User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 5

Reasons for reversion
If you think an edit should be reverted because

A) its sources are not reliable enough AND B) you think that even if better sources were found its still should be reverted because the text does not belong there anyway.

Then please make sure you make B clear in your reasons for reversion. If you do not do this then an editor may put time and effort into finding better references, only to find out later their time was wasted.

The clearest example of this was when I noticed you had undone someone's edit in Paul Krugman with a comment "Removing unsourced content" I then went to the trouble of looking up the source, and I reinstated the edit with citation, you then immediately undid the edit with the comment "Doesn't belong in lede".

Thank you. Reissgo (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on EllenCTs Talk Page
I noted this. I think you're correct to suggest S. Rich tone it down (and I'm not a fan of hatting conversations) but he has admonished several editors to stick to the topics. Having observed and interacted with EllenCT, one can have issues with her editing style and talk page conduct without being concerned about her gender. I think your "whiff of misogyny" comment was perhaps a bit strong and you might consider editing that part. S. Rich might just be fed up with her approach to the arbitration which is distracting.Mattnad (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. You may not be aware that Srich has a history of unfortunate interactions with EllenCT.  While I have disagreed with several of her edits and steered clear of the contentious threads on various of the related articles, I am concerned in general about bullying, biting, and blustering on talk pages. It tends to prompt defensive responses which escalate the threads and, as Srich admitted in his comment disrupt collaboration.  Anyway, my perception of Srich's differential behavior toward female editors is based on various interactions which I've observed over an extended period and which I and others have politely brought to his attention.  In general, I've found that Srich often responds to constructive criticism with denial and anger.  I have seen him simmer down in the past, so I hope he'll make constructive use of my comment. I'm certainly not seeking any further involvement with either EllenCT or Srich on this matter.  Thanks for your note.  I think that I understand your concern, and I hope that I've explained why in this case I feel my statements were appropriate.   SPECIFICO  talk  15:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

– S. Rich (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't be baited
Resorting to baiting me into a 3RR by first warning me then performing essentially vandalism on the article by deleting a key section. I am extremely sorry that you feel like you have to battle and try to get others into trouble. You should watch some of Stefan's videos and gain some self-knowledge. Examine what in your past is leading to your behavior in the present. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Posting on my talk page multiple times after demanding that I not post on your talk page is obviously hypocritical. I treat people incredibly well the first time I meet them, and then treat them exactly how they treat me. The hypocrisy you're invoking probably has its roots in childhood, where you experienced relationships in which you were aggressively forbidden from speaking by people that forced you to listen to what they had to say. Your actions in adulthood likely reflect unexamined and unresolved childhood experiences. You have my sympathies, and my offer to privately help you if you ever want to discuss them. --Netoholic @ 19:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel ( talk ) 22:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

TBAN
As you have edited on the Freedomain Radio article, specifically mentioning Ludwig von Mises Institute persons, I think you are violating your TBAN. I suggest you revert to page so that it continues to redirect to Molyneux. – S. Rich (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC) PS: Since other editors have worked on the FR article, restoring it to the redirect function is not a viable option without their consensus. This does not change the fact that it contains TBAN'd data. – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not mention you or ping you on the Freedomain Radio talk page because it is within your TBAN. – S. Rich (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Enforcement requested
I have requested ArbCom enforcement here. – S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to see that a 2 week block has resulted. Something less severe would have suited me. If you had reverted the change to the redirect as suggested, I would have been happy. But commenting on the talk page indicated you did not take my warning seriously. (Also, I resent your "errors and omissions" comment.) If you appeal the length of the block – and retract the E&O comment – I will support you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  16:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

I'm in receipt of your appeal by e-mail. I'm declining the appeal because it does not convince me that you understand why you were blocked and that you will not repeat the conduct that led to your block. Please see WP:GAB for more advice.  Sandstein  05:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've received the following message by you:

Hello Sandstein. Thank you for your reply. I can see that I have not handled this matter or my communication as well as I intended. In particular, I’ve been making negative statements, for example that I had no intention of violating the TBAN. It’s now clear to me that I should instead have made positive statements.

So rather than repeating that I’ve said and done nothing to show intentional violation or disregard for my TBAN, I should have said what I’ll try to say now.

