User talk:Srich32977/Archive 10

Templates at ANI
I know that you mean well but this has, I think, been pointed out to you by others on past occasions. Best not to stick resolved etc on boards such as ANI. Let the admins do what they do. You gain nothing personally by tagging as such and you risk the accusation of stifling discussion in a non-admin role when you are in fact involved in that discussion. - Sitush (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted. – S. Rich (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ta. Not everything needs to be signed off and these things can be touchy. You may be surprised what people bring up at ArbCom - been there, done that. Honestly, if a trip to ArbCom can be avoided then you should all do everything that you can to ensure that outcome. It is time-consuming, frustrating and in my opinion rarely ever "clean", ie: the fall-out can be considerable and unexpected. - Sitush (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I wish NW had closed the discussion, especially after more comments were being posted. And I see that my template did not do much to "stifle" any discussion. Maybe the removal of the template will actually have the intended effect → that editors can move on to productive contributions! Thanks for the heads-up. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Koch
Are you also working for Rubin? Or do you really want me to search for articles which link KI to the TPM? MilesMoney (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I had no idea that Rubin was topic banned. No matter, the issue is whether there is WP:V for including TPM as a category. So if you want to search, go ahead. – S. Rich (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. You want to do the honors or shall I? MilesMoney (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Koch Brothers are supporting Tea Partiers, but the article does not say Koch Industries, the corporate entity, is contributing. – S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you! - Thanks for your help
I very much appreciated your feedback and I'm glad we were able to improve the article. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow! (But so early in the morning?) Appreciated – I'll have to wait a while before I consume. Ping me for more reviews as needed, and please be patient if I don't get back as quickly as you like. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

MM/S.Rich discussion
your comment in this edit had nothing to do with article improvement. You simply said certain editors were wrong, and your comments about abuse and censorship violate AGF. If you think someone is abusing or censoring WP, then bring it up on the ANI and supply the diffs. Track record? What bullshit! – S. Rich (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That turns out not to be the case. My comment, and its follow-up, both pointed out that you were abusing WP:BLP. A reasonable response would have been something along the lines of, "Please explain how I am abusing this policy". I took the liberty of pretending that your response was reasonable and replying with an answer to that question. You can go now. MilesMoney (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * MilesMoney, I'm glad you can see I'm not ignoring you. The comment you made about editor behavior does not belong on the article talk page. Shall I post on your talk page? I will do so, and be polite. Here, though, you are going to have your comments characterized appropriately. – S. Rich (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no, that's not true. You ignored my comment and responded only to Steele. It's also not true that my comment was primarily about editor behavior. It was primarily about policy, emphasizing that you misinterpreted it (again). Even now, you have not addressed the policy misinterpretation issue anywhere. To remind you, a self-published source is fine for statements about unidentified people, precisely because there is no way it could lead to libel. MilesMoney (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll parse your comment:


 * Oh, they're completely wrong on policy, – Most importantly, if you think someone is wrong on policy, explain and discuss. Write about the edit, not about them and how they are wrong. Try something like "Policy says UVW and this edit does XYZ." Simply saying someone is wrong does not advance the discussion. WP:TPYES gives guidelines.
 * and this isn't a new error for either of them. – ad hominem – does not address article improvement. a WP:TPNO violation.
 * As I mentioned on ANI, – Which ANI, but more importantly, so what? Past discussions in other forums about other editors, articles, issues rarely address the editing concerns under discussion.
 * they have a track record – So what? You are elaborating on the ad hominem remark.
 * of abusing WP:BLP – Now you are failing to assume good faith.
 * to censor articles. – No censorship is involved. You want to add something, and other editors want to remove it. The decision to add or remove must be done in accordance with WP editing policies and guidelines. Trying to label something as censorship does not address the editing issue. Look at WP:ISNOT. All sorts of stuff is not appropriate. Claiming censorship is not appropriate.
 * This is a typical example. – Whether or not this is "typical" is hardly pertinent. Each of your points has been refuted.
 * Ignore your comments, MilesMoney? Hardly the case. Your comments and edits are quite interesting. In this case I did not comment on the article talk page about your posting because doing so would have violated WP article talk page guidelines. E.g., the only thing to say was about your behavior. So I posted it here. And I'm happy that you've responded. – S. Rich (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken in your interpretations of my remarks, and doubly so in imagining that you refuted them. As I pointed out already, the correct response to a general statement about misunderstanding policy would be to ask for specifics. You've failed to do so, even now. Instead, you've falsely accuses me of ad hominem attacks (which, by the way, doesn't mean what you think it does), and sidestepped the core issue. That is hardly productive. MilesMoney (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * By making a "general statement", you are not addressing the editing issues. Why don't you focus on the editing and policy specifics from the get-go? In any event, you can believe what you want to believe.  – S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense at all. Since when is a general statement somehow unacceptable? I see you making them all the time; perhaps you have different standards for yourself. The fact remains that you still haven't addressed the issue. MilesMoney (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

