User talk:SPECIFICO

ANI notice

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

WP:ANI Notice

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

GA reassessment for Murray Rothbard article

Murray Rothbard, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TPNO violation by User:SPECIFICO

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

Anti-war project scope

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

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

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

The Machinery of Freedom

Discussion should be confined to content, not contributors, and should be posted on the article talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have made, in my opinion, entirely uncalled for edits to this page. I have reverted them. Your claims that neutral description of the content of the book is "unsourced" is clearly incorrect -- the book itself is clearly the source for the content of the book, and page numbers were even given. You cannot claim that the content of a book cannot be described on the page for the book itself. If you disagree, discuss. If you revert these edits and again render the page nearly blank without discussing, I will file a formal complaint and insist that the page be protected during arbitration. Clearly Tamfang also disagrees with what you have done. I explained to you on the talk page that we need a secondary RS which summarizes and characterizes the noteworthy content of the book. I cited two policy pages which I hope you will read closely to develop an understanding of my statements on the article and talk pages. The fact is that this is a self-published work and we have only a single mention of it by any secondary source. I have tagged the article for notability and perhaps this will attract editors who can provide some additional RS references and provide a solid basis for keeping the article in WP. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC) I read those policy pages. I believe you are incorrect in your claims. There is no policy that I can find that states it is not permissible to simply describe the content of a book on the page for said book. A number of editors worked in good faith over a long period of time to produce content, and you removed it, denying readers access to that content and leaving the page with barely more than a sentence in place. Unless you can point me to a specific set of sentences in a widely understood policy that actually claim that you cannot describe the content of a book on the page for that book without secondary sources saying which portions of the book are significant, I am going to have to disagree with you and ask that you not remove content from the page again. I have also removed your "notability" tag. The book is well known in the field and clearly notable to Wikipedia standards. Please make no further edits until consensus is reached. --Pmetzger (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Please discuss content and not contributors. Please WP:AGF. Personal remarks on the article talk pages do not help improve WP. You seem to have raised a number of straw man arguments and ad hominems on the article talk page. The need for secondary RS discussion of the book has nothing to do with whether it's self published. You need to find secondary discussion of the book to identify its significant content. Please confine your talk to the article talk page and do not make further personal remarks about other editors. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC) I am not making any personal claims on the article talk page. I have discussed only content and its unwarranted removal. Again, please quote chapter and verse where specifically in the policies you cite it is said that it is impermissible for an article on a book to factually describe the content of the book without a secondary source that verifies that this is indeed the content of the book. Unless you can quote a specific set of sentences from a policy that say that, I believe I will have to ask you not to edit the content. Also, as has been pointed out on the talk page, the book is certainly notable, having hundreds of references in Google Scholar, and re-adding the notability tag without consensus seems unreasonable to me -- if you disagree, please make a case for why the notability tag makes sense in spite of the academic importance of the book. Pmetzger (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 208.54.4.231 (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification of complaint to be filed to administrators

I have to notify you before I file a complaint,which I have not done yet, but will if you don't stop the nonsense. The other editor involved is having a complaint filed.Phmoreno (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Actually, you need to notify me when, not before you do this. However, I see no basis whatsoever for any such complaint and when I politely ask you to cite high quality sources to verify your proposed content, I don't know on what basis you intend to complain. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve Banking

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. VictorD7 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

VictorD7, if you choose to be involved in this article, you can start from here [1] and the concurrent talk page thread. They give you a small part of the voluminous discussion over the years in which Riessgo has been told that his opinions do not reflect the consensus of the editors on this article. SPECIFICO talk 16:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in the dispute and certainly can't comment on what's happened with the other editor over "years". Here you repeatedly reverted segments by Riessgo: [2], [3]; [4], [5], [6]. Clearly there's a content dispute with the two of you repeatedly reverting each other to reestablish your preferred article versions. When such a disagreement exists, it would be preferable for you to hash things out on the talk page before committing to a particular article version. After posting here I visited Riessgo's talk page and saw that you had already warned him about edit warring regarding another article on which you two are edit warring. You really shouldn't issue such warnings as an involved party. I'll add that your claim that he had "made 4 reverts within 24 hours" doesn't appear to be the case. While violating 3RR isn't necessary to be guilty of edit warring, it looks like the alleged 3RR violation, by which you presumably had in mind his July 7th edits, might actually just be a bizarre glitch. If I understand policy correctly (and maybe I don't), consecutive edits uninterrupted by another editor count as one revert. Riessgo's edits are interrupted at one point by two edits, one from a bot and the other from an editor making an unrelated change, the first being dated to May 8 and the second to June 17. I'm not sure why those old edits are listed in the history where they are, but if they're disregarded Riessgo only has three reverts on that day, just as you do.

