Categories are intended to reflect article content. Please do not add categories which are not reflected in cited material in the article text, which you did to the article Robert Heinlein. If you wish to add a category to an article which is not already discussed in the article text, first you need to add cited material to the article to support the inclusion of the category, since categories themselves cannot be cited. Yworo (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will be reviewing your other additions of categories to articles. They will be removed if not supported in the text of the article itself. Yworo (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one was supported and all have been removed. You are essentially adding a claim to an article without a citation, which is a violation of our verifiability policy. In the future, please do not go on "campaigns" to add people to a category unless their inclusion in the category can be attributed to a reliable source which is cited in the article. Also, do not add such categories to articles about living people unless they themselves expressly identify as a member of the category, see WP:BLPCAT for details. Yworo (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't post stuff on my talk page. Citations go in the articles. You are the one responsible for putting the information and citations into the articles. If I don't think they are reliable, I'll take them out again, but I don't want them on my talk page. Yworo (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note of those supposed citations were valid. You may not interpret people's words or positions. They must explicitly say "I am a minarchist", or in the case of a deceased person, the source cited must explicitly say "the subject is a minarchist". Anything else is original research or simply your own personal opinion, which is not permitted. Yworo (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could have said that in a much nicer way. Abel (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, I'm not capable of that. It comes out even worse if I try, so I just do blunt. Yworo (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What habit? I was in no way uncivil or disrespectful. Just trying to be informative. I even said "please" twice, what more do you want? Perhaps actually taking the time to read our various policies would be in order before making edits that affect multiple pages? Yworo (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a matter of tone. “It might help to think about it this way ...” is very different from “I will be reviewing your other additions of categories to articles. They will be removed if not supported in the text of the article itself.” “Not a single one was supported and all have been removed. You are essentially adding a claim to an article without a citation, which is a violation of ...” Abel (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you can take the time to look up those guidelines. But how do you count yourself as a newcomer when you started editing in 2007? And started using edit summaries on your third edit, so looks like you may not have been new even then. Yworo (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Easy, I've never added a category before. The only reason I even attempted to do so is because a project page asked for people to add more categories. I won't be making the mistake of trying help ever again.
How about thinking about it this way, people like you make a lot of work for other editors by not thinking about the core policy of verifiability when messing with categories. Feel any better now? Yworo (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After this experience I can honestly say that I will never again make any attempt to help anyone with categories, and will recommend that all “people like me” do the same. Abel (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, read WP:CATEGORY, and if your eyes don't glaze over before you are finished reading it, you should be perfectly capable of adding categories correctly. For some reason, nobody ever add a category to just one article when they start. Sometimes they add inappropriate categories to two or three dozen articles before anyone notices what they are doing. And sometimes they refuse to get it and keep doing it when the problem is pointed out. When someone is adding political categories to multiple articles, it's almost always some sort of personal campaign for or against something. Where did you find that request to add categories to articles? I'd like to see what it says... Yworo (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, glad I could help! And thanks for all of your great edits on the Baldy Harper and Institute for Humane Studies pages. They are both looking a lot better than they did several months ago. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you for assessing Hans Hermann Hoppe. I tend to think low importance is somewhat inaccurate given that he was described as the leading Austrian school scholar by many libertarian intellectuals, such as Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, Murry Rothbard ext., And his contribution to Austrian economics are most probably the most influential among the currently living. see [1] and [2]--MeUser42 (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Austro-libertarianism is also not a minor current among libertarians at all, and Hoppe is the foremost intellectual in that tradition alive today... I suggest Mid-Importance.MeUser42 (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then mid it is. Thank you for convincing me. Abel (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Say, I reverted the version of the chart you supplied. And started a talk page section on whether it should be used. I look forward to reading your comments. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replied, but since you are the only other person to touch the article this month, figure it is safe to say that not many will care. Would be surprised if anyone other than you and I bother to respond. --Abel (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Abel. Besides adding a reply to your comment, I'm also going to post something on the Libertarianism Project to see if interest is aroused.--S. Rich (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to User:Id4abel/draft. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. 70.248.186.239 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the contents of my own sandbox page under an IP address rather than my own username because I usually use my laptop but had used a desktop earlier that day and didn't realize that I had not relogged in on my laptop.--96.241.146.236 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Please be sure to explain that in your edit summary so editors will be aware of that (re-login immediately and note that in the edit summary, or, perhaps, simply re-login). It appeared as if you were a possible vandal at the time, and that's why I reverted and asked for explanation. Now I understand that you were editing from an alternative username. If you object to having revealed your IP address, you can request removal of it from the public archives by either an administrator or an oversighter. (IP address now changed) 69.155.143.207 (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC), last modified 19:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, I didn't even realize that anyone paid any attention to userpages as I just use mine as a toolbox. Sorry about all this. Was completely a blunder on my part by editing without checking to be sure that I was logged in after editing from another computer that I don't normally use. --Abel (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI -- Certain material is not allowed on non-article pages. (See: WP:UPNO.) Not that you have a big problem in this case, but I've added a userdraft template. This will keep your draft from being indexed by Google etc. We do not want drafts that look like actual WP articles. Cheers. – S. Rich (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! I was testing citation bundling over and over again and still can't get the code to work right for ref tags, but can for sfnm, and forgot to wipe it like I normally do. I am about a third or fourth of the way though a script for converting ref to sfn with grep and sed, but this might take a while. Thanks again. Abel (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the 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 without further notice.Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You argued that the lead was written too much like an advertisement. I rewrote the lead to be less advertisement-like. You repeatedly insisted that a better source was required for a magazine article because of a misunderstanding of the verifiability policy. You rightly insisted that an external links should not be a part of an article. You repeatedly added inappropriate tags. You insisted that the phrase free enterprise be allowed to redirect to capitalism, even after I explained that this would misrepresent the views of the organization more than once. After checking the source you did eventually change it to free market. You insisted on using the word substantial arguing that it neutralized the wording regardless of my arguments about how substantial would mean different things to different people. More than once. Until another editor agreed that substantial was an inappropriate choice. After gaining a better understanding of the external link policy, I removed all the external links from the article, you had previously only removed one external link when you simultaneously added numerous inappropriate tags. I added to the lead to conform with the lead policy, which is again no longer in compliance. I fail to see how all that constitutes an edit war. You made changes and claims. I addressed those changes and claims. You would either agree or disagree, as you had every right to. I would then address your agreement or disagreement. Eventually, we would settle on something everyone could live with. As far as I can tell, this is exactly how it is supposed to work. --Abel (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abel, I suggest you simply delete this whole section in accordance with WP:OWNTALK. The warning was not well considered from the outset. At WP we are each pushing on a WP:POLE, so minor disagreements occur. Somedifferentstuff made his/her point with the message, but it does you little good to spend more energy on it. Happy editing is always an important goal too. --S. Rich (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that I am allowed to delete, but archiving is preferred. I do tend to prefer the least censorship road, even when censorship might cast a better light on me. My summary of the events is easily verifiable by checking the article history, which it seems like you have done. I honestly did not expect a response. Mostly I just thought it appropriate to explain my point of view, as I did on the talk page, to allow other editors to decide for themselves whatever they might think of the situation. I am not at all upset about the warning. Somedifferentstuff has every right to claim that I was participating in an edit war, conveniently, I have every right to think that such a claim is not realistic. --Abel (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abel -- take a look at WP:Layout#External_links. You'll note the example has 2 links one on top of the other, with short explanations. If there were more, say two sets of ELs with similar characteristics, they might go into separate columns. In a short list such as Students for Liberty, the listing renders better when they are closer together. Happy editing! --S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The amateur designer in me thinks it is too much white space, but there seems to be a tradition so I will leave it alone. Thanks for putting it back. --Abel (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This ^ is too much whitespace! (Feel free to revert IAW WP:OWNTALK.)--S. Rich (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. :) --Abel (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abel, you've put in so much effort into FEE, I don't want your effort to go to waste or for you to get discouraged. But the article does not meet GA standards. As one of the commentators said back in July, the footnotes don't support the material. I've tried to fix some of it, and I've deleted other footnotes. I'll explain some more -- in one example, the Ebeling footnotes said he was President of FEE and the other footnote said he was a former President, but the article sentence is about how long he served. I don't know if you were intending to do this, but if you were to take one source from one year, which mentions him a president, and look at another source from another year, which also mentions him as president, you might know he was president at those two particular times. But it is going so far to say he was president from year X to year Y. That is improper synthesis. So, Abel, rather than have the article be turned down as a GA, I recommend that you remove the {GA nominee} template. That will take it out of the GA review process. You can fix these problems and resubmit. (Yes, I know it's frustrating. I'd been working on Carl Eytel for months and thought I had a GA. I submitted, but a more experienced editor came along and pointed out some problems. I withdrew my submission. Once I get some more pertinent images for the article, I'll resubmit. Perhaps, even, I'll get a WP:FA out of it.) Happy editing!--S. Rich (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The current article is decent (especially compared to what it used to be), but not yet good. The good article review process would bring out all the less noticable issues so they can be fixed. I went though the sources the other night with a fine comb, then couldn't save and wasn't paying attention and lost the changes. Will just have to do that again. Not frustrating at all. I want to know where all the hidden problem are so they can be corrected. Isn't that the whole point of the good article review? When an article gets close to good, someone scraps that article to the bone rather than just the random "this article is crap" messages that pop up from time to time. Then the article can go from decent to actually good because every little thing gets attention, not just the obvious stuff. --Abel (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, I didn't know that you could do the "Such scholars and their major works include:" thing until now, very nice. --Abel (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing something on the Bell Interview, "He also served as the president of the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, NY (2003-2008), " seems pretty clear that Ebeling was president of FEE from 2003 to 2008.--Abel (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No link is provided for the Daily Bell interview. Thus it is not a very useful source. Remember that verification is very important. It allows editors to check on and correct each other's work.
Sorry, that is easily fixed, must not have copy pasted into prove it correctly. --Abel (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same applies to the other reference which could use an url. Mark Skousen is an example. You've mentioned him and wikilinked him WRT Huebert. Look there and you'll find links for the materials you've provided in FFE. Not to be patronizing, but the best way to improve the article will be a self-critical review.
I think my problem is that I don't know enough to be appropriately critical. --Abel (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP is a multi-multi-million piece jig-saw puzzle -- at present the pieces you are jiggling don't fit. But I applaud your eagerness to make them fit!--S. Rich (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for criticism, just about everything useful that I have learned about editing Wikipedia has come that way. Either I read the tutorials wrong somehow, or they just don't cover the unwritten rules of what people expect. --Abel (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abel, you otta let BMK do his edits. He's got a lot of experience! If you plan on working the article for an extended period of time add a {{Inuse}} banner to the top of the article to (hopefully) prevent edit conflicts.--S. Rich (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't even realize he was doing anything with it until I got the edit conflict. Also didn't realize adding the Freeman cover would make everything look weird (although it was good in that I found and uploaded a better quality version of the same image). Thought that it would only take a few seconds to fix, shows what I know. Thanks for the {{Inuse}} banner, will definitely put that to good use.--Abel (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:COI for Wikipedia's rules about editing with a conflict of interest. To preserve the neutral point of view required, editors with a connection to the subject matter of articles are encouraged to reveal these connections on the article's talk page. and, in extreme cases, to avoid editing the article directly, instead making suggestions on the talk page to be instituted by other, neutral, editors.
