User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 1

2756:

African Americans were described as "animals," 95% of whom are (asserts the newsletters) criminals; homosexuals suffering from HIV were said to "enjoy the pity and attention that comes with being sick," with AIDS itself (and death and suffering generally) characterized as a predictable outcome of homosexual conduct. Reason magazine said that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists – including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of the newsletters. Rockwell acknowledged his involvement in promoting and writing subscription letters for the Ron Paul newsletters, but denied the charge of ghostwriting the newsletters themselves, and he said the accusations were "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies." Ron Paul himself repudiated the newsletters' content and said he was not involved in the daily operations of the newsletters or saw much of their content until years later.

3508:

things, off topic... what difference does it make if Rockwell's website is an open forum for all kinds of ideas? I don't get the problem on either side. I get the sense Rockwell is a shrewd promoter and a good businessman and his activities don't really relate to my interest here. But that's off-topic. I hope you can help Steeletrap find a forum or a community for resolution of this issue? By the way, I just took a look at the link you provided above. I think it's clear that was not what I suggested he do and I have not seen him do it. It's a matter of finding any independent opinion, not a jury-rigged opinion, and my suggestion to him has been to read the policy on canvassing and then to post in as many related Projects as he could identify. Maybe you can help find more input on whatever is under dispute in this matter.

781:

condemned because their website does present archives of papers and interviews of a range of Austrians, even some such as Machlup and Morgenstern who were actively involved in formulating much government policy in the mid-twentieth century. Some of the article, such as the discussion of methodology appears to have been written by editors who have little understanding of the subject. The litany of principles in the first section reads like the recitation of a cult initiation ritual. I hope that I will be able to contribute to improving this article, as I see that you have already done. Do you know whether there has been any attempt to write a more appropriate and substantive first section, without the list of precepts?

3261:

Harvard and other such institutions. Their work there shows the approach of individualism, subjectivism, etc. but not theoretical isolationism, rejection of scientific method etc. Then we have the neo-Austrians who gathered at Cato and Mises Institute, and we have the academic Austrians at NYU, George Mason, and scattered other distinguished venues. Finally we have interested non-economists who cite or sometimes mis-cite various principles they associate with Austrian School thinking. There are also a number of academics from other fields who are referred to as Austrian economists but are rather social theorists, historians or philosophers of various kinds. I'll copy this to the AS article.

3245:, who is a strident critic of the Mises Institute crew, is a paradigmatic example of the Hayekian Austrian. He 1) puts some stock in deductive reasoning (from common sense premises about human action, such as marginal utility maximization) as a source of economic truth but does not think this method is infallible/that even the common sense claims should go untested or always apply and 2) worries about empirical models for Hayekian, information coordinator esque reasons, but does not reject empiricism categorically or in principle and 3) publishes (unlike North, Hoppe, and most LvMI scholars) in mainstream journals using accepted methodologies. 2412:), that gun control -- rather than the general depriving of the civil rights of Jews -- was a distinguishing feature of Nazi Germany) Libertarians appear to have hijacked this encyclopedia. In any case, you should remind them that to make their case that "gun control" (as opposed to the categorical disenfranchisement of Jews in Nazi Germany, which we all know about) led to the Holocaust, they'd have to demonstrate that Hitler's depriving "Aryan" Germans of their arms (which I'm quite certain he didn't do) is what caused the Holocaust. 2557:

specifically implemented tool of the Holocaust is well documented. You may certainly argue that it was not crucial or important, and that we are putting undue weight on it, but that is a completely different argument than saying it is unrelated. report it if you must, but you are only wasting your time, mine, and that of those others who will become involved. Your comment, and my reply, are insignificant and unhelpful in the long run, and I suggest we move on.

2289: 1392: 248: 2864:

possibility) and the (massive) overwhelming amount of testimonial evidence for his authorship of the racist newsletters. Carol is discussing reverting all of my edits into a "NPOV version" while failing to provide any specific argument as to where the substance or tone of my edits violate NPOV. This is maddening since I've asked them to do this for almost a week. How should one deal with this sort of situation?

1097: 1063: 1043: 2064:

be given the benefit of the doubt regarding his aims, but I think it's difficult to maintain a NPOV when one is writing about one's colleagues and friends, so while his contributions shouldn't be negated, other (non-Mises affiliated) people should get involved. And at a more broad level, could you contact an editor to look at the Mises Institute pages to determine whether they are a

3525:

from usertalk pageS, to the article talk page, to the editor assistance page, to the ANI, to the Finge NB, and now to the NPOV page. And s/he has argued that the forum shopping guidance does not apply. Still, this is disruptive! And I'm not having much success in either limiting the forum to one proper area or in narrowing the discussion to the issues of concern. Frustrating. –

71:, which sets a high bar for sourcing controversial material and characterizations on bio pages. You've been adding some questionable material, including blogs and opinion pieces, and then trying to use these to justify a highly charge characterization such as "lie". As Collect said, if you persist to add these without trying to get consensus, you run the risk of being blocked. 939: 838: 454: 2913:

there and don't know the history of it. At any rate, you owe me nothing but if you wish to review my history of edits and talk page interactions on many articles over the past 6 months, I think you might be less disapproving. Thanks for the reply. BTW I rarely use sarcasm, particularly in a written communication where it is so easily misinterpreted.

3312:, a mainstream scientific publisher, and which repeatedly mentions the LRC connection to (in terms of publishing articles/holding conferences, etc) to AIDS Denialism. This was cited as an RS for the claim that LRC has offered a forum for AIDS Denial/fringe science, without objection, until the recent edits in the past few weeks by yourself and Carol. 402: 196: 2504:

not at all clear that Rockwell didn't write them) is overwhelming, and, while I have of course diligently refrained from WP:PA, I am nonetheless having trouble keeping my cool with people who -- in the face of this overwhelming evidence -- continue to express another view. (particularly given the loaded language they are directing at me).

2776:

Lew Rockwell wikipedia page and the Ron Paul Newsletter page. It might also help to appraise yourself of the contextual background of the conflict between the user and myself, as detailed on my talk page. No trouble if you're not up for such a task. But if not, I hope you can pass it on to a neutral editor who might be! Thanks!