loved the edit summary
That last one. Fiddle  Faddle  17:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Santa Clara Law logo
I'm quite new to editing on Wikipedia so forgive me if this is a newbie question. May I add the logo for Santa Clara Law? I see that other law school pages (Harvard, Vanderbilt, Stanford, etc.) all have their logos included on their page. It would be nice if the page for Santa Clara Law had the same. The logo is located here: http://law.scu.edu/wp-content/themes/responsive-child/images/scu-law-badge.png.

Also, I am a librarian at Santa Clara Law. Is it inappropriate for me to correct references or is that also considered a conflict of interest?

Thanks,

Davidbrianholt (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the first things to do is declare your COI. (At that point I'll remove the COI template from the article heading.) Next, look at Talk:Western_State_College_of_Law_at_Argosy_University where a COI editor has presented proposals for article editing. You will see that I have helped him along. (A lot of discussion and advice has been exchanged.) As for the logo, you must load it into the "Commons". But that entails permission from the copyright holder. (It is an area that I have limited knowledge.) Please be advised that "paid editing" has been a hot topic on WP lately. So I advise you to read up on the rules.  – S. Rich (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Also, the logo for the high tech journal used on the page is no longer used.

Davidbrianholt (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have permission from our dean of external relations to use the logo. Is that sufficient?

Librarian at Santa Clara Law 03:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbrianholt (talk • contribs)

I don't know. Try posting a helpme template on your talk page. And resolve the COI declaration! – S. Rich (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought putting my "COI" in the signature was recommended. Sorry for being such a newbie but what else am I supposed to do? Thanks!

David Holt - Law Librarian at Santa Clara Law (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As I read WP:COIDEC, you create your user page that says "I'm David Holt, librarian at SCL." And you "identify the articles related to your COI and confirm your intention to follow the conflict of interest guideline." At that point your signature is modified to reflect the COI declaration. – S. Rich (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this right? Thanks!

User:davidbrianholt 04:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion involving you
I wanted to alert you to an on-going discussion at Admin's Noticeboard/Incidents. You are one of five editors to issue a behavior warning to MilesMoney. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Libertarianism
Please don't add this source as a reference unless actually used to source a fact in the article, and also since it is a specialized encyclopedia it is not generally useful for articles that are not directly related to its focus, namely libertarianism. I have removed the source from a number of articles where it was not a relevant source, and where it was not used to support specific facts. Adding sources is of course helpful - but it can look like spamming or promotion of a specific book when added in this way across articles where it has only a tangential relation to the topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Maunus, WP:FURTHER is the MOS we follow. I will post justifications on the talk pages. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned this issue at External_links/Noticeboard.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Further states that it is for references that " that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." In all of the cases where I have removed it the wikipedia article contains considerable more information than the corresponding entry in the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. It is simply not a relevant further reading.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply on the noticeboard. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Invitation
Hey SRich, I hope all is well with you. As you have been one of the regular editors participating in articles related to Austrian Economics, and I was hoping I could convince you to participate in a small experiment on dispute resolution. It's formatted as a simple question and answer, with a hint of RfC/U, aimed at getting participants to talk with one another, recognize potential problems, and with any luck, commit to fixing those problems. The page is at User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics and you are free to edit at your leisure. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What is your time-line for the experiment? At present I'm engaged in some other on & off wiki projects. I'd like to defer on replying for a few days. – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no rush. Take all the time you need. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Which talk page for Dark Money?
When you said see talk on dark money, which talk page was this? Hcobb (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Presently editing. – S. Rich (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Adjwilley/Austrian economics
Jeez! –. At least one editor thinks I posted a "perfectly legitimate query". My response is less moderated –. – S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Another comment related to Adjwilley's user talk page
Rather than torpedo the discussion set up by Adjwilley, I will post my reaction to Specifico's latest comment here:

"The [discussion] question is: "In your opinion, what could this user could do better that would help resolve the dispute? [emphasis added]"

Comment by User:SPECIFICO. "Carol should be topic-banned for at least six months..... 'blah - blah - blah'""