I am prohibited from posting on Wikipedia any text which names or relates to the Mises Institute or its affiliated persons. You have blocked me for violating that. I now affirm that from now on, I will not post any such violations and will exercise all due care to ensure that I do not violate my TBAN.

Having affirmed that (which I had believed was implicit in my earlier statements as to why my action was unintentional) I’d again like to ask that my current block be vacated. I had no previous violation of this TBAN or disregard for it. I will not violate it in the future.

You referred me to a link which states, that in order to for my appeal to be accepted, I am “responsible for convincing administrators: that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead...”

I believe that I have now explicitly satisfied this requirement because I understand that you blocked me for having edited text which relates to persons affiliated with the Mises Institute, the edit for which I was blocked was due to my own negligence in not checking the content of the text it contained. I accept responsibility for my action and having seen the result of my lack of due care, I will be sure not to repeat it.

Accordingly, I would like to ask you to vacate my TBAN. Thank you."
 * In view of this statement, I am lifting the block (not the ban, which I cannot), in the hope that you will comply with the ban in the future.  Sandstein   20:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clear communication and fair adjudication in this matter. Yes, I misspoke when I wrote TBAN in the last sentence.   SPECIFICO  talk  20:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent Molyneux edits
I note that you removed the philosopher designation from the lede in Stefan Molyneux following the close of the RfC. The designation was re-added a few hours later. I removed the designation and posted a new thread on the talk page. However, since the new material, which may or may not justify the re-adding comes directly from Mises.org, I will consider any comments by you in the thread to be in violation of your TBAN. I suggest you see how the thread plays out. Perhaps it will favor keeping the designation out of the lede. If you want to comment, perhaps you can receive permission to do so from an appropriate authority. – S. Rich (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights movement probation notice
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' -- Bbb23 (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Anti-war project scope
I'm having a hard time with accepting the scope of the Anti-war project.

"This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia."

What anti-war movement? Which anti-war movement? The scope is like a bad joke, worse than the Conservatism project. The irony, of course, is that all of the active members and non-members of the project, at least according to the current watchlist, are not editing within this scope. To summarize, the stated scope of the project does not reflect what the project actually does. This is like a bad Twilight Zone episode. Any idea of how to proceed when dealing with this kind of low-level insanity? My personal solution (yours may differ) is to tag every relevant article in the parent category. From there, I'll need help. I think the best way to proceed is to look at the categories, but that's just a hunch I'm going on. When you do that now, you see it broken down into occupations, groups, cultural works, events, incidents, concepts, theories, etc. What is the common thread? I don't see a monolithic "anti-war movement" here. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The Machinery of Freedom
You have made, in my opinion, entirely uncalled for edits to this page. I have reverted them. Your claims that neutral description of the content of the book is "unsourced" is clearly incorrect -- the book itself is clearly the source for the content of the book, and page numbers were even given. You cannot claim that the content of a book cannot be described on the page for the book itself.

If you disagree, discuss. If you revert these edits and again render the page nearly blank without discussing, I will file a formal complaint and insist that the page be protected during arbitration. Clearly Tamfang also disagrees with what you have done.


