:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warsaw radio mast
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Warsaw radio mast you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of Daily Mail and Sputnik as sources
Thank you for contributing to the article Milton Friedman. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. I did provide other sources, but I will remove Sputik and the Daily Mail. Thank you for the message! BasedMises Mont Pelerin 00:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warsaw radio mast
The article Warsaw radio mast you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Warsaw radio mast for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: – bradv  🍁  05:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Disambiguation link notification for May 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Permanent income hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warsaw radio mast
The article Warsaw radio mast you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Warsaw radio mast for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Bob Chitester moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Bob Chitester, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hi BasedMises! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Robert Reich that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it would turn into a dispute, because he isn't an economist (eg. take this piece by the Krug https://slate.com/business/1996/10/economic-culture-wars.html) BasedMises Mont Pelerin 22:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Robert Reich shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Permanent income hypothesis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Permanent income hypothesis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Card Carrying Parrot -- Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Permanent income hypothesis
The article Permanent income hypothesis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Permanent income hypothesis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Card Carrying Parrot -- Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Friedrich Hayek
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Friedrich Hayek you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FeydHuxtable -- FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Friedrich Hayek
The article Friedrich Hayek you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Friedrich Hayek for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FeydHuxtable -- FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Permanent income hypothesis
Hello! Your submission of Permanent income hypothesis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5
 Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 02:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your DYK nomination of Permanent income hypothesis has been marked for closure, and could close at any time unless you return before it does and address the issues that have been raised. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Bob Chitester
Hello, BasedMises. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bob Chitester, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)