My reaction: What an outrageous posting! Just appalling!! Completely against the spirit in which Adjwilley set up this discussion. Proposing a topic ban has absolutely no fucking relevance or helpfulness as to how Carolmooredc herself might better resolve the dispute! This is just another example of how Specifico abuses the discussion process – he criticizes others when article talk page comments veer off-course, and posts the same fucking garbage himself on the article talk pages. (For more BS, see earlier comments by me WRT Specifico.) And then he has the gall to post this stuff.... [emphasis toned-down] – S. Rich (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it will be refactored or moved to the talk page. (See my recent comments...) ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Noting that Specifico has modified (but not retracted) his remarks, I will hat this subsection. – S. Rich (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Noting further that Specifico continues to modify his remarks, I am un-hatting this subsection. His "should be topic-banned" statement now says she should "stay away ... for six months...." I also note that Specifico was "incredibly offended" by an "obscene photograph" she posted last summer. So what? Don't look at her userpage (or at this talk page for that matter) and you won't be offended. After all, the decision to look, read, and be offended is yours. At the same time, Specifico, why don't you supply the diffs – you're a fine one for making accusations, unsupported by evidence. Need an example? Look here: User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 19 .   – S. Rich (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion that might be of interest to you
See WP:ANI - your attempts to explain policy didn't make any difference. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey S. Rich, you're a big shot in real life and on-wiki! Isn't it time to run for admin, so that and I can leave some of the dirty work to you? Drmies (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds a good idea to me! Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh, you guys are pulling my leg. I'm simply successful enough to enjoy my freedom and free time. (I'm not such a big shot.) Besides, I have some enemies who'd fight tooth & nail against a nomination. "Dirty work"? I feel like I'm being invited to join WWE RAW. Thank you both. Many thanks! – S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You and Sitush should run together. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Too much! Look at my talk page archives and see the stuff that editors have said about me. There is more at User talk:Adjwilley/Austrian economics & User:Adjwilley/Austrian economics. I think I'll make a Shermanesque statement and take that stupid userbox off my userpage. (Again, thanks. I am greatly encouraged by all of this.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're a judge, ain't you? Can't you just lock your opponents, and all of Sitush's caste-warring friends, in the jailhouse while your RfAs are going on? Or, Writ Keeper, rename their accounts for the duration of the RfAs. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * NOT a judge. A "Judge Advocate" is a term of art for a military attorney. (Although, in civilian life, I have sat a volunteer judge pro tem. Which is no big deal. Lots of people do so.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd love to be a judge. Pity you have to go to school for it. Confusing terminology: next thing you're going to tell me that a justice of the peace does not enforce peace, or that the water board doesn't waterboard anyone. Have a great day, Austrian-style or otherwise, Drmies (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL (on waterboarding!) But you are judging. The facts are the edits we see, the law is WP guidelines & policy. A lawyer looks at the facts and seeks to spot and analyze the issues so that the correct law can be applied – or argued to the judge, who then decides. An admin is, as I see the role, another sort of judge. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

... and a case that may be of interest to you
"Thanks for the laugh", you said, and "A lawyer looks at the facts and seeks to spot and analyze the issues", you also showed some interest in infoboxes ;) - Look at this (shortened a bit, and by now I can laugh):
 * User A adds an infobox to his own article.
 * User B reverts it.
 * User A improves it and returns it.
 * User B reverts it.
 * User C restores it.
 * User B collapses it at the end of the article.
 * User D restores it uncollapsed in the normal position.

A lawyer arbitrator says one user needs to be banned. Guess who? (help, only if you need it) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No guesses. 1. There is no indication of BRD. 2. "His own article" – you mean A is a connected contributor? (More likely, you mean an article A created.) 3. No indication of 3RR/1RR posting. 4. No indication of other dispute resolution. 5, Don't know anything about the experience levels of A–E. 6. Maybe the article is under sanctions. 7. There are always anomalies. I prefer to work with "Just the facts, ma'am", so I won't guess. Thanks for an interesting puzzle.  – S. Rich (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for thinking, sure, no guesses ;) - 1) I also thought there was no BRD. - 2) "his own article" is (admittedly too) short for "an article he created", taking "created" in the literal sense of making the first edit in mainspace. - 3) There was no 3RR. - 4) There was other dispute resolution. - 5) All four editors are here for quite a long time, A 2009, B 2006 (and admin), C 2008, D 2003 (and yes, the one to be banned, puzzling indeed), no E. - 6) no sanctions - 7) no anomalies. - The facts are linked under help: we are talking about the Planyavsky case - you may remember, the first link in the all-too-long discussion pictured on the Johnbod page. Independent view without passion welcome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * and an article that may be of interest to you, but perhaps you saw it already on the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)|

Some suggestions
Banning you from my page several months ago was a misstep (which, for the record, I officially *revoke*), because you are a good-faith peer from whom there is much to learn. But even if the ban was wrongheaded, it is nonetheless disturbing that you basically ignored it (and bans imposed by others, including carol and specifico) to comment whenever you please. Your criticisms, while sometimes useful, are over-the-top both in tone and quantity. And you tend to believe that your interpretation of policy *needs* to be heard, as forcefully as possible, at every given moment. This need to be heard comes at the cost of civility or even policy itself (e.g. the rule to respect other users' wishes regarding whether to stay off their talk pages).