Since I do not remotely come close to meeting any of the criteria in that article, I do what? --Abel (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You answer my question: what is your connection, if any, to the Foundation for Economic Education? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Since I do not remotely come close to meeting any of the criteria in that article"--Abel (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You answer my question: what is your connection, if any, to the Foundation for Economic Education? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to "your comments on this page are no longer welcome, so please do not post here again. Any further participation from you here will be deleted without being read." I would start at the beginning. After asking a question about policy, not getting an answer, someone else noted that there is no such policy. That did not stop a user from insisting that there is such a policy. To justify that nonsense, I get accused of having a conflict of interest. After repeated explaining that I do not have a conflict of interest, I am told that since I answered in a format following Wikipedia policy and not in an essay about my life to some stranger, I must actually have a conflict of interest. Now I understand. Wikipedia policy is whatever the most aggressive person says it is and any discussion, including citations of policy, will be ignored and justified by attacking the character of volunteers. What a great way to run a volunteer organization! --Abel (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abel, you need to clarify your comment on the FFE talk page. By putting in a new section heading, it looks like it is a new topic. Very confusing.--S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a new topic. Due to the common obsession many editors seem to share of wanting only one or two citations for every claim, someone decided to wholesale remove a ton of citations, all of which were valid, but would require some work to sort out the exact page numbers because using cite references forced me to keep adding page numbers to the one big citation rather than repeat the citation and change the page number for each different claim. This is why I went through the massive workload of converting the whole thing to sfn code, which just became pointless because of the massive deleting of citations. The deleting just happened yesterday. --Abel (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you said "you" it was unclear to me, the uninformed reader. I see you are referring to North800 and the edits s/he performed. Not a big deal, but you might address North in particular or give a link that describes the diffs.--S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was trying to avoid pointing a blame filled finger while calling attention to the problem with what was surely meant to be helpful. Abel (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Abel, I tried to post a little GA icon on your userpage. You can find them on other pages, usually up in the right hand corner. In my effort, it appeared, but not as high up as normal, which detracted from the overall layout you had achieved. So I reverted my effort, Well, you've got the basic icon in the editing history. I encourage you to post it. I apologize for any disruption on your page. – S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you. Did not know that there was such a thing. Cannot find the icon in the history. Not surprised the my user page went all wonky. I use it like a toolbox and everything is pilled on top of each other. --Abel (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. I don't think you'll leave the addition uncorrected, but the preview button will help you catch these errors. – S. Rich (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Always use the preview button. Some error messages do not appear in preview. Abel (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this edit - he wants to know where you want the text
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Replied with the code in English that needs translating rather than the link in the original post. --Abel (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I figured you'd do so, but I was being lazy. (Did a 10k mud run today. Tired.) Thanks for understanding. – S. Rich (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Another editor had a sloppy citation following a valid claim found in the second half of a sentence. The first half of that sentence was complete bullshit not at all supported in any way by the sloppy citation. Broke it up and added citation needed tags to the nonsense. Also corrected the sloppy citation to a real one. Put the title back and put my argument for what I would call a better title on the talk page. Should have made the title change separate, but I was being lazy and did it all together. :) --Abel (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Hans-Hermann Hoppe, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Hello Abel. Here is a template message about your recent edit on HHH. – S. Rich (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sneaky vandalism … Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including … reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages."--Abel (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We really can't say it was a WP:SNEAKY edit. 1. It was the only edit made by the IP. 2. Edit summary explained rationale. IOW, the IP may not like including the name -- but that does not create a vandalism problem. Better to WP:AGF and not label such edits as vandalism. When you can clearly say it was a sneaky effort, then say so (and be prepared to explain why). But this hardly meets the criteria -- by a long shot. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Here is an incremental service award for you: The Apprentice lv 4, Awarded for being a Registered Editor for 5 months 8 days and completion of 1,750 edits. Get yourself up to 2,000 edits so I can bestow the Grognard award! – S. Rich (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Better to have overwhelming evidence for vandalism and in the mean time just assume good faith even when it was obviously not made in good faith since the rationale makes no sense whatsoever given the edit. Thank you for correcting me.--Abel (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping a WP:3O in mind, I'd thought I'd add a note here IOT keep this part/suggestion out of the 3O review. I'm thinking about doing "authorlink"s on the various references. That would increase exposure to the various authors and give Reed another link. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who would care but if you think it would be helpful. I think we just started from different points of view and are now seeing more of each other's perspective as we debate various points and so are reaching a consensus. Which is, I think, exactly how this process is supposed to work. --Abel (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She is WP:NOTHERE. I would revert her latest edits to tax, but it might trigger a 3RR. Still, I have posted a WP:AIV here: [3]. – S. Rich (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Thought I would try a kind word. Either it will help, or provide more evidence. Figure that either way, worth the effort.