160:--Got it. Thanks D.A. In a way then it seems dangerous to try to approach consensus gradually since each edit will involve partial reversion along with addition such as I was doing on that article. I'm not sure that I understand what constitutes a revert under those circumstances, but I did subsequently post on the talk page. 3587:

Hello Carol. With rare exceptions, I do not read your postings. I've already stated my reaction to the tone of those I have read. For that reason I am very reluctant to participate in discussions or to edit pages in which you're involved, lest I be further victimized by what I feel are your personal

3524:

It's not an issue of informing people that a discussion is on-going in a particular forum, it is posting the issue itself in different forums. (I'm afraid Steeletrap misread your suggestion!) Still, I had proposed a compromise on the article talk page. Steeletrap should respond there. But we've gone

3438:

guidance. I do not think an ORN would work because we had not reached a point where OR on fringe was/is in the LRC article. Rather, Steeletrap is expressing concern about the fact that LRC had posted fringe stuff and s/he wants to point this out. But please notice that the use of LRC as a "forum" for

2929:

I was blocked, but on a technicality or 3rr. I note that there is now strong consensus (including several uninvolved editors) that my edit was correct, and that he was not a self published source (although there is debate on notability/weight/fringe), and therefore your repeated adding of the sps tag

2791:

I don't know much about Rockwell, but I will take a look. I urge you to post your concerns on the various WP talk pages soliciting additional uninvolved opinions, e.g. the Economics Project page, the OR and RS pages, etc. Let me know if you have trouble locating these. Also, while I don't think it

2775:

As someone who is relatively new and unsavvy in all things Wiki (but who cares deeply about encyclopedic scrupulousness), I am at my wit's end and would like some help with the editing of articles related to the newsletter issue. Therefore I ask you to read up on the past edits by me and Srich on the

2063:

a former Mises Institute employee, who is currently working on a "Mises Wiki" project for the institute) says he has created or "substantially edited" the vast majority of pages for Mises Institute scholars. That certainly doesn't prove bias or bad intentions in and of itself, and he should certainly

1864:

Sorry to disagree, but Carol's got a long history of personal attacks and harassment and without commenting further on her behavior, I'll say that if editors confine themselves to third person statements about content, it's impossible to make personal attacks and harassment, explicit or implied. It

1690:

There are two such reviews. GMU's and LvMI's. The LvMI article mentions publications, so the present redirect is correct. The GMU article does not mention publications, so a redirect to that page is not appropriate. While Gaijin42's helpful and collaborative advice on how to correct this is accurate,

1291:

PM appears to have fabricated the assertion that Krugman predicted bankruptcy. I have not been able to verify K said it, have you? The article is about Austerity, not the PM's political grandstanding by misrepresenting some economist/blogger. The CNBC report accurately reported what the PM said, but

3507:

Hi. Well there has to be some forum to put these issues to rest. I don't know all the venues. Steeletrap knows even less than I. Do you have any idea as to how to find more editors or editors with experience relevant to whatever y'all are disputing? I can't make head nor tail of this. Among other

2896:. You really need to settle down and stop trying to be a wiki lawyer. Your warnings are unfounded, please stop with your "courtesy" and take some of your own advice. If your uncivil conduct and wiki lawyering continues I will open a ANI discussion on this subject. Consider this a "courtesy" warning. 2764:

by a Ron Paul-supporting journalist at a local Fox Affiliate "outing" (I use scare quotes because this was already reported) another author of one newsletter piece who was not Rockwell. The user has also (in my view) previously personally attacked me (Please see my talk page for the records of this,

2755:

Reports from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Economist said Rockwell oversaw the production of "Ron Paul Political Report" newsletters written on behalf of Paul in the late 1980s and early to mid 1990s. The newsletters contained derogatory remarks about minority groups. For example,

2337:

Hello. What caught my attention was the assertion that it was "the first" which is not sourced or verifiable. Also IG is offering a specific well-defined instrument and is a known, established provider. However I would not object to deleting each of these products, the significance of which is not

1849:

that supports you in this regard. On the other hand, you were violating TPNO when you made the off-topic comment on the article talk page. If you get distracted by the fact that Carol says she is annoyed about the edits being made, then you should make comments on her talk page. Yes, we should focus

1816:

I disagree. There is no justification for first- or second- person remarks on the article talk pages. I've said that before, and it's incontrovertible. No editor's emotional reaction is relevant to the joint task of editing, so at best it's a distraction from the community focus on the article text

1656:

When clicking on the redirect, and landing on the target page, at the top of the target page there is a link that says "redirected from...." If you click that link, it will take you back to the redirect article. You can then edit the redirect as a normal article to send it somewhere else, or make it

1126:

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

2944:

Hey, I didn't say you're a bad person. You appealed your block and a second admin declined. Life goes on. You don't see me editing on Gun Control or anywhere else against consensus or against a BRD revert. Remember as it says on various WP guidance and policy pages, whether your edit was correct

2912:

Hi. Well, I have been involved in 4 admin cases recently. One editor was topic banned indefinitely. One was blocked for 3RR, then the same one was not blocked, and the 4th was not blocked. The Gun Control article is an extremely contentious and adversarial environment right now. I'm relatively new

2503:

page (particularly the talk page). I am concerned with those who are claiming that the newsletter section should be deleted or dramatically changed because it is not notable or because he clearly didn't write them. The evidence against those two claims (i.e. that the story is notable and that it is

3556:

The whole debate is over whether we can characterize LRC as promoting fringe science for its (RS-documented) promoting of AIDS Denial and its further promotion of Evolution-Denial and other similar ideas. I really do not see why this has to get personal. I don't think anyone is acting in bad faith

3539:

Oh. I don't see how it can be resolved without knowledgeable third parties entering the discussion. So maybe it will never be resolved. I don't see the problem really. The website appears to be a forum for all kinds of topics and ideas. Some of them are fringe. That doesn't mean they're wrong.

2426:

Steeletrap: the best place to determine what the "incident" is about is to look at the ANI. (IOW, I don't think your question is rhetorical.) At that point you can comment as you see fit -- the subject being SPECIFICO's editing and talkpage behavior.) Also, if you want to discuss improvement to an

916:

I am sorry that you misunderstood my purpose. I did spend quite a bit of time researching those authors and the cited sources. The article does not accurately represent the cited sources in any event. My comment may have been too terse trying to fit it on the summary line, but please consider the

3455:

I'll let the fringe group figure that out - they seem pretty confused so far. I did notice that some of that stuff was discussed before, and it looked like there wasn't a consensus as much as a failure to come to one so people just left it; til others came along later and just deleted some stuff,

3260:

This is a huge task. First, the article misstates the "Austrian business cycle theory" and that section should be rewritten using secondary RS material. The Austrians who trained in Vienna after WW1 for the most part did not try to keep separate from academic economics but joined LSE, Princeton,

3041:

Hi SPECIFICO. There are major problems with NPOV regarding articles regarding "The seduction community," pages I came across through one of the co-editors on the guns page. Basically, "the seduction community" consists of a pack of charlatans/hucksters who feed utterly untested, pseudo-scientific

144:

While I understand that reasoning, it is generally considered a revert when an editor restores nearly identical material to an article repeatedly without getting consensus. Minor alterations do not usually suffice when considering whether something is a revert. Discussion and compromise should be

3109:

as alleged Denialists by a couple rather than flagrant, well-known Denialists. I am afraid to "defy" the editor in question because of her previous charges of libel, but want to share with you the following links on LRC. (Got this collection from a FB page, but all sources verified. Evolution:

2765:

and the full discussion of the issue). Most bizarrely, he/she stands by the view that Rockwell was not involved in the newsletter despite the fact that he admits he was and that -- as I have repeatedly pointed out to him --physical copies of the newsletter variously list him as its sole "Editor"

1800:

about carolmooredc's annoyance about change(s) that were made. It was an appropriate remark because she was talking about her feelings about the particular article edits. She was not referring to any editor personally. She was incorrect in responding on the article talk page about your personal

780:

Hello LK. I agree with your assessment of this article. There appear to be many editors who have little training or interest in the broad field of economics and who are partisan polemicists documenting the catechism of the Mises Institute. I note that the Mises Institute should not be entirely

2863:

is driving me bonkers. People are making insulting insinuations about me acting in bad faith for my edits substantiating Rockwell's involvement in (it was previously -- absurdly, given that he admits to being involved in the operation though denies writing them -- described as if it were a mere

2556:

It was not a personal attack. You said "Why would I care about Hitler's gun policies? Again, it's no more significant than his preference for mayo rather than the more conventional mustard on his sausage". This is an (I believe) an intentionally obtuse argument, as the use of gun control as a

893:

I'm sure that other and better sources are available. If so, they should be used. The issue motivating my message is the judgmental edit summary that describes them as non-notable. If they are not notable persons, then their articles should be reviewed, improved, and perhaps AFD'd. But the edit

1498:

The real problem is what we are working with is not a true secondary source. The fight over accuracy stems from this: We are interpreting data subjectively and writing it in our own words. If the statement ever appears again and if the market recovers past $ 1 billion, I will be sure to cite a

757:

article is unfairly mis-representing Mises Institute teachings as Austrian school thought. In my opinion, we would do better to present what people like Boetkke and Horwitz describe to be Austrian school economics. Unfortunately, Knowledge (XXG) is a democracy of the interested; and von Mises

87:

Thanks for your note, Ronnotel. I presume you've reviewed the history of that section in the Ryan article. I attempted to add higher quality source citations after a previous editor had complained about National Review. I also feel that said previous editor's substitution of near-meaningless

3301:

The problem is I disagree with your assumption that we need RS to say this. If the subject of WP article publishes claims that gravity isn't real or that the earth is flat, these claims can be labeled as fringe science without an RS saying this (WP gives license for this sort of common sense

2759:

A user (Srich) has repeatedly challenged these edits and sought to revert them (in part or whole). The user has stated that he or she "feel fairly comfortable with Rockwell's non-involvement with the controversial newsletter stuff," and that future edits should indicate that probable lack of

3492:. Steeletrap has cited you as the inspiration for going to (another) noticeboard. And he has deleted my advice to him.hrt about this from his talkpage. To make things worse, Carol has posted a RS warning on his/her page. Perhaps you can modify the advice s/he believes you have given. – 1513:

That is absurd. You are going to scrutinize all sources minute by minute to determine what word to choose? This is not a "fight" and it has nothing to do with accuracy. "Over" is not accurate, as you well know. That is exactly why "approximately" is the robust operational approach.

2539:

Since you're here: Please do the right thing and strike through the identified PA so that we can proceed together on this. I am warning you I may decide to pursue this. FYI the edits were substantially the same ones that were summarily undone a day or two ago when I made them.

121:

Would you try not to revert the changes of other editors? You should discuss matters on the article talk page or the talk pages of specific editors rather than repeatedly reverting. Reverts should be used sparingly, if at all, with amicable resolution of disputes serving as the

136:--Hello I appreciate your taking the time to comment here. I believe that my recent edits have not been "reverts" but rather compromises, additions of citations, or other edits that acknowledge the concerns of other editors. Naturally however, I will keep your comment in mind. 3456:

probably for WP:BLP reasons. Some of which still stand. But enough discussing on personal talk pages the specifics, where it may be missed by __ number of watchers (link error message right now) of Talk: LewRockwell.com (and Lew Rockwell) who may eventually want to jump in.

3286:. The Fringe noticeboard has 400+ watchers, which is a good number. In any event, I think the issue is narrow and well-defined enough to get a solution. (Perhaps even from Steeletrap.) I.e, are there independent reliable sources that discuss LRC as a fringe topic forum? – 429:

located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you.

223:

2121:

non-controversial claims like where someone was born/grew up/went to school/etc. If there is a good (reasonably neutral) source with that sort of information, it might be worth including. No matter what you think of him or his gang*, the article is still a

3369:– political activist.") Bialy is not listed on the LRC page as a contributor -- the source which gives us a listing of "columnists". So you may end up with a definitional problem -- e.g., who are contributors vs. who are columnists. But you can use the 672:

Hi SPECIFICO, my apologies for making a lousy assumption when adding an occupation that is not sourced and not being cognizant enough when I removing some of the categories. I've already made changes to the article and will be more careful next time.

1736:

Hello. I don't know how that happened. I may have been confused and thought that I was editing an unsourced statement on the article page. At any rate, thanks for mentioning it and I see that the text has been reinserted back to as it should be.

1477:

No. The change from "over" to "approximately" is not an uncited claim. It is a more accurate statement that removes the unbounded and slightly promotional sense of "over." Once I reverted "over" the next step is Discuss. Please review

88:

language "drew criticism" weakened the meaning of the section and attempted to be more specific in characterizing the cited sources' concern. At any rate, I'd be pleased to discuss this further on the Paul Ryan talk page if you wish.

2427:

article (which may be the source of the ANI) feel free to discuss on that talk page. But adding comments here, to a User talk page, does not assist in article improvement or cooperation between editors. Basically, your comments

2407:

Is this "incident" in regards to your gun control edits? i.e., your removal of the absurd claims, from non-notable sources (e.g. anonymous libertarians who say they are Jewish, and "Ludwig Von Mises Institute" professors like

3433:

I think SPECIFICO had suggested the fringe board so that Steeletrap would have a forum which other editors could comment at. And perhaps it is a good place to post because editors interested in the topic could comment on the

3077:

Just to apologise for the shitty tone I took with you on my talk. Really, I have to wonder at letting myself be perturbed by Knowledge (XXG) activity. Feel free to post on my talk page again if there is a need to in future.

2751:

involvement and alleged authorship of racist newsletters written on behalf of Congressman Ron Paul. Here is the edit I made to Rockwell's wikipedia page (you should check my sourcing there if you doubt any of these claims):

1275:

the PM based her comments on an article you found by Krugman. on the other hand, you are saying regardless of wp:truth, it is not our job to make such a determination. feel free to move this to both or either article page.

2453:

They are a bit snarky and express a particular point of view (in the process of asking a question), but clearly don't fall under any of the five criteria listed on that page. I suggest you brush up on those five criteria.

