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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
Regarding your sandbox
(Copied from other page)
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
External links section
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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.
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.
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)[]
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)[]
Service Award
Abel, here is a nice little something to display on your userpage:
This editor is an Apprentice Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
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)[]
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)[]
Editing with a conflict of interest
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.
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)[]
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)[]
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 yeasterday. --Abel (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[]
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)[]
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)[]
GA icon for userpage
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)[]
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)[]
February 2013
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. 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)[]
Hoppe edit
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)[]
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)[]
June 2013
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)[]
"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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
FEE links
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
Austrian School talk page remarks
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
"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 sincely 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)[]
"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)[]
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)[]
Voting twice in a RfC
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)[]