--Abel (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was instantly deleted with no reason given. I'm going with "more evidence" was the outcome in this case. --Abel (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. While she can delete IAW WP:OWNTALK, scrubbing the talkpage only adds to the "evidence". She now has another warning, who is again showing patience. But I doubt she'll appreciate the fact that multiple editors are commenting on her behavior. We will see. – S. Rich (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Austrian School 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. Entirely unwarranted. Not helpful in the least. Disappointing. – S. Rich (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unwarranted? This editor is on a crusade to utterly destroy the usefulness of numerous articles to further some personal vendetta. Not helpful? It is long past time for someone to say how inappropriate this personal campaign of destruction is. Disappointing? Maybe. Had I spent more time on it, I might have been more witty or clever. With far more time I could hurt down every sneaky destructive edit and fix them. This editor clearly has the time to revert those fixes and will do so in an incredibly intelligent manner that superficially appears to follow policy, yet violates both policy and the entire idea behind Wikipedia. At most you could call my comment baiting, but even that is debatable. Abel (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Abel, unwarranted. It was completely against the pillar that we WP:AGF. If you can't AGF, then keep such observations to yourself. I was completely surprised that you had posted the comments on the article talk page because they are completely unrelated to article improvement. Please don't repeat such an egregious violation of the guidelines. – S. Rich (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a good look at that editors actions. After doing so, you will not need to assume anything. You will have a mountain of evidence indicating what is really going on. I give the editor enormous credit for being very smart and playing the system well. That does not excuse the behavior. You are free to condone that behavior, it is your right. Abel (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at my comment again and none of it is in any way a personal attack. Okay, maybe a personal attack on a fictional terrible professor. The civil policy is pretty clear about not attacking actual people, it does not prevent attacks on fictional people. Abel (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Austrian School. Thank you. Just leave your personal speculations as to motives or past history out of article talk page commentary. They are unfounded, insidious, and contrary to WP policy. Now I am extremely disappointed. – S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the quite detailed report, I have a very hard time swallowing
the "assume good faith" admonishment in this particular case. Abel (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Apparently what I consider patently obvious is not so clear to everyone. I will grant you, this editor has gone to great lengths to conceal the damage to the project. The speculations show how people have figured out what the editor is doing without personally attacking the editor as a person. It provides a chance for the editor to sincerely look at their own reasons for launching their campaign of destruction and to consider the value of the campaign, now knowing that it no longer lives in secret. Abel (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Clear evidence"? Well, you say the evidence is concealed, so it is not clear. "To the project"? The project is Wikipedia, in general; this means that particular edits which you don't like on particular articles do not necessarily impact the project adversely. "Assume"? This means that you approach with a mind-set that other editors are trying to help the project just as you are. And you continue to so assume even when you see stuff that you don't like. So, with these three clarifications your statement fails. Your understanding, speculations, insights, opinions, whatever about any particular editor do not help with article improvement of particular articles. WP:TPYES has the guidance (and I should have posted it above) that says focus on article content, not on editor conduct. Even if your comments about SPECIFICO were not a PA because they were set up as describing a fictional professor, they are not appropriate for the article talk page. But they were personal remarks and they were critical and they imply all kinds of nonsense and they were not polite and respectful. – S. Rich (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Id4abel: FYI, frustration and anger over Specifico's editing (which led to their foolishly edit warring) already got long time editor User:Xerographica indef'd and User:Byelf2007 topic banned from economics. I think User:Srich's constant nagging and nitpicking, while well-intended, may have added to the aggravation.
It is best to remove the negative comments if they haven't been replied to or strike them if they have. Just start your own log of the user's most obvious problematic edits and bring them to the proper forum with low key comments. I've done it a couple times with limited demands and was satisfied that at least he was chastised to some extent and my complaints shown to be relevant. There are indications his bad habits are increasingly of concern to well-respected admins. The more editors who make good cases against him in a level headed manner at the appropriate noticeboard, depending on the issue, the more likely he'll get the firm mentoring he deserves. So breath deep and try to keep your temper - and do the best edits you can do as well. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then thank you both for the admonishment. Wikipedia apparently has a specific system for dealing with the actions taken by SPECIFICO and that system must be followed. Seems like the system has terrible incentives because it is much easier for an editor dedicated to making the article push one point of view rather than easier for the collaborative effort that Wikipiedia is supposed to encourage. Given that the system has evolved over years, that isn't likely to change anytime soon, so follow that system I shall. Abel (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be frustrating, but I've found the most contentious editors eventually tick off enough people that the problem is dealt with. So best to keep in mind the most problematic articles/edits in line and deal with them later. I have a "later" list myself for such articles. Sometimes it takes a couple months or even years before you can clean an article up. Sigh... CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 23:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you have !voted twice on this RfC[4]. Please remember that you can only leave a top level !vote only once for each RfC, leaving more than one !vote is misleading. Please remove one of your !votes, or consolidate them, thanks. FurrySings (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The first comment was supposed to be marked as a Comment and not Change but in copying and pasting to keep the same format I forgot to make the change. Now the first one says Comment and the second is the Change vote. --Abel (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FEE recently got tagged with a laundry list hatnote regarding problems. I have reverted as it went through GA not long ago. But please do look at the history regarding the problems and address as you desire. (I am not saying that any of the problems listed are valid or invalid, only that attention needs to be paid to the issues.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Recommendation for edit summaries: Instead of saying "Add direct quote of source and removed completely erroneous use of not in citation given added by SPECIFICO", just say "add source quote". Please don't personalize these changes. Remember, WP:FOC. – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that makes life harder for the people who will have to verify the details of the complaint that we all know is coming. Abel (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abel, three days ago I posted a message about civility. Please review this policy. Comments like "your impeccable memory", overblown talk page headings and edit summaries are inappropriate. Please stop. – S. Rich (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the word impeccable. The headings and edit summaries are for the poor people who will have to sort though all this once the inevitable complaint happens. Abel (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole phrase was inappropriate. Simply say "Please provide the source." Adapt/follow WP:COOL. – S. Rich (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is an option, yet that option fails to point out the ridiculousness of an editor deleting a claim with a valid cited source and attempting to defend the delete with no source whatsoever. Abel (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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.
