User:Steeletrap/Archive 2

May 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:LewRockwell.com. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I saw your message to User talk:MastCell which mentioned the previous "PA". (Frankly, MastCell as an admin should mention to you that such complaints are not proper.) Please look at WP:WIAPA. Remarks about the PA of others are not appropriate. But here you've done it again: ‎[1]. These comments do not further constructive discussion. Jeez, I asked you for help in locating the Palmer stuff. You responded. thanked you. Now it's time to discuss using (or not) his stuff. But adding complaints about past behavior that you do not like does not, does not, does not further WP:COOL discussion. Please, please, PLEASE drop the issue of past PA. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Srich. The language on the WP:AGF piece, almost certainly intentional, avoids saying that one needs to assume good faith in all circumstances. Numerous blatant personal attacks and harassment (allegations of sexism; allegations that I am intentionally violating WP policy by knowingly seeking to add OR to my edits; and mockery of my abilities as a master's student, are a few examples of Carol's inexcusable behavior), as perceived by me and another user, constitute, in my judgment, sufficient grounds for not AGF. You can disagree with this but you cannot, given these particular circumstances, allege that I am violating the rules. The LRC page is a mess and will remain so, but not because of anything I did. Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, look at WP:WIAPA. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." is the standard. If you have evidence, you should have posted an ANI back then. But every time you say "She PA'd me" without evidence, you are "violating the rules." What makes it worse is doing so on article talk pages. Such remarks weaken your case, regardless of the issue being discussed. They are ad hominem, nothing more. And they are disruptive. I've begged you before to stop this, but you seem to have chosen to disregard my comments and to scrub your talk page of the messages. When you persist with these remarks, despite these messages, you are intentionally violating WP policy as to PA. You have got to stop. – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry rich, you're wrong on the facts again. I don't "need" to take time to report anything to ANI (did you ask SPECIFICO to do that when he accused Carol of harassment/PAs on his wall?). All I need is evidence, which I have. Carol has ridiculed my capacity for academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LewRockwell.com&diff=prev&oldid=553662712), accused user SPECIFICO and myself of sexism (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553822485&oldid=553821d981 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553843792&oldid=553842400), and claimed that I am intentionally trying to violate the rules of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=554006883.) Also note the breathtaking, hilarious irony of you, on the basis of my making accusations of PA without first reporting them to ANI, accusing me of PAs without you personally first reporting me to ANI. Either your criticism applies to yourself at least as much as it does me (more, I'm sure, since you lack evidence), or it's completely unsound. Steeletrap (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

[[File:|25px|link=]] – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

LRC discussion

Your strikeout is noted. I shall revise my remarks accordingly. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Bill Clinton

It seems that some of your changes were WP:OR. I am going to do a partial revert because some things were changed without citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tony. I don't think that's right; but maybe I didn't cite my sources properly? Please point out the specific text where the issue is. Steeletrap (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the article. I agree with you that thef explication o abortion/gay rights bit -- which, as a matter of fact, were liberal for their time with a public who, by a majority, opposed legal gay relations -- as liberal stances which is OR; my mistake! However, I don't at all see how pointing out that DOMA was passed with a veto-proof majority of OR; isn't that just a matter of reading the roll call (vote was 85-14)? Steeletrap (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Mentoring

Steeletrap -- would you like to do some mentoring? You know I've sent IamSwitzerland some messages about edits made. Swiss's editing efforts continue, and some errors are occurring. For example, here: [2], Swiss put a reference in the heading. WP:HEADING has the guidance which applies; i.e., we do not add links to heading titles. With this guidance in mind, adding the link to the reference in the heading creates style errors. And, as you know, we generally put the references at the end of the supported material. (Also, I wonder if OR is at play; e.g., Swiss has provided a link to a directory of traders & brokers, but are they infact competitors of TradeKing? I leave that to you to evaluate.) So, please take a look at Swiss's edits here and on other pages. I suggest you post a message to Swiss and point out the errors. (And I'm curious as to what kind of response you will get! ) – S. Rich (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you care to send Swiss the message? If not, let me know here. I'll go ahead then and fix the layout errors. – S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I welcome Switzerland to the Encyclopedia, but I am too busy to help her or him. Steeletrap (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I had extended a welcome, but the response to me was less than positive. (Accusing me of working for Scottrade? Hardly.) In any case I'll go through the edits and fix up things. – S. Rich (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

AfD notice

That discussion got out of hand. It started off badly with the quote marks (even if not intended as scare quotes). Adding POV (from various parties) only made it worse. I stepped in as an uninvolved, experienced editor to put a stop to it. Do not un-hat that discussion. You are involved and you have less experience than I. (And by uninvolved, I refer to that particular discussion. Making my comments on the AfD page or article talk page does not matter. The effort to notify people of the AfD was poorly done.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Let me add this -- the page for the AfD is the AfD page. It should be discussed no where else. If the mere notice of an AfD engenders a discussion, as it did, it was not well done. Take another look at the Econ Project page. Immediately above our section is an exemplar notice. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