98:

ok, that's great. However I note that you reverted material without engaging concerns that had been raised on the talk page by myself and others. I suggest you self revert and look for consensus on to address this topic.

734:

Hello LK. Exclusively the latter. Unfortunately from what I have seen the program of the Mises Institute bears little relation to the great Austrian principles and traditions of the 20th Century. Thanks for visiting

356:

regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is

2945:

is not relevant to 3RR or EW. Also I don't recall repeadly adding a tag. Could you tell me which tag is "SPS tag" and where did I repeatedly add it? Could you have another editor in mind on that point? Thanks

2891:

What brought me to this page was your conduct on ANI and 3RR. I only revered your blanking of this discussion (which you have every right to do) so I could respond. A great example of what I am talking about is

2830:

Yes. I have been disappointed to see various editors violate this from time to time. There's an interesting discussion going on recently at "Gun Control" I'm not sure whether that is in your area of expertise.

547:

but also wanted to leave a note here in case you hadn't seen: I think the changes to the lead that you and RegentsPark have made look good. I was wondering if you'd seen the other change I suggested, for the

3351:

is one of the 5 Pillars. The book mentioned does not present Bialey in a "serious and prominent way" so it is most problematic. (Simply mentioning the fact that LRC was used is not a prominent presentation.)

1889:

to be used for comments about her behavior. There is no exception to this guideline for editors whom you may feel have a long history of anything. Two: The particular comments which you complain about were

1344:

I advise you to state your views on the talk pages of the two articles. These are not my personal issues. Others may also wish to participate, as they already have done on both article talk pages. Thanks.

2201:(which were, prior to my edits, basically only all sourced by (overwhelmingly positive) OR or from Mises Institute fellows or publications). Could you take a look at those when you have a chance? Thanks! 1837:. Even your comment here illustrates my point. E.g., you say there is no justification for 1st/2nd person remarks on the article talk pages, but your two comments to Carol were done just so. There is 59:--Greetings, Collect. I don't believe that my adding high-quality references and inserting new wording that is a compromise with the critics of this sentence constitute 3 reverts under the EW rules. 1777:

and I would like to know what is going on. Since you have experience with this user, maybe you could give me an update. Is the user just making newbie mistakes or is there something more to this?

470: 3042:

claims about "what women want" to sexually challenged men. The problem is that the claims of the "community" are uncritically reported as "social psychology" in its Knowledge (XXG) pieces. See:

2571:

I heard your denial the first several times. I cannot tolerate personal attacks and they are bad for the WP community. You have made yourself clear and unfortunately that is not OK. Thanks.

642:

Thanks! I'm going to have more suggestions for the article going up on the Talk page this week, but I don't mean to monopolize your time, so it's up to you to get involved again or not. Cheers,

3212:

Hello. I am going to revert the photo because I asked only about using the photo on WP and not an unrestricted free use license. I don't want to bother Prof. Hoppe again about this. Thanks.

1460:

I am not edit-warring. I am following the sources. Uncited claims can be removed in good-faith. I reverted one of your sets of edits within a 24-hour period. That is far from edit-warring. --

1634:. This makes little sense, since the journal is published by George Mason University and has no formal affiliation with the Mises Institute. How does one alter these improper re-directions? 1499:

reliable article or news piece, and we will use their exact wording to refer to the value of the monetary base. Else, we will use the most prevalent terms that appear across all sources. --

2059:.) That raises serious questions about notability. Moreover, (and I'm really not saying this to personally attack anybody, but just to make a factual point) it is telling that one person ( 1801:

remark, and should have known better. But then you repeated the annoying remarks. All in all, you were one who started the disruptive commentary. I have hatted that absurd little spat. –

950:, are not considered vandalism under Knowledge (XXG) policy. Knowledge (XXG) has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can 3327:

I don't know, maybe groups associated with any of the content areas or even with publishing, editing, etc. Who knows, but there doesn't seem to be anyone home on the board right now.

3391:

I'm not familiar with Rockwell or his website but how can you two attract additional editors to the fringe board discussion to resolve the issue about sourcing and cherry picking?

1691:

we actually need a disambigulation page. I shall go off my wikibreak and fix it a bit later this week. (Steeletrap & SPECIFICO, you are each welcome to have a go at it!) –

2499:

I will check it out. My knowledge level is limited but I do have a keen eye for violation of NPOV, particularly on these libertarian pages. I also ask that you check out the

859:

When you remove names such as Rowbatham or Hulsmann, and justify the removals that they are not notable, you are injecting your personal analysis into the edits. Please stop.

3006: 2361: 1438: 378: 2093:

template to the LvMI article and left a message on his talk page. (The next question, of posting the template on other pages, is one for discussion with Dick directly.) –

340:

If there are no further comments, I will replace the current infobox 24 hours from now and remove the word "economist" from the opening sentence of the Article. Thanks.

2193:

You previously expressed concern about many (most?) of the LvMI related articles, insofar as they appear to constitute a walled garden. Two articles I'm working on are

3302:

statement being made without citation: e.g., "paris is in france). Even if I didn't disagree I also think we have a source for the AIDS Denialist claim, in terms of

3101:

People are now removing my edits which documented LRC's promotion AIDS Denial or fringe science of any kind (a recent edit characterized AIDS Denialist movies like "

2493: 2373: 1160:

I have posted this warning before, but you're still editing the lede without debating it first. Please, use the talk page before making any controversial edits. --

2302: 3174:

i dont think the editor is going to revert, i will bring this up at the appropriate venue. do you have any suggestions of where we should resolve this debate?

2170:

The problem with non-notable Knowledge (XXG) pages is that, if they exist, they (by definition) have to be sourced by primary or biased sources. Like Hoppe's "

1179:, I see that you have never edited the article at all. Hugo Spinelli is a highly disruptive editor, and these "warnings" seem to be a childish revenge attack. 2707:

Per the suggestion of an admin, I have moved the discussion to the appropriate venue. Knowledge (XXG):Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting_self

3234:

If you're interested in helping me do this, and drawing the distinction between the two strains of Austrianism, this debate on Austrianism published by the

2816:

Thanks. And will take note of the canvassing piece; that is not my intention (nor, I think, what I am doing) in this case but it's a good and helpful read.

996:. The other reasons should be cited in the edit summary; otherwise, reverting the/your removal would be proper because the justification given did not meet 1082:, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Knowledge (XXG)'s privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including 358: 353: 3377:

contirbutors? I recommend adding a short descript to all of them in one fell swoop -- that'll help deter allegations that cherry-picking is going on. –

45:. Note also that you could be blocked even if you do not hit the bright line, as your reverts and summaries show a clear intent to "edit war." Cheers. 2761: 2479:

and shortly before your note above I made an edit which I hope begins to provide some perspective on the role of gun control in Nazi Germany see here:

1930:

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?