You have made 3 reversion of various edits on the article page. Please see the warning in the template above.
Also, as I stated on the talk page, it was not I who tagged the Atlanta office citation. Please strike your talk page mention of me.
Also, the tags which I placed referred to the article in its entirety not to the first sentence. Srich has copied the tagged issues to the talk page. I hope you will consider the issues they raise. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk 16:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The message above is not well founded. The policy is about three reverts in a back-and-forth war. Not three edits. I have posted a message on SPECIFICO's talk page. I'd like for him to remove this message. If he does not, Abel, you should feel free to remove it yourself IAW WP:OWNTALK. – S. Rich (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Each and every one of those recent revisions that you mentioned were first posted to the talk page before any other action was taken. Each and every of the erroneous edits has now been corrected with ample citation, unlike the erroneous edits that had zero support. You have every right to make accusations like this. Thankfully, other editors have every right to think them ridiculous, which it looks like has already happened as someone beat me to replying. I do find it more that a little entertaining that people who attempt to push their views with dishonest edits are often the first to accuse others of edit warring, but you have every right to keep digging your own grave with continued nonsense. Abel (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Abel, you are not helping yourself or the project with edits like this: [5]. Again, again, please, please stop. – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the quite detailed report, I have a very hard time swallowing
the "assume good faith" admonishment in this particular case. Abel (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have convinced me to change my mind before and I'm sure you will do so again, but at the moment I disagree. There was nothing uncivil or lacking in good faith assuming. "Each and every one of those recent revisions that you mentioned were first posted to the talk page before any other action was taken." That is easily verifiable fact. "Each and every of the erroneous edits has now been corrected with ample citation, unlike the erroneous edits that had zero support." More easily verifiable fact. "You have every right to make accusations like this." More easily verifiable fact. "Thankfully, other editors have every right to think them ridiculous, which it looks like has already happened as someone beat me to replying." Yet more easily verifiable fact. "I do find it more that a little entertaining that people who attempt to push their views with dishonest edits are often the first to accuse others of edit warring, but you have every right to keep digging your own grave with continued nonsense." Having experienced several utterly ridiculous edit warring accusations I absolutely find the accusations amusing. It is a cheap shot that I find funny. Editors absolutely have every right to continue nonsense, which is just even more easily verifiable fact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Id4abel (talk • contribs)
The 3RR is about reverts, whether of the same or different content. In fact a volley is the degenerate case in which two parties are each warring. At any rate, the mention of your concern on the talk page is intended to be the start of discussion, and should not immediately be followed by a revert. Please AGF and review the text and my edit summaries. Also please note that the Atlanta office tag was placed by Srich, presumably for good cause. Of course user Abel is free to remove the EW warning from his talk page but the warning has been given. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk 17:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article history at 23:24 on 23 June 2013 SPECIFICO deleted the paragraph "The initial headquarters of FEE filled two rooms at 737 Seventh Avenue on the 30th floor of the Equitable Building in Manhattan.[1]" with an edit description reading "What is a base." Given that the text "FEE provided a base" was a part of the Significance subsection of the History section and not a part of the Location subsection, not only did SPECIFCO (not S. Rich as SPECIFCO stated) perform the edit, the edit was performed with a dishonest edit summary. Abel (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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 FEE. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. If you would like me to elucidate a particular edit summary, you need only ask. However you must remain civil and assume good faith among editors here. It is possible that I left a summary remark on the incorrect edit, just as each of us make make errors or omissions here. However my summaries are honest and are intended to help explain my reasons for the edits. Please stop making personal accusations of malicious or destructive intent. thank you. SPECIFICOtalk 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)SPECIFICOtalk 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the quite detailed report, I have a very hard time swallowing
the "assume good faith" admonishment in this particular case. Abel (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I supposed that could be true. It would require a very high level of incompetence to accidentally conceal edits within edits and use reasonable sounding edit descriptions to hide the edit actions taken, but I suppose that it could be possible. Seems ludicrously unlikely for someone of your obvious intelligence, but sure, that scenario is theoretically possible. Abel (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you some personal advice, delete it if you wish. Neither of us knows the other. If you insult and attack other editors, they are not likely to cooperate with you and you will be worse off. There are various policies here which are based on the community's experience with collaboration among strangers. You'll be better off if you study them and reap the benefit of a dozen years history with this project. When your work is revised by other editors there's more often than not a good reason for it. Now, please stop with all the personal remarks, the anger, the shouting, etc etc. Cheers. SPECIFICOtalk 22:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you got an insult out of "someone of your obvious intelligence" but after that compliment, yeah, you are right in that all the policy in the world probably isn't going to help. Considering there has not been a single instance of either anger or shouting (from what I've seen not by anyone, granted I can't read there minds so it might exist but I can't see it), I have no idea what you are referring to on that account. Maybe you were thinking of some other discussion you were a part of?Abel (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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.