You are clearly an intelligent person who is passionate about the principles of the community. Moreover, you are relatively adept at weeding out your biases in your contributions to articles, and I have often accepted your criticisms of in that regard. However, your 'alpha male' persona tends to facilitate a heavy-handedness that disrespects the boundaries of other users. That is why, for the record, I would hesitate to support you for admin (despite the fact that you have many qualities ideal for that post). I fear investing you with all that power would magnify your 'dark side' and disregard for the perspectives of other users. (Please note that by "disregard" I don't mean disrespectfulness or personal attacks. What I mean is heavy-handedness, overconfidence, and rigidness.) Steeletrap (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I endorse this statement, Ms. Steele, and I admire your nurturing instinct. I hope you will not take that as a misogynist remark but as a token of my recognition for your God-given character.
 * @Srich, I believe that with some restraint and the discipline which you clearly must have deployed on the front lines in Iraq, you can step back from the battleground behavior which is out of place here on WP. This Project needs more editors who have your time and dedication to improvement.  Your clean-up efforts on references and formatting are invaluable.  But, I would certainly take a step back and dial down the energy level on advising/mentoring others and on any actions in which others might feel that you are appropriating undue authority to yourself. The Admin thing will come in due time if you work on your skills and interactions rather than focusing on any sort of campaigning or base-building for your candidacy.  I hope you will consider a mid-course correction and that you will continue to devote your efforts so tirelessly, but a bit more selflessly, to WP.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The comments and suggestions are appreciated. A few replies: I appreciate the revocation – it seems that the talkpage comments I posted had come to be accepted without objection. I recognize I can be brusk – sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes not. If there are diffs that explain where I've been wrong – in any manner – on policy, I'd be happy to see them. Moving on, you might note above that 3 experienced editors/admins recently invited be to apply for adminship. (They want me to lend a hand in the dirty work, so perhaps they see that bruskness is an asset on occasions.) And I've received off-wiki endorsements from a few other experienced admins. I've been reluctant because the application process can be less than enjoyable. (See: User:Giggy/Passing RfA for fun and profit! and other commentary for background.) Well, with the different on & off wiki endorsements, I think I can achieve the status. But I do not want (past) enemies opposing me because of old friction. I won't ask for endorsements from you or other editors in the AE struggle, but I do ask that you defer on opposition. In any event, I can promise that WP:INVOLVED will be followed in all cases – if I receive the position. In the long term, I expect to edit until I hit 100,000 edits and then retire. So please let me do me include some admin work in my next 39,000 edits. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Srich, with all respect and best wishes, I think you may have misunderstood my writing above. I see you as a viable Admin if you are able to purge your demons and develop a more community-centered stance, with more engagement and listening to other editors here.  That would be a challenge, but I think you may well be able to pull it off.  Given your current style and record to date, I think it would be very problematic for you to take on and be empowered with the Admin's role.  In fact it could be downright harmful to WP.  I'm sure it would all come out in the RfA process, but frankly it would be better not to pursue premature escalation and to develop a more impersonal and impartial style and record for an extended demonstration that you've got what it takes. A good start might be to join Steeletrap and myself in setting forth the pledge and new discussions that have been mooted at Adjwilley's AE talk page.   Sorry if I wasn't clear the first time.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Rich, I wish your response would focus on my substantive suggestions to improve our WP interactions. I understand that the admin thing caught your interest, but it is peripheral at best to the original post. Steeletrap (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see that Steeletrap is much more able than I to express herself succinctly. Srich, I interact with you because I am trying to improve various articles on WP.  My point was simply that the same behavior which makes you unsuitable to be an Admin is the behavior which disrupts the editing of those articles.  However I believe that if you focus on changing that behavior and help improve the articles, you may also develop into a fine Admin candidate, possibly before 2014 runs its course.   SPECIFICO  talk  01:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