 * I explained to you on the talk page that we need a secondary RS which summarizes and characterizes the noteworthy content of the book. I cited two policy pages which I hope you will read closely to develop an understanding of my statements on the article and talk pages. The fact is that this is a self-published work and we have only a single mention of it by any secondary source.   I have tagged the article for notability and perhaps this will attract editors who can provide some additional RS references and provide a solid basis for keeping the article in WP.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I read those policy pages. I believe you are incorrect in your claims. There is no policy that I can find that states it is not permissible to simply describe the content of a book on the page for said book. A number of editors worked in good faith over a long period of time to produce content, and you removed it, denying readers access to that content and leaving the page with barely more than a sentence in place. Unless you can point me to a specific set of sentences in a widely understood policy that actually claim that you cannot describe the content of a book on the page for that book without secondary sources saying which portions of the book are significant, I am going to have to disagree with you and ask that you not remove content from the page again. I have also removed your "notability" tag. The book is well known in the field and clearly notable to Wikipedia standards. Please make no further edits until consensus is reached. --Pmetzger (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please discuss content and not contributors. Please WP:AGF.  Personal remarks on the article talk pages do not help improve WP.  You seem to have raised a number of straw man arguments and ad hominems on the article talk page. The need for secondary RS discussion of the book has nothing to do with whether it's self published.  You need to find secondary discussion of the book to identify its significant content.  Please confine your talk to the article talk page and do not make further personal remarks about other editors.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not making any personal claims on the article talk page. I have discussed only content and its unwarranted removal. Again, please quote chapter and verse where specifically in the policies you cite it is said that it is impermissible for an article on a book to factually describe the content of the book without a secondary source that verifies that this is indeed the content of the book. Unless you can quote a specific set of sentences from a policy that say that, I believe I will have to ask you not to edit the content. Also, as has been pointed out on the talk page, the book is certainly notable, having hundreds of references in Google Scholar, and re-adding the notability tag without consensus seems unreasonable to me -- if you disagree, please make a case for why the notability tag makes sense in spite of the academic importance of the book. Pmetzger (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of complaint to be filed to administrators
I have to notify you before I file a complaint,which I have not done yet, but will if you don't stop the nonsense. The other editor involved is having a complaint filed.Phmoreno (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * Actually, you need to notify me when, not before you do this. However, I see no basis whatsoever for any such complaint and when I politely ask you to cite high quality sources to verify your proposed content, I don't know on what basis you intend to complain.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve Banking
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. 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. VictorD7 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not the case. Riessgo has tendentiously pursued his OR narrative in this article despite his views and editing behavior having been rejected by many, many editors over a period of years.  My most recent edit undid his removal of a well-sourced statement which is referenced to perhaps the best RS economics textbook currently in print.  He then went on to complain that I was ignoring him, when in fact the policy issue, the content issue, and his behavior have all been addressed dozens of times by me and other editors.  I'll assume you were unaware of this history, but if you wish to help out and participate on the article, you may wish to review it.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * VictorD7, if you choose to be involved in this article, you can start from here and the concurrent talk page thread.  They give you a small part of the voluminous discussion over the years in which Riessgo has been told that his opinions do not reflect the consensus of the editors on this article.   SPECIFICO  talk  16:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm uninvolved in the dispute and certainly can't comment on what's happened with the other editor over "years". Here you repeatedly reverted segments by Riessgo:, ; , , . Clearly there's a content dispute with the two of you repeatedly reverting each other to reestablish your preferred article versions. When such a disagreement exists, it would be preferable for you to hash things out on the talk page before committing to a particular article version. After posting here I visited Riessgo's talk page and saw that you had already warned him about edit warring regarding another article on which you two are edit warring. You really shouldn't issue such warnings as an involved party. I'll add that your claim that he had "made 4 reverts within 24 hours" doesn't appear to be the case. While violating 3RR isn't necessary to be guilty of edit warring, it looks like the alleged 3RR violation, by which you presumably had in mind his July 7th edits, might actually just be a bizarre glitch. If I understand policy correctly (and maybe I don't), consecutive edits uninterrupted by another editor count as one revert. Riessgo's edits are interrupted at one point by two edits, one from a bot and the other from an editor making an unrelated change, the first being dated to May 8 and the second to June 17. I'm not sure why those old edits are listed in the history where they are, but if they're disregarded Riessgo only has three reverts on that day, just as you do.


 * As stated above, as far as the policy is concerned it doesn't matter who's right or wrong, especially on a non BLP page, except in certain exceptions that don't appear to be met here. If I had my way edit warring rules would be enforced more loosely and reasonably, but a recent arbcom decision indicated they may be cracking down, so I figured I'd give you a heads up. VictorD7 (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any "heads up" for Mr. Riessgo. Pardon me for not taking you very seriously.  Please don't post to this page again on this matter.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to a section referencing Mises Institute founding member Hayek
In this edit, you removed a section which discusses the views of Friedrich Hayek, who sat on the founding board of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (also mentioned by LvMI itself). Can you explain why this should not be considered a violation of your topic ban? -- Netoholic @ 19:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This was a revert of vandalism. As you know I cannot discuss my TBAN on this page. SPECIFICO  talk  21:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary mentions it was "poorly sourced and undue" not that it was vandalism. To my eyes it doesn't fall into the realm of obvious vandalism, as the text seems on topic, has sources, and is lengthy. I've no comment about the appropriateness of it, just that it is not clear vandalism. --Netoholic @  22:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be Vandalism. That policy page says: "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page......Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."