My edit summary there is self-explanatory. Citations must directly and explicitly support the statement in the article text. Use talk to present and discuss your concerns. If you continue to edit war you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SPECIFICOtalk 14:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the invalid tag of Failed verification when I added a direct quote to make the citation abundantly obvious even to the most casual observer and yet SPECIFICO immediately reverted my edit without ever looking at the exact quote added to the citation (now you don't even have to look it up since it is right there in the citation itself). So I undid that nonsense so I could corroborate the citation with yet another citation that says exactly the same thing. This is the second bogus edit war warning from SPECIFICO, even after SPECIFICO was warned to stop abusing the edit war warning. --Abel (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The concern raised about campaigning is one of votestacking. As it is an editor behavior issues, goethean should have raised it here, on your talkpage, because such notices tend to detract from the topic at hand. Yes, you were almost fairly neutral in your notification, but Carolmooredc's notice (above) is in a better form. My advice -- don't respond any further on the ANI as to the campaigning issue. – S. Rich (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I will follow Carol's standard format from now on. Abel (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you revert the posting about archiving the talk page. As I recall, the archiving bot was installed by another editor, not specifico. In any event, archiving a talk page is IAW WP:OWNTALK – and is not dubious behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyday? Why would a talk page need archiving everyday? Abel (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bot runs constantly. It picks up these day-by-day archivings because the day-by-day postings are hitting the 31 day mark. Specifico himself is not archiving anything. The bot does it automatically. – S. Rich (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I see your point. This does mean that the talk page, that is filled to the brim with complaints, is collecting complaints at a rate of at least one per day. That says something. Deleted my comment anyway, but still curious. Abel (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something I admire about you, Abel, is your willingness (and eagerness) to learn, to admit mistakes, and most of all, to contribute! – S. Rich (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you. I would like to think that I am a reasonable guy. I don't instantly change my mind. I need some sort of reason or logic, but most any argument with something behind it will sway me. Abel (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thank you for your comment on my talk page. I take it someone eventually complained about SPECIFICO? I had once too, he is two-faced in his dealings and extremely biased in his interpretation of official Wikipedia policies. I personally, had opened a complaint regarding the editing of the article Adam Kokesh but which i couldn't follow through due to becoming busy. Now, it seems others have also come across the same tendency of the user. Can you please give me a breakdown of what transpired, i mean what the admins deduced of the situation? Because SPECIFICO is still around, and he's the main reason i stopped editing some of the articles such as Adam Kokesh, even though i added many cited content to it (while he didn't seem to be even familiar with the subject; i.e., not a viewer of Adam Kokesh's show). DA1 (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the The ANI here - read it through! is elucidating a number of comments on his problematic behavior and suggestions for dealing with. Because he's been lying low, and it is 4th of July vacation week in US, this may not be dealt with as we might prefer. However, as I say in last posting there, this is the best ANI done on him so far so he better pay attention. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one has decided anything yet. You can read the discussion and add to it if you so wish. Abel (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what I was supposed to learn. "Centuries and millennia not in quotes or titles should be either spelled out (eighth century) or in Arabic numeral(s) (8th century)." Both are equally valid so "it looks better" is purely a personal preference, neither is wrong. Abel (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd send an email but didn't see an email link. I myself for a couple weeks thought your were a female with the name "IDABEL". Somehow the number "4" can get read out of the user name. After a while I realized that "ABEL" might be your name and you meant ID 4 ABEL. Thus I felt comfortable saying he, if I ever did so. So that might be others' reason for the confusion. Don't know for sure. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is ironic in that there is no feminine version of Abel. The name Abel is masculine everywhere. Of course you used to be able to say that about James, but not anymore so this condition may not last. I think the most likely scenario is that SPECIFICO's constant "they versus me" thinking caused him to get sloppy with more than his logic and mixed us into one person. Granted, that would make me more attractive and you slightly stronger, but still sloppy regardless. Abel (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
::I've never seen either one of you but I'm pretty sure carolmooredc could whip your ass in the ring. Sexist comments, male stronger, e.g., are not favored on WP. Thanks.SPECIFICOtalk 22:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I met Carol in DC I was like at least 50 lbs heavier. I am confident that today I am still considerably larger and stronger, and that she is still more attractive. But you keep clinging to that sexist nonsense. Abel (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know we met. You must have a younger, better memory than me too.
Also, I do feel User:Specifico is still harassing us and added that to the ANI. If you don't feel harassed, feel free to correct me! If you do not want him/her posting here except official notices just ask SPECIFICO to stop. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 23:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very memorable, it was only a few times, and I do have a really good memory for such things. I completely agreed about the harassing, I find it sad and oddly funny. Abel (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary of "humor that fell flat" to describe the striking of a comment that called me a sexist is such a laughably pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility for an insult lobbed at me that I'm not sure if I should laugh at the inept attempt at spin or cry for the education system that produced this kind of thinking. Abel (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Please undo the intersitial placement of your recent comments on ANI. It is very confusing to editors and separates my comments from their time stamp. Please post them at the end of the thread as others have done. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk 22:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proper way to do it would be to put a couple indents (:) beyond the last indent and write [Insert: text] since it is directly after the point you are responding to. Less editorial comment probably helpful too :-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 22:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Carol, will add [Insert: text] to my toolbox of wikimarkup knowledge. Did enjoy the irony of someone who routinely posts comments that look nothing like any other post is demanding that I follow everyone else more closely. Abel (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Male Wikipedians might help if posted at the bottom of your userpage. Me, I think I'll add {{User:Technical 13/Userboxes/AgeGender|99|male}} to my page. – S. Rich (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but how many people would even bother to check there? Abel (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is how bundling is supposed to be done. The list of references now contains several "notes" containing only references to other references. That seems very odd. - dcljr (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odd as it may seem, that is exactly how bundling citations works, please see WP:BUNDLING. Abel (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that page. Their references don't look anything like the ones you left at R (programming language). You should do it in such a way that the actual citations are listed collectively under a single footnote number: something like this. This doesn't seem to work very well for named references, so if such refs are going to be bundled (and only a few places really need it, not every instance of 2 or more refs in a row), we may need to change the citation style to accomodate that. - dcljr (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC) [See also the linked examples under Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Citation merging. - dcljr (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)][reply]
If you find bulleted lists more ascetically pleasing, then by all means bullet away. Abel (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about aesthetics. You're trying to justify your changes using WP:BUNDLING when your edits don't actually adhere to the guidelines set forth there. While I could follow up your edits with changes of my own, I'd rather you change the way you're bundling refs. Surely you see the difference between what you're doing and what is being suggested at WP:BUNDLING…? - dcljr (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution that I have seen is shortened footnotes. {{sfnm}} supports the inclusion of multiple sources in a single footnote. This style allows multiple authors and exact page numbers all rolled into one superscripted number. That same source can be reused, yet with different page numbers, which is impossible with <ref name=> coding. The problem is that all the citations would need to be converted to the shortened footnote format, which is uncommon and would confuse most editors. So yes, there is a better solution than using {{refn | to bundle citations, however since that solution looks like {{sfnm | 1a1=Phillips-Fein | 1y=2009 | 1p=115 | 2a1=Hamowy | 2y=2008 | 2p=217 | 3a1=Perelman | 3y=2007 | 3p=64 | 4a1=Schneider | 4y=2009 | 4p=47 | 5a1=Mirowski | 5a2=Plehwe | 5y=2009 | 5p=285 | 6a1=Olson | 6y=2009 | 7a1=Lichtman | 7y=2008 | 7p=160 | quote5="… going so far as to help Mises publish his Magnum Opus Human Action …"}} , that solution also has baggage.