1546:

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?

2690: 813:

entry. Regentspark made a helpful comment early last week, but hasn't responded since then. Hope to see you back there, if you have the time. Thanks,

3573:

Specifico: If you read my postings you'd see I've said I've already started a big list of LRC articles mentioned by other WP:RS for content section.

876: 2150:*By the way, isn't "gang" a term normally reserved for governments with regard to fiat currency and the like? See, I'm reading and learning. Ha ha. 2083:

The heads-up on DickClarkMises is interesting. (I should've read the Kinsella AfD more carefully.) With his past employment in mind, I've posted a

853:

seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on

2975:

By the way, I see you've now stated on talk that you are edit-warring on Gun Control. Interesting context for this thread. Thanks for the reply.

2056: 1721:. You are welcome to participate in discussions; but remember that, unlike articles, comments left on these pages should not be edited. Thank you. 582:

section. I've addressed the ambiguity you mentioned and have proposed some new wording. If you're able to review this, I'd appreciate it. Cheers,

154: 131: 3557:(though again, the charged reactions -- and sometimes personal insults -- I get to my good-faith arguments make it hard to maintain that view). 2770: 2766: 292: 1003:

OAS: I'll try to look at the expungement you mentioned on my talkpage a bit later today. And I certainly do appreciate your contributions!--

2639: 2051:, are only or overwhelmingly sourced by Mises Institute-affiliated publications (see: LewRockwell.com (the Mises chairman's website), the 2524:

too much noise in the article talk currently, but wanted to say that I think your most recent tweaks to the gun control article are fine.

612:. Would you be willing to make the update yourself? If you don't have time, it's OK. I can also seek another editor's assistance. Cheers, 2655:

I have reported myself at ANI per your accusation of PA. As this could be seen as a backhanded way of reporting you, I am notifying you.

2625:

actually constitutes. In particular, reverting once is not edit warring, and a series of consecutive edits counts as only one revert. --

41:. There is a bright-line rule against exceding 3RR in 24 hours and your next edit will break that line. Such acts would be reported at 1180: 2669:

If you intend this to constitute notice that you will be discussing anything concerning me you will need to provide a link. Thank you.

425: 419: 390: 219: 213: 2325: 1961:

Hello. Thank you for the invitation, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to devote to this right now. Good luck with your project.

1577:

Hello. Thank you for the invitation, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to devote to this right now. Good luck with your project.

715:

I wonder if you would mind my asking which Austrian School tradition you practice. Do you follow the von Mises Institute view, or the

608:

And hello once more—I am OK with your changes to my draft paragraph, although I do mean to avoid making direct edits on account of my

846: 3025: 298: 3309: 420: 214: 3407:

Please see my comments there. It's a WP:OR issue which is where an experienced editor would have brought it. Also, if you want a

1770: 426: 220: 1047: 504:

and it seems that you have an interest in and are knowledgeable about the financial industry, so I wondered if you'd be able to

458: 386: 150: 127: 1151: 306: 2087: 2052: 1651: 1155: 466: 276: 845:. Knowledge (XXG) is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a 2592:

Gaijin, You have misrepresented the facts and history of the talk page and your personal attack on me in your comments on

1000:. (BTW, as the contributing editor is a suspected SOCK, the note about BITE does not apply, but was added by the TW tool.) 3415:'s hsitory of science/critiques of science. Will be adding something from WP:RS about that soon but it also should be a 3102: 3058:(one of their gurus). Please check them out if you like as the bias running through these pages is truly unacceptable. 1626: 1267:

that it is outside our mandate as WP editors to judge or qualify the truth or accuracy of a statement such as Krugman's

1055: 481:. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. 310: 255: 2309:

Why remove the mention of Spreadex on Bitcoin Deriratives and leave an IG Index article sourced in the same manner?

3239: 382: 146: 123: 2593: 2174:" page, almost everything on the Kinsella page is sourced by Kinsella himself or his (mises institute) co-workers. 1631: 947: 850: 678: 175:

I gave a very gently worded warning. I regret that you did not heed it, even with others telling you to. Cheers.

3489: 1624:

I am so sorry I keep clogging up your talk page. But I have one question. The WP article on the economics journal

473:. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. 3132: 1147: 272: 264: 3083: 2634: 1865:

is important not to make such attacks, but it is also important not to be intimidated by them when they occur.

1504: 1465: 1402: 1184: 3365:

of the contributors that correspond with the biographical descriptions in their WP articles. (For example, "

2771:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130121052119/http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/InvestmentLetterMay1988.pdf

2767:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130121052119/http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/InvestmentLetterMay1988.pdf

2048: 1175:

All of those "warnings" seem to be complete nonsense. I don't see any sign of personal attacks, and, as for

1165: 1067: 1051: 1017:

Thanks. These are really very interesting and important topics and I have enjoyed trying to contribute here.

516:

on the topic.) I've suggested some new wording to help clarify the lead and also provide more detail in the

461:

to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,

3013: 2338:

yet established, particularly in the absence of secondary source discussion of them. Thanks for the note.

2313: 1075: 410: 204: 2321: 1934: 1671:

Gaijin42, Do not post on my talk page. I do not believe that your conduct on WP is civil or constructive.

1550: 942:

Thank you for trying to keep Knowledge (XXG) free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as

763: 724: 2029: 1139: 406: 302: 200: 3179: 3021: 2901: 2383: 2156: 2136: 1985:

Sorry, that was my mistake. I should have checked the Talk Page first. I have reverted my edit. Cheers!

1949: 1565: 1446: 1366: 1335: 1317: 1281: 1228: 674: 2390: 2317: 478: 1817:

and at worst it tends to support bad interactions among editors. It's not worth further discussion.

1361:

ok, will do. it is you to which the PM's statement appears to be incorrect, right? please read wp:OR.

3562: 3530: 3497: 3444: 3382: 3317: 3291: 3250: 3202: 3160: 3063: 2869: 2821: 2781: 2509: 2482:. If you're knowledgeable about the issue, you could very likely make a positive contribution there. 2459: 2440: 2417: 2398: 2255: 2251: 2218: 2206: 2194: 2179: 2171: 2098: 2073: 1903: 1855: 1806: 1797: 1764: 1760: 1696: 1639: 1610: 1482:

then undo your reinstatement of "over" and then state your concerns on talk, per policy. Thank you.

1256:

Austerity and Austrian School walk into a bar with Krugman, help me square both sides of this circle.