 * Whether you think the editor's contribution is worthy or not, it does address the topic, includes multiple sources, and isn't profanity, page blanking, or obvious nonsense. He's even participating heavily on the talk page. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, perhaps you could simply self-revert and mea culpa? it does look like a violation of the ban and i am worried any future sanction could be for a much longer time. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any rs that Hayek was in any way associated with the LvMI. It certainly does not appear in any of the Hayek biographies I saw.  TFD (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * i found it, 1st hit on google and i think broadly construed would include founding members Darkstar1st (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I said "reliable source" - Netoholic already said the LvMI claimed he "sat on the founding board." TFD (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * While Specifico's comment about reverting vandalism is dissembling, I think the issue turns on whether he knew that Hayek was on the board. Since his TBAN has taken effect, I'd think he's taken the page off his watchlist. At the time of his last edit on LvMI, Hakek was mentioned only as an author that LvMI publishes. (E.g., the board membership is new information.) Likewise, at the time of his last edit on Hayek, there was no mention of the LvMI board membership. Let's drop the matter. – S. Rich (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems unlikely that Hayek was on the "founding board" - what is that anyway? All we have is a line on a website, no explanation and no mention in any of the biographies of Hayek that I could find.  Why doesn't anyone else mention it?  TFD (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point it does not matter to Specifico. We have a small something that puts Hayek on the board. That's enough to make Hayek "Mises.org-related". Specifico can't comment even to say "No he wasn't." The issue as to board membership goes on the Hayek talk page. If the claim of membership is refuted, then Specifico can revert all the Hayek related vandalism he wants.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * TDF, Perhaps i simply misunderstood broadly construed to mean go edit flowers or boats. Hayek and Von mises were close, if the editor was unaware of this fact perhaps there is a larger issue to be addressed. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; goethean 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Von Mises died before the LvMI was set up and therefore had no connection with them. The LvMI begins with Rothbard and Rockwell.  TFD (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * it is almost like the two men never met, much less worked in the same office, i withdraw my previous comments, obviously i have no idea what broadly construed means in english. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Economic growth
I'm refraining from any serious edits until reading Barro. Regardless of what Barro has to say, the Income Inequality section is completely one sided, hence the "unbalanced" tag. Mostly responding to EllenCT's request for information on the article regarding myths about income inequality. At this point I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt about your motives. However, you have not clearly stated enough of anything constructive to earn any trust or credibility. Hopefully you will be redeemed.Phmoreno (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Your comment violates one of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia, specifically, the one with the pretty orange color. Don't post on this page unless you're sure that your words are civil and constructive.   SPECIFICO  talk  02:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Take this as constructive criticism: For example, making negative comments about sources is not nearly as effective as actually taking the time and effort to point someone in the right direction with a little information or a simple explanation. This would go a long way towards avoiding lengthy discussions on Talk pages, getting involved in edit wars, etc.  You'll save time and trouble in the long run.Phmoreno (talk)
 * I took a great deal of time and effort, despite your hostile and threatening words directed at various other editors, to point you in the direction of good RS materials which you can use to improve the article. I also explained in detail some of what I feel are your misapprehensions concerning the mainstream approach and knowledge relating to the description and explanation of economic growth.   All this while I never edited the article or did anything to correct your many errors before you take the time to read sources which will give you a more robust and encyclopedic way to view and edit the subject.  I feel like I'm chasing my tail here, so please don't post on my talk page any further and confine yourself to discussion of article content on the talk page.  Finis.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:The Independent Institute, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''You addressed me directly and you said I was "in denial" about certain material, along with a link to an edit another editor had made. I acknowledged that material and suggested some other editor make the changes. In my reply to you, I said I was not in denial and I suggested that you could add the material. I did not attack you personally. I replied to the comment you had made, and nothing more.'' – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You have been banned from this talk page, and by my count this is your 6th violation of the ban. Frankly your comment above sounds addled and paranoid.  You say you're an attorney?  Or at least you say that you functioned in a similar role in Iraq?   You can confirm for yourself that I did not say you are "in denial" -- a statement which would be ad hominem and require an evaluation of your psychological or emotional condition.  I stated in simple terms that any attorney should find routine that you deny the proposition put forth by the cited link.   Reading "deny" to mean "in denial" is bizarre and further suggests you might benefit from a breather on these challenging articles.  Do not reply on this page. You may, of course, use your own talk page.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hedge fund
I have partly reverted your deletion from Hedge fund, as well as supplying better sources as you suggested. Please in future discuss proposed changes in the talk page before aggressively deleting text. There is a talk-page section on this already ("missing etymology/word origin of "hedge fund""). Wildfowl (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jeepers, Wildfowl. I read your note on talk mentioning your text and inviting edits.  The Investopedia-sourced text is incorrect and for that reason, I don't believe you will find RS which states what you cited to Investopedia.  At any rate the text doesn't belong in the article.  You made a bold edit, I reverted it, and stated a clear and policy based reason for my reversion.  I suggest the next step, if you disagree, is to discuss this on talk.  Please undo your last edit, which reinserted your preferred text, and lets abide by WP:BRD.  I'll be glad to discuss this with you on talk.  Let me be clear however.  I removed the text because it is false and lacks RS verification.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely puzzled. I will glady delete it if you can explain what you think is false about it. Please note that I did not revert the sensitive/bold bit. As far as I can see, the citations I have given are reliable and support the validity of the statements. Please think more and be less aggressive. Wildfowl (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your comment is not civil. Your initial comment was somewhat accusatory and gave the impression you didn't consider my edit summary or reexamine your initial edit in light of it. I ignored the tone of your message and replied on the substance of your edit.  It's not right to return here after I tried to accept your comments with courtesy, and suggest that I'm insufficiently thoughtful or overly aggressive.  Unless you're prepared to interact in a polite and substantive manner, there is no point in continuing this thread.  If you care to reconsider your remarks, you may so indicate and we can discuss this further.  Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism
I have nominated Anarcho-capitalism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux and Self Published Sources and References Vanity Page
I am quite concerned that the bulk of the comprises a marketing-vanity page for and by Molyneuex with many of the references from self published sources designed for personal aggrandizement. There is something quite seriously wrong with this entry and it needs to be revised in detail and reduced to the objective and factual. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.195.162 (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Block Notice
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Stefan Molyneux. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. Mike V •  Talk  04:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