An interesting dilemma may be developing. The group (or individuals) takes "the negative pledge". I RfA. Does the negative pledge "no statements about contributors" thereby preclude pledgers from making negative comments about me in the RfA process? – S. Rich (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Srich, think of the Admin slot as a kind of Knighthood. Did Sir Elton John lobby the Court?  Or maybe Sainthood.  Just pursue righteousness and the recognition may  follow.  You again appear to be considering which strategies might effectively help you navigate WP for your personal goals, but that is exactly the behavior that has made your editing ineffective (aside from routine repair work) and that will also undermine your Admin ambitions.  The RfA is one place where WP most definitely does delve into the history of nominees' personal attitudes, actions and abilities, and rightly so.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It is true that RfAs result in a review of editing history, etc. But the decision to add commentary in an RfA lies with the individuals. I would think "the pledge" would have the effect of prohibiting one editor from denigrating another, including that forum. You know, perhaps I should have gone for the job back in July. You might have even nominated me back then. (You can do so now if you like. Simply say I am a wise one and that more Deputy Sheriffs in the admin world are needed.) I certainly understand that friction between us since July may have changed your mind. But I do not think my interactions outside of our AE circle has changed significantly. What is interesting, personally, is that the 3 administrators in the section above want me to apply, if only so that I can take over some of the dirty work. (With that in mind, my sometimes brusk demeanor and commentary may be the virtue that they think is valuable.) And, there are other admins who have done some off-wiki recruiting of me. If you and the other AE "members" will take the pledge, you will free me to go on to other taskings and areas of interest. – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point. The reason for us to agree not to make comments about each other is so that we can stick to comments about content disputes and therefore make some progress. This has nothing to do with remaining silent if you try to run for admin. That's just not going to happen. MilesMoney (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * MilesMoney, I do not think you would refrain from making negative comments about me in an AfD. But I would be pleasantly surprised if you did refrain. So whenever the AfD occurs, you would be free to participate as you wish. IMO, if you do take the negative pledge, you'd have to be concerned about what other pledgees thought about making negative comments outside of the AE discussion forums; e.g., whether on talk pages, user talk pages, notice boards, or AfD discussions. Moreover, once I enter the AfD process, I think my participation in the AE forums/contentions will diminish. – S. Rich (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Srich, I would not be doing you any kindness to soften what I'm about to say: Your're not wise, Wiki-wise.  In fact, you are frequently wrong about policy and its application, and when others point out your errors you become hostile and defensive.  You don't listen very well and you appear to be preoccupied with strategies for your personal advancement rather than article improvement.  The AE page discussions' sole purpose is to improve the content and conformity of the articles according to site policy.  The RfA page discussions is to discuss everything which might be relevant to your performance in a role which requires various skills you have not yet demonstrated here. It would be not only our option, but our obligation, to discuss all of your personal qualities, qualifications, and behavior there.  My advice to you is to consult with the on-wiki or secret admirers you cite, have them review your talk and article contributions, and get some frank feedback as to how you can improve your profile before any prospective RfA.   SPECIFICO  talk  04:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Specifico, while there's much we disagree about, this isn't any of it. I have to admit that you're spot on here. For myself, I wouldn't waste time commenting about Rich, I'd just post some of the links I've collected. They would speak for themselves, saying pretty much what you just did.
 * Rich, to be quite frank, my take on these admins recruiting you is that they're using you. A classic trick in corporate politics is to promote an incompetent so that they remain loyal to you. See, on the one hand, their incompetence means that they depend upon you to defend them from complaints about their incompetence. On the other, it prevents them from doing their jobs so well as to make you look bad, much less striking off on their own. Even better, you get to look like an even-tempered peacekeeper as you defend your crony. For extra credit, you promote the incompetent at the expense of a potential rival, who is then forced to report to the incompetent. Priceless.
 * It's cruel, but this sort of thing happens all the time in the real world, and I'm afraid it's happening to you right now. I'm genuinely sorry. MilesMoney (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Specifico, please provide diffs where you think I've been wrong on policy or when others have correctly pointed out my errors. That way I might learn. But you intend to hold off on posting the diffs until I submit my AfD, you'd be doing the community a disservice. That is, it is better to "disqualify" me now before the community spends time & energy analyzing my history. Specifico, if the negative pledge does not extend across the board, beyond the AE discussion forum set up by Adjwilley, then it cannot mean much. MilesMoney, please feel free to assist Specifico in the assemblage of the diffs. IOW, post the links you've collected either here or on the ANI. (That is, if you have collected them.) And, MM, you might follow your own advice and not waste time commenting about me. Finally, MM, I will pitch my tent with the admins who have publicly and privately endorsed me. They have passed through the AfD gauntlet; I do not perceive any effort to trick me; and I'm a big boy and can handle myself. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Srich, to whet your whistle, just go back and read all my messages here which you've summarily called cowpies, then hatted or dismissed. I'm not going to provide you the index of those and others except in a context which offers a constructive end for you or for the Project. What are some of the greatest hits? Well, of course I could post some piecemeal, but let's not get the cart before the donkey.  No need to fuel your resentment.
 * From your writing above, however, here's one to chew on. You write: "Specifico, if the negative pledge does not extend across the board, beyond the AE discussion forum set up by Adjwilley, then it cannot mean much." Much of this thread is devoted by me and others to explaining that your statement misses the point.  I think it's explained clearly enough for a litigator/warrior to understand, so it feels to me like willful obstinacy.  Finally, consider whether it's a Freudian Slip (no I won't be cute and wikilink it) that you repeatedly call the RfA your "AfD".  It doesn't have to feel like a Swan Song (again, no wikilink) and it doesn't have to be a battle.  But "to everything there is a season" -- (but again: no wikilink) and a reason. Food for thought.  Adios amigo. SPECIFICO  talk  15:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Srich, here is another suggestion I can offer without getting into the larger litany of issues: You wrote to User:MilesMoney "MilesMoney, please feel free to assist Specifico in the assemblage of the diffs..."  @Srich: In context, many readers would take that as a command, sarcastically delivered.  In fact, its tone is identical to some of the posts for which I have criticized MilesMoney and which, to his credit, he's greatly moderated and reduced over the past few months.  So, please consider reviewing Miles' development as an editor on WP.  While none of us is perfect or even as good as we'd like, Miles does offer you proof of concept which shows that you, too can improve your behavior in this respect.  Finally, this thread was not directed toward your contemplated Admin candidacy and how to wiggle and jiggle the ropes.  This thread was begun in the hope you could become a more productive contributor to WP and expand your scope of work beyond the helpful housekeeping and patrolling activities on which you've racked up thousands of edits.  Edit count is important to the Project, but it takes much broader interpersonal skills to collaborate on complex and controversial content.  If you can Kick it up a notch! in constructive interpersonal communications next year, you'll have a great shot at reaching your Admin goal before you hit 100,000.  Good luck.   SPECIFICO  talk  16:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, you've repeatedly made comments about my not knowing, applying policy (or guidelines). On this page (above) you said: Knowing about policies and guidelines is key to any administrator. With this in mind, I'd like to see exactly how I have erred. You have mentioned that diffs exist, so I invite you to post specific examples.
 * "bone up on relevant policy" (x2)
 * "Once again, you're writing English words and citing WP policies without regard to their meanings, or, in the case of the policies, even whether they exist."
 * "...I suggest you read the WP policy regarding forum shopping and wikilawyering"
 * "...I urge you to re-read and study key policies, which you have repeatedly misunderstood or misapplied recently."
 * "By the interpretation of policy you propose here... Take this to the appropriate Noticeboard if you believe that this is the meaning of WP policy ..." [Implying I am incorrect, which may be the truth. But I discontinued the thread.]
 * "You apparently have no trouble convincing yourself of these convoluted interpretations of policy,..."
 * "I am repeatedly surprised by your displays of basic lapses in your familiarity with WP policies and conventions."