1206: 1008: 968: 907: 865: 854: 806: 575: 544: 521: 505: 326: 2793: 2114: 1108: 955: 3594: 3546: 3514: 3397: 3333: 3267: 3218: 3079: 3047: 2981: 2951: 2919: 2837: 2802: 2727: 2675: 2629: 2626: 2602: 2577: 2546: 2488: 2344: 2271: 2234: 2060: 2012: 1967: 1871: 1823: 1782: 1743: 1677: 1583: 1520: 1500: 1488: 1461: 1421: 1398: 1351: 1302: 1244: 1022: 983: 922: 884: 786: 740: 695: 17: 3435: 2028:

I am concerned that the pages of most( though not all) Mises Institute affiliate people, such as

1123: 1079: 997: 2966: 2935: 2712: 2698: 2660: 2562: 2529: 2032: 1898:

applies and those remarks about her history, on that talk page, or here, are not well founded. –

1662: 1161: 104: 76: 3206: 1895: 1842: 1114: 169: 145:

reached through talk page discussion, especially when there have already been so many reverts.--

42: 3046:

for a broad list of these pieces. I have started editing/leaving notices on the talk page for

1469: 3575: 3458: 3421: 1726: 1198: 1176: 1104: 818: 759: 720: 647: 617: 587: 557: 529: 508:

I've made on that article's Talk page. (I'm not editing directly because I'm working with the

435: 229: 180: 50: 2450: 2432: 2355: 1846: 1135: 951: 943: 3175: 3017: 2897: 2369: 2295: 2288: 2210: 2151: 2131: 2036: 1945: 1561: 1442: 1391: 1362: 1331: 1313: 1277: 1224: 487: 282: 2618: 2123: 1602: 1479: 1293: 1143: 1119: 1074:. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Knowledge (XXG)'s 1070:. Knowledge (XXG) operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain 1066:

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Knowledge (XXG), as you did at

993: 609: 513: 318: 68: 3558: 3526: 3493: 3440: 3419:

to any WP:OR alleging LRC is filled with fringe science. One good WP:OR deserves another.

3378: 3313: 3287: 3246: 3156: 3094: 3059: 2865: 2817: 2777: 2505: 2455: 2436: 2413: 2394: 2214: 2202: 2198: 2175: 2094: 2069: 1899: 1851: 1802: 1707: 1692: 1635: 1606: 1202: 1004: 964: 903: 861: 842: 810: 754: 501: 322: 3198: 2622: 2065: 1089: 31: 3111: 352:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

3589: 3541: 3509: 3392: 3328: 3262: 3242: 3235: 3213: 3114: 3106: 2976: 2946: 2914: 2832: 2797: 2722: 2670: 2597: 2572: 2541: 2483: 2339: 2266: 2229: 2044: 2007: 1962: 1866: 1818: 1778: 1738: 1715: 1672: 1578: 1515: 1483: 1416: 1346: 1297: 1239: 1018: 979: 918: 880: 782: 736: 691: 362: 3348: 2118: 2113:

Saw your edits (obviously) - good clean-up, I think. We do generally allow one or two

1223:

Have you had time to make this evaluation, if so, have you reviewed my proposed edit?

3412: 3361:

mentioned as a contributor on the LRC page. What you do is add short descriptions to

3129: 3051: 2962: 2931: 2708: 2694: 2656: 2558: 2525: 2409: 2040: 1993: 1658: 1078:. Knowledge (XXG) policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been 100: 72: 67:

Hi SPECIFICO - please take a sec and review the policy Collect has pointed to - also

3599: 3582: 3566: 3551: 3534: 3519: 3501: 3465: 3448: 3428: 3402: 3386: 3338: 3321: 3295: 3272: 3254: 3223: 3183: 3164: 3087: 3067: 3029: 2986: 2970: 2956: 2939: 2924: 2905: 2873: 2842: 2825: 2807: 2785: 2732: 2716: 2702: 2680: 2664: 2645: 2607: 2582: 2566: 2551: 2533: 2513: 2463: 2444: 2421: 2402: 2349: 2329: 2276: 2259: 2239: 2222: 2183: 2163: 2143: 2102: 2077: 2017: 2000: 1972: 1953: 1907: 1876: 1859: 1828: 1810: 1786: 1748: 1730: 1700: 1682: 1666: 1643: 1614: 1588: 1569: 1525: 1508: 1493: 1450: 1426: 1406: 1370: 1356: 1339: 1321: 1307: 1285: 1249: 1232: 1210: 1188: 1169: 1026: 1012: 987: 972: 926: 911: 888: 869: 826: 790: 767: 744: 728: 699: 682: 655: 625: 595: 565: 537: 490: 439: 367: 330: 233: 184: 108: 80: 54: 3284: 3043: 2860: 2748: 2500: 1722: 822: 814: 651: 643: 621: 613: 591: 583: 561: 553: 533: 525: 431: 225: 176: 46: 3373:

book as the RS. At that point the issue becomes "who should be listed? Columnists

3123: 417:( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 211:( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 3304: 3240:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/issues/september-2012/theory-practice-austrian-school

3147: 3144: 3138: 3126: 3117: 2356:

I've sought assistance regarding your behavior on the Administrator's noticeboard

1134:

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

1131:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 3366: 3153: 3150: 2365: 1774: 1397:

I appreciate your scrutiny. Thanks for making Knowledge (XXG) a reliable place.

879:

and there are so many excellent sources of critical scholarship on these issues.

484: 3133:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/09/22/163-dissent-on-hivaids/

2688:

Strictly speaking, I don't think that notice requires a link, but here you go

1940: 1556: 978:

Plenty of other reasons justify my edit. I did read the NOTVAND link, thanks.

2068:

and whether most of them should be merged into one (much more neutral) page?

805:

Hi SPECIFICO, I'd like to ask if you're willing to look at a new suggestion (

1292:

it is a factual assertion which appears to have been incorrect. Possibly a

958:

for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.

462: 446: 268: 240: 38: 3540:

There must be some way to give a sense of Rockwell's scope of publication.

2961:

My apologies, Praetorian was repeatedly re-adding the tag inappropriately.

2894:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:ROG5728&oldid=552803468

469:. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at 275:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 2364:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —

3009:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

1988: 716: 1441:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

992:

Indeed, other reasons justify. But tagging the edit as vandalism is not

3055: 1238:

Hello I am moving this to the article talk page and will reply there.

512:

to prepare new material for this article, so am mindful that I have a

3194: 1935:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

1551:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

3588:

attacks and harassment. Please don't post further on my talk page.

1326:

no i havent qualified what the rs said and didnt you just say it is

1271:. on one hand you suggesting the RS got it wrong and are making the 1146:

for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant

1086:. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors 2476: 2743:

Very Concerned with Edits to Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul Newsletter Page

1925: 1541: 414: 208: 1219:

Austrian School: evaluate criticisms vs. their associated content

336:

PLEASE SEE NEW "PERSON" Infobox in my sandbox. Comments Welcome.

2379:

You ought to respond. A mea culpa would be nice. Offer Olathe a

471:

Knowledge (XXG):General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log

409:

and Knowledge (XXG) pages that have open discussion, you should

203:

and Knowledge (XXG) pages that have open discussion, you should

1122:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 758:

Institute followers are the ones most interested in this page.