August 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Stefan Molyneux. 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: 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. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Srich shouldn't be templating you, and I've dropped a note on his talk page about it. However, he's right in that you probably shouldn't be reverting as you did on Stefan Molyneux. It's a trivial point, better to just 'let it go'. LK (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

VictorD7 editing your comment
Hello. I noticed that VictorD7 edited out your interpretation of WP policy which he considered to be a personal attack or insult. I do not think it was. Do you have grounds to complain to WP admins regarding VictorD7's editing of your comment? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I agree with you that my statement concerning tendentious editing was not a personal attack and that he had no business redacting it.  Unlike in Civil Court, one does not need standing to file a complaint. If his behavior troubles you, decide whether it's worth your time and effort to gather diffs and file a well-reasoned complaint. One talk page violation more or less may be the tip of the iceberg, but consider whether it's a good use of your time to become further involved with him.  That's my opinion. Thanks for the visit.  SPECIFICO  talk  14:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Do not edit my comments in any way.
If you feel I am in violation of personal attack policy, take it to an admin board. Your judgement and hypocrisy with regards to standards of personal commentary is suspect. -- Netoholic @ 20:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You have previously been told not to post on my talk page and blocked for your personal attacks here. Don't post here again.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The edit
...is this one. —Neotarf (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- There is no reference to any individual as a girl or a boy, either of which can be used either tongue in cheek or as a slur depending on the context. It's clear from the context in which I used both words that there was no slur intended and at most a mild rebuke of the mooted viewpoint that we evoke gender stereotypes in deciding the merits of a new user interface.  I regret that you misunderstood. Thanks for your response.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, there are those who may interpret the comment as condescending and disrespectful. Would it be appropriate to refer to the Barack Obama, Al Gore, and Martin Luther King articles as "articles about boys who've won Nobel prizes, academic honors, and national elections"? I suspect many would find that patronizing.  —Neotarf (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding you. Where did I or anyone else refer to any identified individual as a boy or girl?  Furthermore the boy and girl reference was to prospective WP editors, not to the individuals about whom there are WP articles.  You appear to have repeated a concern which I had hoped I addressed in my initial reply to you.   SPECIFICO  talk  20:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there something wrong with the link in my initial post? The text is here:
 * "A more productive effort would be to beef up articles about girls who've won Nobel prizes, academic honors, and national elections." —Neotarf (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"ce"
Please do not mark major, substantive edits as "ce". I assume "ce" means "copy edit". If that's the case, then copy editing: "work that an editor does to improve the formatting, style, and accuracy of text. Unlike general editing, copy editing might not involve changing the content of the text". If you are going to change substantive content, then please be clear about that in your edit summary. -- Netoholic @ 19:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You've been told many times not to post on this page. SPECIFICO  talk  19:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