So here is a user subpage for you (and others) to work with: User:Srich32977/SPECIFICO's listing of policy errors by S. Rich. It contains a table where diffs, analysis, etc. can be added. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

in this remark you did not address MM's behavior or possible sanctions. No matter what, I hardly expected MM to support my candidacy. There is no reason for me to restrict myself before I have admin privileges. (Afterwards is an entirely different matter.) MM has been a disruptive editor from the get-go, and, you in many ways, such as with the off-topic remark you made, have encouraged that behavior. Moreover, as you have supported MM, don't you have a conflict of interest? Even if you did, you would be free to comment on the proposed sanction. (BTW, I await your posting of policy error diffs on the subpage I started.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

PS: Specifico and MM, I promise to keep the table available when it comes time to comment on my application for admin. I will welcome comments from you both. (In fact, produce a WP:TLDR version of the table!) Same holds true for you, Steeletrap. And thanks for the heads-up on AfD/RfA. – S. Rich (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The obvious implication here is that, if you succeed in getting rid of me, I won't be around to post those damaging, embarrassing diffs which show that you're unsuited for the role of admin. You have a COI. MilesMoney (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * MM, you are working against your own self-interest. When I am an admin, my monitoring or commenting on your behavior will diminish. (And I certainly would not take admin action with regard to you.) Also, I realize you are busy now defending against the possible BLP ban. But a such a ban would not restrict you from posting the damaging, embarrassing diffs. Please have at it. If you like, I'll post a subpage with the same table for your usage. – S. Rich (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