AfD results

Just a thought -- have you considered that your AfD nominations prompt editors to go and spiff up the articles? You may be getting unintended consequences, e.g., better WP coverage of people you don't have the greatest admiration for. (Or is that part of your diabolical plan? ) Well, either way, here is something of interest for you. Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Enjoy. – S. Rich (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

A more neutral, better-sourced page is very much preferable to a bad page, even if no page is (in my view) the best option. Steeletrap (talk)`

Well said. And I'm glad diabolicalness is not part of your motivation (not that I ever thought so). Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Better to say "inaccurate" than false. (Less likely to raise someone's hackles.) Actually, the blog commentor was quoting from Morgan Reynolds, which is worse. – S. Rich (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your comment on the AfD page: [3] . Again, I say well done. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments on talk pages

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. On this article talk page [4] you sought to admonish Carolmooredc about PA. Your remark was inappropriate. One: it was not one directed towards article improvement. If you are going to admonish another editor, do so on their talk page. Two: the remarks were not PA. (Her remarks were about the editing going on, not the editor.) Please keep in mind that accusing others of PA, but lacking evidence, is PA in itself. Please stop. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry rich. I just don't take these admonitions seriously. The evidence she made a PA is clear as day, and was attested to by user SPECIFICO on that page. Steeletrap (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

How you take my admonitions is up to you. If you had posted the comment to Carolmooredc's talk page that might be a different matter. But the article talk page is the wrong place to do it. I feel like I'm herding cats in this, but at the moment I feel like cracking the whip. Don't make any more such accusations! Yeh-ha!! – S. Rich (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page section headings

Please take a look at WP:TALKNEW. Section headings should be/must be neutral. The section heading you added "==Massive, unjustified deletion of immigration section==" on the Hoppe talk page has a certain tinge to it. Please revise. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's just a relaying of the facts. Maybe you can quibble with "massive", but the reversion is certainly unjustified. Steeletrap (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No. You can state your views in the text. The section heading must must must be neutral. (Also, adding new section headings, which really deal with the same topic (Hoppe on immigration) leads to poor discussion layout. Best to add replies in order. If this it is an entirely new topic, then a new section heading is appropriate. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe edit

Thanks for catching my error on the ACLU quote. It was entirely unintentional. – S. Rich (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Carolmooredc

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Carolmooredc. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please look at WP:WIAPA. In making accusations of PA, without evidence, your remark here [5] is a personal attack. – S. Rich (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your accusations are incorrect (as usual). Have a good day. Steeletrap (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, here is just a sampling of the evidence. Carol has mocked my capacities for academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LewRockwell.com&diff=prev&oldid=553662712), accused user SPECIFICO and myself of sexism (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553822485&oldid=553821981 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553843792&oldid=553842400), and claimed that I am intentionally trying to violate the rules of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=554006883.) Steeletrap (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have noted your "warning" on my talk page and responded. – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, please note that guidance at WP:No_personal_attacks#Responding_to_personal_attacks says "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? I didn't criticize you for discussing my behavior on the wrong forum, but for making a false accusation. Steeletrap (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You posted the following warning about PA on my talk page: [6] – S. Rich (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I simply don't understand what you're saying. I criticized you for making a PA. It is by definition a PA to falsely accuse someone of a personal attack, which is what you did to me. That isn't allowed on any pages. Steeletrap (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether you accuse someone of PA, whether you accuse someone of making a false accusation of PA, whether you simply criticize someone for making PA, whenever you are asserting that someone did something wrong, you are discussing behavior. The policy is clear – don't do so on article talk pages and don't do so on noticeboards (unless the subject thread is regarding the particular behavior). – S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Hoppe

You have been denounced for edit warring. Sageo (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sageo, your comment about edit warring (EW) is poorly stated. If you think EW is going on, please describe it. Be specific about what you describe. If other editors are commenting about EW, then let them do it by themselves. Do not add vague comments. Above all, WP:AGF. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sageo has reported user:SPECIFICO and me for Edit Warring. Whether we will be "denounced" is yet to be seen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SPECIFICO_and_User:Steeletrap_reported_by_User:Sageo_.28Result:_.29 Steeletrap (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not know about the EWN posting. I'll look at it and remark as necessary. Off-hand I think Sageo needs to learn more about the English WP before getting into these more contentious and tangled weeds. My comments to Sageo were directed towards obtaining more cordial cross-Atlantic WP relations. – S. Rich (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeated BLP violations on Hoppe, despite repeated warnings

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I see a whole new bunch in last 24 hours. I haven't even had a chance to address them all on the talk page. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carol. You make no specific argument here as to BLP violations. No other editors objected to my abundantly well sourced content. This, paired with your extensive history of personal attacks and false or frivolous accusations, leads me to to not take your "warning" here seriously at all. Steeletrap (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Irony Alert. You are admonishing me for supposedly violating WP rules (based, as usual, on no specific argument, making your claim (as usual) meaningless) literally minutes after you personally attacked me on the edit summary, claiming that I am letting my "POV Agenda" dictate my edits. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&action=history) Steeletrap (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your talk page discussions with User: Specifico making all sorts of defamatory allegations and speculations based on non WP:RS sources and cherry picked quotes also is against policy. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC NB comments