GG talk page
Hi Specifico, I'd like to ask that you cut Carol some slack on the gender gap task force page. She's doing good work – for example, she has just finished compiling a list of articles about the gender gap, which she obviously put a lot of time into.

People there don't have to agree about everything. The best thing is to focus on the issues we do agree on, and try to overlook the rest. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I agree we needn't agree, but I do think it's important to be clear and accurate in our discourse. I am generally impressed with the high quality of the Project.   SPECIFICO  talk  22:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think high precision matters much on that page, because nothing hangs on it. It matters more that people feel comfortable posting. I set the page up hoping it could become a place where women especially – and perhaps in particular new women editors – could feel relaxed, and might want to exchange ideas about working together or helping each other, or how to encourage other women. So anything that keeps the atmosphere friendly and warm would be very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear you. SPECIFICO  talk  22:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not just leave her alone? If she wants to archive something, let her do it. Several of those threads descended into baiting (or began that way), and all they're doing is discouraging others from joining in. Continually responding to her or reverting is probably just making her nervous, which in turn opens her to more baiting. It needs to stop, so please be part of making that happen. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I had felt that I was being responsive to your concern by not commenting on her ongoing personal attacks and autobiographical reflections on the talk page. I think your initial advice above was valid, and I wish that the suspected male editors whom she seems to target would just back away for a while. The thread which I de-archived did not appear to contain any personal attacks or other inappropriate comments, hence my restoration of it.  Nonetheless, I'm fine with staying off the page altogether if you think that will help the Project. I must say, however that CMDC's behavior on GG and on Jimbo Talk is hurting the cause of gender-neutrality.  From the perspective of the community, but particularly those concerned with the role of women here, she needs to control her behavior (regardless of whether its caused by hostility, nerves, or as she sometimes says, old age.) She needs to give it a rest.  Anyway you are clearly working to make things better on WP and I did not intend to go against your advice.  Consider perhaps some gentle mentoring or therapy for CMDC on these points, if you feel it would help.  Thanks for your note.  SPECIFICO  talk  21:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think staying away for a bit (or at least staying away from Carol's posts) would help a lot, so thank you. The best way forward is to respond positively to suggestions that might work and don't respond to the rest. We all make suggestions that aren't quite right, and we all have different styles of interaction. The trick is to focus on the good things that people have to offer, and overlook everything else, which I know is hard, and I'm not good at doing it myself. But that's the atmosphere that would be most helpful on that page. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but remember I had already begun doing that and the archiving she did was not a suggestion of hers, I'm afraid, but rather a knee-jerk swat in the face of a few clearly-reasoned opinions which differed from her own. Ignoring disruptive behavior gets close to the affirmative-action model and as I think is clear, her behavioral issues have nothing to do with her gender. Anyway, consider me on hiatus and thanks again for your clarity.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM clarification request regarding use of "TERF"
I have initiated a request for clarification from the ARBCOM regarding the use of "TERF" per discussions on Talk:Radical feminism. I am messaging you because you have been involved in past discussions regarding this issue and may wish to participate in the new discussion at the ARBCOM. The discussion can be found here. Thank you and best wishes.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following process and notifying editors so as to ensure an unbiased presentation of the issues.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Negative comments
The negative comments you are making at the Gender gap task force are not helpful. For instance this one, discouraging the recruitment of female admins. The whole purpose of the group is to encourage participation by more women, it is not a place to argue about whether women's participation is a real issue. —Neotarf (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but my intention was to make a constructive and specific suggestion as to how we can move forward. Perhaps we can both consider how our understandings of these words led to a disconnect.  Thanks for expressing your concern.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wanna help with a woman ?
Hello Fico. I have noticed you have showed great interest lately in improving articles or women of real notability and I know from before that you have a good grasp on economics. So I wondered if you would be willing to help with an article of a female economist I just started, Hélène Rey. She's a co-winner with Thomas Picketty of the Yrjö Jahnsson Award, the first woman to win the prize. I have written most of the biographic stuff (will add some more and polish), but what I need help to is to flesh out her economic ideas. Just a paragraph will be all right. Then we could take the article through DYK to the front page. There is light intro to her ideas in a FT interview. Best, Iselilja (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made a humble beginning. There should be ample material which we can locate by finding responses to the work posted on her personal website. I hope that other editors will join in. I'll also post on the Economics Project.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