If all bundling solutions have problems why even use it? That is because I have witnessed editors wholesale delete perfectly valid citations because they do not like the look of multiple citations next to each other. They make perfectly valid claims like how the unbundled citations reduce readability, which is true. Clearly people wanting clean looking text with "low clutter" have valid policy claims and people wanting multiple sources included for verifiability also have valid policy claims. If everyone used shortened footnotes this would not be a problem, however, everyone does not use shortened footnotes so I tend to use {{refn | to bundle citations as the <ref name=> coding stays the same. If there was a way to achieve what shortened footnotes can accomplish, while still using the <ref name=> coding I would love to hear about it. Abel (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "insisting" that bundled refs be bulleted, necessarily (although that is a logical way of doing it), just that they show all the citations in a single footnote, as illustrated in the guidelines. Anyway, someone else may drop by here to comment on this, as I have been carping about this at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Bundling Considered Harmful. - dcljr (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you interested in Fairfax County topics in general, perchance? Because if so I can think of a couple that would benefit from some expansion, and I've been planning on looking into them myself at some point. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can help. Abel (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate thing to do, if a nominator disagrees with you, is to request a second opinion, not fail the nomination. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You specifically asked for another reviewer. Abel (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I didn't withdraw the nomination and I certainly didn't want to wait another six months for a review, especially because I have about 50 articles I'm waiting to nominate. So, if you could follow the proper procedure, it would be appreciated. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"quite frankly it is the dumbest case I've ever seen"[edit]
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change references from unbiased sources to sources biased in favor of your POV. Also, when making rference changes, please make sure to check the result of your changes, to see if you actually fucked up the refs instead of "fixing" them. As a proponent of the FEE with a clear COI, you should not be editing anything involving the foundation, and if you continue to do so, the issue will be brought to the conflict of interest noticeboard. BMK (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Had you bothered to look at the changes rather than make wild assumptions, you would have seen that the changes corrected the references, as in resolved error messages, and changed absolutely nothing. The references are exactly the same, now they just lack errors. Abel (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big thing but... what you can do is "sign" it with "copied from", then show the link to the diff for the add of the material you're copying. The diff won't go stale even if the material is later removed from the source page (e.g. archiving). I would include the original writer's signature and then "copied from" with my own. As I said, not a big thing, but as it is it may now look as if I'm ignoring replies to what "I" wrote. Jeh (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to an example of what that might look like? Abel (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could look like this...
the above was originally written by jeh here. Copied by (type four tildes here)
Thank you. I added that to the talk page and will use that from now on for other such circumstances. Thanks again for the policy references. Abel (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, thank you. As I said, no BIG thing , but just keeps the attributions tidy. Jeh (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments at my talk page. Please ignore non-constructive comments on talk pages. If there is disruptive editing of the article, you can report it to WP:AE (or to WP:ANI, but WP:AE is likely to be faster.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You posted to my talk page. In researching the matter, it appears that you are asking me for advice because I commented in December on a failed effort at moderated dispute resolution. It appears that there is slow-motion edit-warring. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If the unregistered editor continues to be non-constructive, you may request semi-protection. Read WP:ARBAP2 and you may give the other editor the proper notice about discretionary sanctions. That is my advice for now. I don't have anything more to say at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will do exactly that. Yes, you commented on that moderated dispute resolution, but also your talk page gave me the impression that you had dealt with actions like this before. Again, thank you so much for the experienced advice. Abel (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not agreeing with an anonymous opinion is somehow a personal attack[edit]
Do not make personal attacks on the other editors at every talk page you participate. Also do not break any Conflict rules. Thank you.107.107.62.73 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are "Conflict rules?" Abel (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Protection of Foundation for Economic Education[edit]
I have watchlisted, and we shall see how many attempts at reverts are done; pending changes is helpful in evaluationg things like this. As to what happens later...we'll see if we get there. You may ping me, but I am usually around Requests for page protection, so either will work. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the edit-warring is slow, with a spike in the last days..sometimes the article goes days and weeks without edits at all. Lectonar (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, then yes, in that sense it would be slow burning kind of thing. Was thinking about how there tends to be a flurry of nonsense edits all at once from multiple IP addresses. It makes me wonder if someone is play acting at not knowing the rules when they are really playing the rules like a flute to skirt around sanctions or something. Otherwise the downright silly nature of the disruptive edits just seem to defy logic ("because quite frankly it is the dumbest case I've ever seen"), beyond a determined effort to somehow slip in disparaging comments. You seem to have had experience with this kind of behavior so I will happily defer to your approach. Abel (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is upsetting to see you still attacking and calling names. Please stop, this. 166.172.60.169 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, your calling everything a personal attack is beyond juvenile, it has become downright embarrassing to witness. You are absolutely free to continue that behavior. You are not free to continue to abuse policy warnings that you repeatedly violate. You should be aware that the victim olympics you are attempting to win is not going to get you what you think it will. Abel (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sully Historic Site you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article Sully Historic Site you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sully Historic Site for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About the university seal of George Mason University[edit]