3283:

Which of the 768 active WikiProjects would your suggest? See:

2305:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2287: 1095: 319:

WP:AN3#User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Collect (Result: 31h)

246: 1850:

on the article text, and completely avoid such comments. –

2691:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard#Reporting_Self

2475:

Hello Steeltrap. I had been voicing a similar concern on

509: 305:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 2449:

I don't see the connection between my above comments and

2250:

Just an FYI. He never called bitcoin anonymous either. --

1714:

Please do not modify or delete other users' comments on

1312:

appears to who? do we have any sources refuting the PM?

405:

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

199:

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

3439:

fringe stuff had been discussed a few years earlier. –

3037:

Request for help cleaning up "Seduction community" page

2893: 2480: 1881:

Three points: One: I am referring to the fact that the

1796:

I'm annoyed (damn annoyed!) that you made a comment on

1719: 1269: 1263: 1113:

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

961: 713: 3105:

as merely documentaries on HIV/AIDS and figures like

3112:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/chernikov/chernikov19.html

3007:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

2760:

involvement. His/her evidence for this claim is this

2362:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

1439:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

898:

don't think theses guys pass the notability test, so

309:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 3115:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan132.html

3044:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Seduction_community

1924:

Would you be interested to help me on this project?

1605:

essay that I've seen in the last couple of days. –

1540:

Would you be interested to help me on this project?

1154:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary 719:

view of what constitutes Austrian school economics?