RFAR
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thank you so much for your kindness. I would love to know which of my opinions you've disagreed with so I have the opportunity to check them. I have made mistakes and enjoy correcting them when I find out about them. EllenCT (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI
Have you been watching the discussion about you at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents? What do you think of an interaction ban? If Carol would agree to one, would you agree? Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will advise you that based on this close of the community discussion, you are now subject to a 1-way interaction ban with User:Carolmooredc. Please take great care in reading all other warnings provided in the close.  You were, indeed, extremely close to a site ban, and this should be a wakeup call  the panda ₯’  13:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that an arbitration request involving CMDC and SPECIFICO will be accepted. Will the IB be suspended to allow SPECIFICO to participate?Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 21:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I hadn't been giving this any thought, but since may take the time to consider editor Pork's inquiry, I have a few questions as well.  It seemed to me that after Neotarf's attempt to mediate the complaint and my response, the close felt precipitous.  I also felt that there was a snowball of involved and possibly canvassed opinion on that thread, abetted by some clearly disingenuous drive-by sniping.  There was not enough time for editors to consider my statement, among others, that the 9-11 edits I made which precipitated AQFK's complaint were straightforward policy-based reverts of text for reasons I explained in edit summaries and in talk.  My edits were not done to upset or drive off any other editor, but rather to correct what I think are clear sourcing and BLP violations.  The distinction is explicitly discussed in the harassment policy. I had just stated my good faith intention to stand away from GGTF when the close came before others had time to consider or comment on my statement.  I have not yet asked, and I'm not sure of the protocol by which it's done, but now that I think of it, I rather think the close should be undone or the IBAN should be undone.  I had greatly reduced my participation on GGTF a week prior to the ANI, in response to 's request.  My comments on GGTF were substantive and not disrespectful or personal.     SPECIFICO  talk  21:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No lifting or modification of the ban is required for ArbCom per WP:BANEX as ArbCom is surely legitimate dispute resolution if Specifico is a named party. However, I would expect that the participants would have a very short leash per WP:BUTT. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * HA! Butt.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 06:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Lois Dodd page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=627446122 your edit] caused a URL error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F627446122%7CLois Dodd%5D%5D Ask for help])

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Giving official notification of this request thread pertaining to you. -- Netoholic @ 03:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 14:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification request:Sexology
The request for clarification you initiated or were involved with has been closed and archived without action here for the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

GGTF arbitration case ban
With this edit, you have violated a community-based interaction ban against you interacting with or commenting on Carolmooredc. Violation of a community sanction on an arbitration case page falls far short of expected conduct and decorum. Accordingly, I am barring you from further participation in the Gender Gap Task Force arbitration case including all case and talk pages. Any violation of this restriction will result in a block. For clarity's sake, this does not foreclose any additional enforcement action the community may wish to undertake. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)