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

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

Recent edit to a section referencing Mises Institute founding member Hayek

In this edit, you removed a section which discusses the views of Friedrich Hayek, who sat on the founding board of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (also mentioned by LvMI itself). Can you explain why this should not be considered a violation of your topic ban? -- Netoholic @ 19:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This was a revert of vandalism. As you know I cannot discuss my TBAN on this page. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary mentions it was "poorly sourced and undue" not that it was vandalism. To my eyes it doesn't fall into the realm of obvious vandalism, as the text seems on topic, has sources, and is lengthy. I've no comment about the appropriateness of it, just that it is not clear vandalism. --Netoholic @ 22:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be Vandalism. That policy page says: "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page......Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."

Whether you think the editor's contribution is worthy or not, it does address the topic, includes multiple sources, and isn't profanity, page blanking, or obvious nonsense. He's even participating heavily on the talk page. VictorD7 (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps you could simply self-revert and mea culpa? it does look like a violation of the ban and i am worried any future sanction could be for a much longer time. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find any rs that Hayek was in any way associated with the LvMI. It certainly does not appear in any of the Hayek biographies I saw. TFD (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

i found it, 1st hit on google [7] and i think broadly construed would include founding members Darkstar1st (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I said "reliable source" - Netoholic already said the LvMI claimed he "sat on the founding board." TFD (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

It seems unlikely that Hayek was on the "founding board" - what is that anyway? All we have is a line on a website, no explanation and no mention in any of the biographies of Hayek that I could find. Why doesn't anyone else mention it? TFD (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

At this point it does not matter to Specifico. We have a small something that puts Hayek on the board. That's enough to make Hayek "Mises.org-related". Specifico can't comment even to say "No he wasn't." The issue as to board membership goes on the Hayek talk page. If the claim of membership is refuted, then Specifico can revert all the Hayek related vandalism he wants. – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

TDF, Perhaps i simply misunderstood broadly construed to mean go edit flowers or boats. Hayek and Von mises were close, if the editor was unaware of this fact perhaps there is a larger issue to be addressed. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

— goethean 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Von Mises died before the LvMI was set up and therefore had no connection with them. The LvMI begins with Rothbard and Rockwell. TFD (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

it is almost like the two men never met, much less worked in the same office, i withdraw my previous comments, obviously i have no idea what broadly construed means in english. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, SPECIFICO. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Economic growth

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

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

Take this as constructive criticism: For example, making negative comments about sources is not nearly as effective as actually taking the time and effort to point someone in the right direction with a little information or a simple explanation. This would go a long way towards avoiding lengthy discussions on Talk pages, getting involved in edit wars, etc. You'll save time and trouble in the long run.Phmoreno (talk)

I took a great deal of time and effort, despite your hostile and threatening words directed at various other editors, to point you in the direction of good RS materials which you can use to improve the article. I also explained in detail some of what I feel are your misapprehensions concerning the mainstream approach and knowledge relating to the description and explanation of economic growth. All this while I never edited the article or did anything to correct your many errors before you take the time to read sources which will give you a more robust and encyclopedic way to view and edit the subject. I feel like I'm chasing my tail here, so please don't post on my talk page any further and confine yourself to discussion of article content on the talk page. Finis. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

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

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

Hedge fund

I have partly reverted your deletion from Hedge fund#Etymology, as well as supplying better sources as you suggested. Please in future discuss proposed changes in the talk page before aggressively deleting text. There is a talk-page section on this already ("missing etymology/word origin of "hedge fund""). Wildfowl (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Jeepers, Wildfowl. I read your note on talk mentioning your text and inviting edits. The Investopedia-sourced text is incorrect and for that reason, I don't believe you will find RS which states what you cited to Investopedia. At any rate the text doesn't belong in the article. You made a bold edit, I reverted it, and stated a clear and policy based reason for my reversion. I suggest the next step, if you disagree, is to discuss this on talk. Please undo your last edit, which reinserted your preferred text, and lets abide by WP:BRD. I'll be glad to discuss this with you on talk. Let me be clear however. I removed the text because it is false and lacks RS verification. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am genuinely puzzled. I will glady delete it if you can explain what you think is false about it. Please note that I did not revert the sensitive/bold bit. As far as I can see, the citations I have given are reliable and support the validity of the statements. Please think more and be less aggressive. Wildfowl (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment is not civil. Your initial comment was somewhat accusatory and gave the impression you didn't consider my edit summary or reexamine your initial edit in light of it. I ignored the tone of your message and replied on the substance of your edit. It's not right to return here after I tried to accept your comments with courtesy, and suggest that I'm insufficiently thoughtful or overly aggressive. Unless you're prepared to interact in a polite and substantive manner, there is no point in continuing this thread. If you care to reconsider your remarks, you may so indicate and we can discuss this further. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been active at the article or talk page, so here's a note about Anarcho-capitalism

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

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Kudos for your intelligent monitoring of Hannibal Directive & Hadar Goldin.ShulMaven (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux and Self Published Sources and References Vanity Page

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

August 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stefan Molyneux. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)