6 January
Well, since there won't be anything exciting on TV that afternoon, I suppose I'll be getting ready for spring training to prevent the repetition of certain unfortunate event. Hint: I'm practicing kicking field goals, to see if I can get at least one out of four. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for bolding
Sorry for that. It seemed like a simple format error. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I was simply downplaying the expression of my opinion. The diff I provided actually speaks for itself. – S. Rich (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability, group awards, and Tuskegee Airmen
S.Rich: I have begun changing the language of the Tuskegee Airmen articles that I have worked on to state that the Congressional Medal of Honor was given to the group as a whole. If it is known if the person in question was in attendance at the public ceremony where the medal was presented, I include that information. But I make it clear that the award is not being given to the person per se but to the group en toto. Hopefully, that will avoid any confusion about whether that award establishes notability or not. I am working to establish notability on other grounds. Cheers. Stevenmg (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see that the enabling statute named various individuals, and such mention is worthy in their articles. (I have not cross-checked the statute with any articles.) As UCR has material on the TA, I see your interest – so I'm here to help, both with individual articles and with the overall project. – S. Rich (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc
As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_controlGaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually I don't recall making much or any commentary on the topic. But I wish you well in your effort to expand the discussion with editors who have all sorts of views. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You !voted in the previous RFC, which is why I notified you here. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it. I just don't recall. But thanks for checking, the headsup, and the note re my earlier involvement. – S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Milton Friedman
Actually, the original comment about the Federal Reserve was mine, I was just signing it properly. That was the only change made to the actual comment.

Your change results in a deletion of the entire comment instead of reverting back to an incorrect signature. Disestablishmentarianism 07:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixoplic (talk • contribs)

your username is Mixoplic. Your user signature looks like User:Mixoplic. When you add a non-Wiki markup word, like Disestablishmentarianism, it looks like vandalism. For more information, see WP:USERNAME and WP:SIGNATURES. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Re the MilesMoney ANI
WRT your question here, I don't think I shall answer. One, to do so on that thread would needlessly distract (and disrupt) from the subject at hand. Two, if editors, including yourself, wish to open an ANI regarding other users, they can do do. Then diffs pertaining to that other editor can be laid out. (As it is, the MM thread already has too much distraction.) In such cases, I will comment when I think I have some small helpful points to add. Please let me know when or if you open an ANI regarding persons of interest. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC) BTW, thank you for the complement on the correction.03:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in light of the comments of many other editors on the circumstances of that ANI and the behavior of other editors, and because your behavior continues to raise the appearance of a conflict of incentives, I thought it would be helpful for you to make a complete statement there.  But no matter, entirely your choice of course.   SPECIFICO  talk  04:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A complete statement? About MilesMoney? About other editors as well?! I dare not. (Such commentary – on that ANI – could be disruptive.) Moreover, my behavior in that thread or elsewhere is a topic of another discussion. You are welcome to post diffs about my behavior wherever you like. I've provided a draft table for the policy issues that you think I've violated. Shall I post one for my uncivil remarks too? Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed by your response. On the ANI thread, many of your fellow editors have commented or recommended sanctions on other editors, in addition to or instead of, MilesMoney.  Your comment singles out MilesMoney, against whom you have a history of ill regard, and fails to address the others.  This has the unfortunate appearance that you are focused solely on MilesMoney rather than the promotion of good behavior and the Five Pillars on WP.  In my opinion, the place for such comments would have been the ANI, where others have already contributed their larger concerns for WP.   SPECIFICO  talk  15:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You should not be disappointed so easily and perhaps it stems from prejudice against me. Numerous editors have commented about MM alone, and some of them have had on-going or occasional interaction with MM. Are you disappointed by their responses? How about the editors without prior interaction with MM? Are you posting comments on any other user talk pages suggesting that they don't promote good behavior or the 5Ps? The efforts to argue the merits of particular edits (as opposed to pointing out the diffs) or the merits and demerits of other editors only disrupts the discussion, which is about MM and the alternatives to promote decent behavior.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich, it was you who sidetracked this to your talk page.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your commentary about my behavior or anyone else's behavior is best placed on user talk pages. Not on the ANI. So you are correct, I did "sidetrack" an inappropriate thread. – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Time to chill, soldier. Merry Xmas. SPECIFICO  talk  17:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Tip on policy
You (and this applies to User:Binksternet and User:carolmooredc as well) appear to completely misunderstand WP:Academic. Cursory mention in half a dozen RS does not come close to establishing notability; you have to demonstrate that an individual has substantively influenced mainstream dialogue. I suggest that instead of a swift and cursory Googling session (which in the case of Bink, often leads to pretty egregious errors, e.g. citing an undergraduate's paper as an RS), you both read sources to see what they say about a scholar's influence. As to how to test whether a scholar meets WP:Academic notability standards, User:Randykitty puts this better than I could on the Thornton AfD page. Steeletrap (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC) To illustrate the point: By your and bink's standard, virtually all academics would have Wikipedia entries (including me, which is absurd at this stage of my career), because everyone with a (non-professional) graduate degree has to publish in journals. Steeletrap (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
If you have a chance, please take a look at the subsection part of my response. I'm interested, either way, in your input re: non-notable, genealogy based articles.