Steeletrap, I have never posted a RfC before and I do not think i've done it correctly in a technical sense. User:EdJohnston has provided some guidance, but I'd like to wait a bit before I have another go at fixing the notice. I thought I was posting a notice that directed editors to the article talk page for discussion. Indeed, as I understand the noticeboard, discussions about the particular topic should take place on the article talk pages. (You will see very little real discussion on the previous postings above mine.) Also, when a notice is fixed by a bot, that is where the discussions would go. In any case, you've made some comments below my notification. [7]. I think the best place for your comments is on the article talk page where we've been hashing this out. That is the place where other editors can review the previous commentary. If you would be so kind, please remove the comments you posted on the noticeboard and re-post them on the article talk page. I've added a subsection at the bottom where I hope further comments can be posted. Please be the first one to post at that location. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to do this, Rich. Should I delete my remarks altogether or cross them? Steeletrap (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

At the moment just leave them please. Let's let the dust settle. I'll research the existence of overlapping or duplicate notices. If they exist, I'll Cut & Paste the remarks. I assume Carol won't mind. I hope you won't mind either. Should I do this, the pasted remarks will have a notation to explain where they come from. Right now I'm fed up with this. – S. Rich (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see that you noticed what I did. The original RfC that I attempted does not contain your remarks and I hatted the whole thing. At least that part of the drame is over. Thanks for being patient with me. In return, I posted your comment as the opening involved editor remark. – S. Rich (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

ANEW

Steeletrap, please read the warning I gave you in closing the report filed against you at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this message. I appear to have violated policy with the 3:RR. I apologize for doing that. Please be aware however that I was not willfully breaking that rule, but was simply not as aware of it as I should have been (I am a noob who has been here 1 month). I appreciate your decision not to block, which is apparently a common response to 3:RR, based on the broader context of what's going on on the page. Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I am writing in regards to this page. Again, I'm sorry for what was an unintentional (I am a noob who has been here only 1 month) but unambiguous violation of rules, and understand why you gave me a warning. I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean when you admonish me about "reverting". When you warn me not to revert, are you warning me not to edit the Hoppe page at all? Are you specifically warning me not to "undo" the changes of other users? Or are you simply telling me not to commit another 3RR volation? Steeletrap (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Steeletrap, I moved the message you left on my talk page here to keep all of this in one place. I can understand your request for clarity as my warning was a bit vague. Your last edit to the article was about 24 hours ago. I suggest you restrict your contributions to the article talk page, as I can see you've already been doing, for three more days. After that, you can edit the article but don't get into anything that could be interpreted as a battle. And always pay attention to how many reverts you've done on any article to avoid 3RR or even edit warring (using the definition of "revert" in the policy). Is that clearer? If not, feel free to follow up here. I commend you for your apology and for your willingness to play by the rules.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I will always keep the important 3RR policy in mind moving forward. I was, in any case, planning on taking a break from editing the Hoppe page for a week or so. This warning will serve as a learning point for me as an editor. Steeletrap (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd like to teach a course on "How to be a Reasonable New Editor"? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very sweet! <3 I do try, and I look forward to improving. Steeletrap (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Steeletrap, if an editor requests that you stop posting on their talk page, you must respect that. If you have a problem with Carol's conduct, you'll need to find another forum to raise that. I'm going to revert your latest changes to her talk page, and I expect you to leave her talk page alone. I will close the discussion at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept this, bbb. Is it really harassment to criticize someone for personal attacks on their talk page? Where should I have brought this concerns to!? Please do not close down the ANI. Steeletrap (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, I echo Bbb23's advice above. Please do not continue to post to Carolmooredc's page as she has expressly and repeatedly requested that you stop. It's coming off as both harassing and disruptive at this point. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All of my comments are responses to personal attacks, or misrepresentations of my prior remarks in the context of loaded personal comments. I am given no chance to demonstrate this. I emphatically reject your advice at a moral and policy level though will be forced to accept it at a pragmatic/practical level. Steeletrap (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Were the repeated postings to CarolMooreDC's talk page bringing you any relief or helping to solve the dispute you were in in any way? If not then it's an ineffective approach and only serves to exacerbate the situation. Please read trough the dispute resolution policy page and you will see there are other venues where you can raise your concerns if your initial attempts to discuss your concerns directly with an editor go awry. This is not necessarily a criticism of your argument, only of your approach. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I agree that my approach was stupid and ineffective, and that it only served to raise the temperature. I was planning to go to ANI with a broader complaint regarding her conduct when I had the chance in a few days. I was honestly under the impression that one is supposed to raise these concerns on the talk page before doing that (I am a noob of only one month, so maybe I'm wrong about this). As a favor to me personally, I ask that you read the section in question to see why I was prompted to write those three remarks for which I was warned today. You are obviously not obliged to do this, but it would be a good mentorship opportunity for me~ (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Creating_Democracy_sub-section, starting at Carol's remark "Only your POV makes you see a mountain where there's a molehill.") Steeletrap (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol's remark that you have quoted above is by no means a personal attack. Sometimes a quick wiki-break away from people that you are engaged with can help you collect your thoughts. Mike (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)