Yes the seal is subject to internal institutional restrictions, including a prohibition on use without permission from the administration or public relations department but these restrictions are not binding on anyone outside of the university. The seal qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Please don't revert again. --RaphaelQS (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A one paragraph article on a scout troop finishing a trek at Lenkoksin doesn't equal a source for anything within the article. Marauder40 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A short article about a scout troop trek at a specific place to support the claim that scouts trek at that specific place. Abel (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doesn't support what you are trying to reference and the article itself doesn't meet notability.Marauder40 (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As many people do, you are confusing notability for an article with notability of something added to an article. "... notability guidelines here: 'Notability' is a requirement for article topics, not for content within articles." Originally posted by Jeh. Copied here for reference by Abel (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be much more comfortable if you'd leave me out of this. i.e. quote the relevant P&G, not my interpretation of it. Thank you for your understanding. Jeh (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted your inclusion of Alpha Phi Omega, I don't see that Alpha Phi Omega has done anything in regards to LGBT on a national level that isn't equally true of many other organizations.Naraht (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By that definition either all fraternities and sororities are LGBT-friendly or none of them are. Abel (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, feel free to propose changing the name of the article on the talk page or otherwise attempt to clarify the concept of who is friendly and who isn't. (And I'm an alumnus of Alpha Phi Omega for whom one of my big brothers was secretary of the on campus Gay and Lesbian Association (This was in the 1980s, so the B&T weren't common yet)). So COI for me, I guess...Naraht (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no definition on the page only "They are intended to provide members with access to Greek life without fear of homophobic reprisal or behavior by fellow members, resulting from a history of intrafraternal homophobia by longer-established organizations. This is not an exhaustive list and only includes organizations with a current Wikipedia page." Abel (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition of Alpha Phi Omega is unreferenced, either that Alpha Phi Omega fulfills that *or* that it is any better than any other (for example) community service GLO such as Gamma Sigma Sigma or Omega Phi Alpha. May I ask why you have included Alpha Phi Omega other than any other specific co-ed GLO?Naraht (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blundered across the list and noticed that Alpha Phi Omega was not listed, yet is a very friendly organization. While you seem to have some vague standard about what makes an organization "friendly" the page in question has no such guidance. Maybe it should, or should stop using the word friendly. Abel (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not contesting personally that it is friendly, however that is entirely your and mine experiences and completely unsuitable for references on Wikipedia. That is *why* I suggested changing the name of the article in my response that started "Granted". In that regard it is perhaps similar to a wikipedia page which included cities which registered Same-sex Unions during a time when that was uncommon, now it is only useful in a referenced historical sense including only those that were among the first.Naraht (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, point me to something that defines "friendly." Abel (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a joke, but maybe supports my theory that the word friendly in "List of LGBT and LGBT-friendly fraternities and sororities" means little to nothing as both our searches for criteria for friendly produced nothing worth looking at. Abel (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More or less. I think we will both be satisfied if the article (and its subject) become "List of LGBT fraternities and sororities", but I think that it is not non-controversial. Should I propose that on the talk page?Naraht (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the vague to the point of meaningless word friendly is one solution. However, there are many groups that have identity attached to the word friendly. Those groups are very likely going to get emotional about being dropped from the equation. Seems like a better solution is to start a discussion that might lead to a definition of friendly that is more than meaningless. Abel (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Mason Memorial you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Knope7 -- Knope7 (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article George Mason Memorial you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:George Mason Memorial for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Knope7 -- Knope7 (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for lending a hand during the GA process at Mercator. However, switching the ref style to RP numbering is unwelcome at this time, and in general any change of ref style is deprecated unless there's amazingly good reason for it, and consensus. During a GA, it's a no-no. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the reference from the default style to whatever style is in use would have been more useful than deleting the reference after having just demanded more references. Abel (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? All you did in the only edit I reverted was to change "|page=19" which was correct, to ": 19 " which wasn't. So, no snarky remarks, please. I already said thank you for helping, which I meant, and I went out of my way and took the time (here) to tell you what didn't seem helpful, and to explain why I had undone it. That means (to spell things out more heavily than a dad at a disco) that you are genuinely welcome to help by adding refs - really useful - but that rp-ing ain't quite so appreciated.Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. I don't think you'll leave the addition uncorrected, but the preview button will help you catch these errors. – S. Rich (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC) 
– S. Rich (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Hans-Hermann Hoppe, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Hello Abel. Here is a template message about your recent edit on HHH. 
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Abel, you are not helping yourself or the project with edits like this: [5]. Again, again, please, please stop. – S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Since I linked here and mentioned your problems, thought I should alert you. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 20:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
; see Talk:Sully Historic Site for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
; see Talk:George Mason Memorial for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Knope7 -- Knope7 (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)