(For instance, I learned in the last couple of months that small residential farming villages where the only sources I could find were PinCode (postal code in India) web pages, are considered notable.) Thanks!!!  CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 18:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Disruptive" talk page comment?
Hey why do you accuse me of disruptive editing in this comment? Steeletrap from the get-go talked about Presley editing her own article. Look at WP:COISELF and you might see how COI comments in the AfD are pertinent. "Strawman" argument? Are you saying my mention of COI is strawman, or my description of it as old is strawman? I'm not "denying" COI, so you are mischaracterizing my argument. I merely said the COI issue doesn't mean shit because it is long past and can be (or is) resolved by subsequent edits. Moreover, editors can write WP:ABOUTSELF so long as they follow guidelines. Why don't you do the right thing, Specifico, and strike your unwarranted and offensive comment? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note, Presley created her own article. Steeletrap (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. But my comments here are about how Specifico is bad-mouthing me. – S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you are misrepresenting my statements, your words constitute a Personal Attack. You'd be well advised to strike yourself. Noted, with no further action for now. SPECIFICO  talk  19:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about you, Specifico. I refer to your comments, in which you say my contribution is disruptive. NO misrepresentation of your comments took place. (Describe such misrepresentation if you can.) Address the issue of COI as an argument for COI. I don't think you have anything. – S. Rich (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Laffs
Srich, with all your WP:LINKs I hope you enjoy the chuckle from your visit to Sitush's page.  Having seen you deny it so many times, I'd guessed you had on at least one occasion read the page. SPECIFICO talk  20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

veering of SPI on Steeletrap
I presented what I considered a cogent and coherent case with several diffs and a lot of data. Rschen asked for more evidence, which I provided. Steeletrap has been interesting in how he handles this -- I suppose he figures if the water got muddy enough that the case would die. Alas -- I think the data is more than ample for a real examination. A close at this point, IMO, is a disservice to the data and diffs presented. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Of all the editors involved, you are focusing on the evidence better than the others. But as I stated, I don't think they are socks, based on my interactions and observations. While I don't think meatpuppet recruiting has taken place, the 2005 Arbcom decision referenced in WP:MEAT might apply. I say "might" because this is an area in which I have no experience. My recent posting on the SPI page was more of an effort to get people focused on evidence rather than the expanding (and muddying) commentary. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify for User:Collect, I'm she not he. I'm totally trying to AGF and have, per his insistence on making the allegations with laughable pseudo-"statistical" evidence (according to the 'logic' of which, Carol and SPECIFICO are also my sock, since both have a 'small percentage point' of "conform" edit summaries), come to a different conclusion. Mister Stats Master just is too shy to admit he has a HUGE crush. Boys who clamor for my attention tend to! I would undoubtedly go for it (I absolutely adore sensitive guys, even those that other girls deem too "touchy"), but I'm currently too busy stringing User:SPECIFICO along. (I had a thing for User:MilesMoney, but since so many highly intelligent people have concluded that he's me, it'd make me look super-narcissistic to pursue that now.) Steeletrap (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend not to imply the gender of anyone - and do not make a point of my own gender. On the Internet, no one knows that you are a dog.  Collect (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that you may be making up for lost time per your comments some time back about your personal journey, but I must say you are completely out of control with all these flirtations. Of all places to act out!  WP?!?  SPECIFICO  talk  23:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

citation bot's number to issue bug
Hi, Srich32977. This is just a heads-up about the number to issue bug of citation bot, which I filed in response to to Fahrenheit 451 back on 14 November 2013. I had intended to inform you of the issue at the time but it slipped my mind. Sorry for that. The "number" parameter in cite templates should not be changed to "issue". That's the crux of the matter. Please prevent the bot from making these changes in the future. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jason. I'm guessing your holiday shopping is over and you're now making progress on the WP to-do list. And I see an interesting Diff template in your message. It may be helpful to me in the future. So I think it will be an even better gift than the 451 bot bug fix. Have a great holiday. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)