2792:applies in this case, please be careful to observe 3130:http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/scheff3.1.1.html 271:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to 690:Thanks and thank you for working on this article. 1941:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox 1557:http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox 1138:to work toward making a version that represents 3124:http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye9.1.1.html 2209:) 21:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC) UPDATE - see also 1129:even if you don't violate the three-revert rule 753:Thanks for your reply. It seems to me that the 500:Hi SPECIFICO, I saw that you'd recently edited 3148:http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi151.html 3145:http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi153.html 3139:http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi144.html 3127:http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html 3118:http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi158.html 1926:https://meta.wikimedia.org/Global_Economic_Map 1542:https://meta.wikimedia.org/Global_Economic_Map 354:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution noticeboard 3154:http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi33.html 3151:http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi23.html 8: 2294:Hello, SPECIFICO. You have new messages at 1261:PM's characterization of Krugman is not fact 877:Knowledge (XXG):Identifying reliable sources 37:You have made 3 reverts in quick succion at 3411:, mine includes a WP:OR sentence about all 1107:shows that you are currently engaged in an 543:Hello again SPECIFICO, I've replied on the 3005:Hello. There is currently a discussion at 2360:Hello. There is currently a discussion at 1437:Hello. There is currently a discussion at 297:During a dispute, you should first try to 3193:Hi SPECIFICO, please take a look at your 2246:Satoshi Nakamoto called it a cash system. 2769:and as one of its contributing editors. 2621:, please reacquaint yourself with what 2057:Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 348:Notice of Dispute resolution discussion 317:The complete report of this case is at 902:will remove them from this article."-- 2594:the ANI concerning your 3RR violation 1833:It is worth further discussion here, 1068:User talk:Hugo Spinelli#My "mistakes" 279:by adding below this notice the text 7: 2596:. Please correct the record there. 712:I just noticed your statement here: 1759:Hi. I just ran into the edits of 24: 168:5RR in under 7 hours reported at 3122:Health: -HIV doesn't cause AIDS 1390: 1061: 1041: 937: 836: 452: 424: 418: 400: 218: 212: 194: 3143:-Vitamins cure everything else 1197:FYI, Spinelli was referring to 1118:—especially if you violate the 1103:Your recent editing history at 1058:from editing Knowledge (XXG). 574:I've just replied again on the 496:Suggestions for Short (finance) 2265:Feel free to improve. Thanks. 2130:need to be conscious of that. 2053:Journal of Libertarian Studies 1054:. If you continue, you may be 700:02:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 683:01:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 578:regarding the wording for the 538:22:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 491:18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC) 344:16:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 164:01:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 140:21:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 92:16:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 63:15:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 1: 3230:Cleanup on Austrian Economics 1052:User talk:Hugo Spinelli#Offer 1050:other editors, as you did on 524:, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, 440:16:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 391:05:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 368:08:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 331:02:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 299:discuss controversial changes 259:from editing for a period of 234:02:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 185:22:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 155:22:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 132:21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 109:16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 81:16:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 55:15:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 2747:There is a controversy over 1630:redirects to the WP article 1627:Review of Austrian Economics 1456:I suggest you don't slander. 1027:19:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 1013:18:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 988:16:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 973:05:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 927:19:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 912:18:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 889:16:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 870:05:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC) 827:15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 809:) I've recently made on the 791:02:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 768:06:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC) 745:18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC) 729:08:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC) 377:I have mentioned you at ANI 2617:Per your recent reports on 656:18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 626:16:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 596:15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 566:22:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC) 3628: 3238:is a good place to start. 2843:00:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 2826:23:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 2808:17:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 2786:17:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 2583:19:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 2567:18:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 2552:18:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 2534:18:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 2445:23:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 2422:23:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 2403:13:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 2374:01:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 2350:12:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 2330:12:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 2277:01:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 2260:01:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC) 2240:00:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 2223:00:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 2184:14:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC) 2164:06:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC) 2144:06:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC) 2103:16:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 2078:15:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 2018:21:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 2001:20:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 1973:13:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC) 1954:05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC) 1632:Ludwig von Mises Institute 1589:13:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC) 1570:05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC) 1526:02:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC) 1509:02:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC) 1494:02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC) 1470:01:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC) 1451:19:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC) 1427:01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC) 1407:01:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC) 1371:10:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC) 1357:03:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC) 1340:03:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC) 1322:03:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC) 1308:03:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC) 1286:02:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC) 948:Fractional reserve banking 851:Fractional reserve banking 291:, but you should read the 3188: 1250:20:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC) 1233:11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC) 1211:13:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC) 1189:12:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC) 1170:00:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC) 960:Specifically, this edit: 894:summary comes across as " 576:Short (finance) Talk page 545:Short (finance) Talk page 510:Managed Funds Association 293:guide to appealing blocks 273:make useful contributions 117:Please avoid edit-warring 3355:But here is a compromise 2189:Mises Institute Clean-Up 1908:01:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 1877:01:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 1860:01:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 1829:00:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 1811:00:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 1787:04:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 1749:13:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 1731:04:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 1455: 1088:may result in you being 952:discourage newer editors 359:Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN 3600:22:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3583:21:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3567:21:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3552:21:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3535:21:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3520:21:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3502:20:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3466:18:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3449:17:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3429:17:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3403:17:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3387:17:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3339:16:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3324:16:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3322:16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3296:16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3273:15:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3255:15:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3224:13:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3207:13:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3189:Prof. Hoppe's New Photo 3184:07:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 3165:05:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 3088:04:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 3068:04:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 3030:20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 2987:15:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 2971:15:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 2957:15:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 2940:15:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 2925:15:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 2906:14:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 2874:20:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2733:16:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2717:16:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2703:16:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2681:15:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2665:15:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2646:09:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2608:04:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2514:05:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2494:00:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 2464:00:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC) 1701:17:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 1683:16:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 1667:16:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 1644:16:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 1615:14:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 956:Knowledge (XXG):NOTVAND 708:Which type of Austrian? 3488:Please take a look at 3308:, a book published by 3279:Fringe Science posting 3137:-Vitamins cure cancer 2292: 1657:a standalone article. 1100: 946:, such as the edit at 849:. Your recent edit to 251: 2410:Jeffrey Rogers Hummel 2291: 2088:connected contributor 1835:because you are wrong 1792:LRC talk page remarks 1099: 847:neutral point of view 801:Short (finance) again 445:General Sanctions on 287:Your reason here ~~~~ 250: 2195:Argumentation ethics 2172:argumentation ethics 2049:Jesús Huerta de Soto 2030:William L. Anderson, 1798:Talk:LewRockwell.com 1115:blocked from editing 1072:completely anonymous 717:Coordination Problem 520:section. If you can 383:The Devil's Advocate 147:The Devil's Advocate 124:The Devil's Advocate 3195:talkpage on Commons 3048:Seduction Community 2930:was inappropriate. 1894:disruptive. Three: 1328:outside our mandate 1142:among editors. See 1080:reverted or removed 506:help with a request 18:User talk:SPECIFICO 2859:The talk page for 2693: 2303:remove this notice 2296:Sadads's talk page 2293: 2228:Will have a look. 2033:Hans-Hermann Hoppe 2006:Much appreciated. 1718:, as you did here 1152:dispute resolution 1101: 459:your contributions 307:dispute resolution 252: 3110:-Outright Denial 3103:House of Numbers" 3033: 3016:comment added by 2689: 2333: 2316:comment added by 2166: 1999: 1883:article talk page 1652:talk page stalker 1412: 1411: 1199:Freedom of choice 1177:Freedom of Choice 1120:three-revert rule 1105:Freedom of Choice 1076:harassment policy 552:section? Cheers, 479:templated message 467:article probation 396:Your recent edits 277:appeal this block 190:Your recent edits 3619: 3490:WP:FORUMSHOPPING 3095:LewRockwell.comm 3032: 3010: 2642: 2637: 2632: 2477:Talk:Gun_control 2388: 2382: 2332: 2310: 2306: 2283:Talkback bitcoin 2211:Stephan Kinsella 2160: 2149: 2140: 2092: 2086: 2037:Stephan Kinsella 1998: 1996: 1991: 1986: 1716:discussion pages 1655: 1394: 1387: 1386: 1098: 1065: 1064: 1045: 1044: 941: 940: 875:Both these fail 840: 839: 675:Magellan Maestro 456: 455: 428: 422: 404: 403: 365: 290: 267:, as you did at 249: 239:Edit warring at 222: 216: 198: 197: 3627: 3626: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3581: 3486: 3464: 3427: 3281: 3232: 3191: 3172: 3099: 3075: 3039: 3011: 3003: 2888: 2745: 2653: 2640: 2635: 2630: 2615: 2522: 2386: 2380: 2358: 2311: 2307: 2300: 2285: 2248: 2199:Lewrockwell.com 2191: 2158: 2138: 2115:primary sources 2111: 2090: 2084: 2026: 2024:Mises Institute 1994: 1989: 1987: 1983: 1933:United States: 1922: 1794: 1757: 1755:User:KyleLandas 1712: 1708:Progressive tax 1649: 1622: 1599: 1549:United States: 1538: 1458: 1435: 1385: 1383:A beer for you! 1296:issue as well. 1258: 1221: 1156:page protection 1096: 1062: 1042: 1039: 1019:'''SPECIFICO''' 980:'''SPECIFICO''' 938: 919:'''SPECIFICO''' 917:comment. Thanks 881:'''SPECIFICO''' 837: 834: 811:Short (finance) 803: 783:'''SPECIFICO''' 755:Austrian School 737:'''SPECIFICO''' 710: 692:'''SPECIFICO''' 670: 502:Short (finance) 498: 477:The above is a 453: 450: 413:by typing four 411:sign your posts 401: 398: 375: 363: 350: 338: 315: 311:page protection 280: 247: 244: 207:by typing four 205:sign your posts 195: 192: 173: 119: 35: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3625: 3623: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3579: 3485: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3462: 3425: 3352: 3325: 3280: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3236:Cato Institute 3231: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3190: 3187: 3171: 3168: 3107:Peter Duesberg 3098: 3091: 3080:LudicrousTripe 3074: 3071: 3038: 3035: 3002: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2909: 2908: 2887: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2811: 2810: 2749:Lew Rockwell's 2744: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2705: 2652: 2649: 2614: 2611: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2521: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2389:or some other 2357: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2299: 2286: 2284: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2190: 2187: 2168: 2167: 2110: 2109:On Kinsella... 2107: 2106: 2105: 2061:DickClarkMises 2045:Burton Blumert 2025: 2022: 2021: 2020: 1982: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1921: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1793: 1790: 1756: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1711: 1704: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1621: 1618: 1598: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1537: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1511: 1457: 1454: 1434: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1410: 1409: 1395: 1384: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1324: 1257: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1220: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1192: 1191: 1159: 1048:stop attacking 1038: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1001: 954:. Please read 936: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 857:. Thank you. 833: 830: 802: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 773: 772: 771: 770: 748: 747: 709: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 669: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 601: 600: 599: 598: 569: 568: 497: 494: 475: 474: 457:Thank you for 449: 443: 397: 394: 374: 373:ANI discussion 371: 361:". Thank you! 349: 346: 337: 334: 253:You have been 245: 243: 237: 191: 188: 172: 166: 158: 157: 118: 115: 114: 113: 112: 111: 85: 84: 83: 34: 28: 26: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3624: 3601: 3598: 3597: 3593: 3592: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3578: 3577: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3550: 3549: 3545: 3544: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3518: 3517: 3513: 3512: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3483: 3467: 3461: 3460: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3437: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3424: 3423: 3418: 3414: 3413:Gene Callahan 3410: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3401: 3400: 3396: 3395: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3353: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3337: 3336: 3332: 3331: 3326: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3306: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3278: 3274: 3271: 3270: 3266: 3265: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3243:Steve Horwitz 3241: 3237: 3229: 3225: 3222: 3221: 3217: 3216: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3186: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3169: 3167: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3155: 3152: 3149: 3146: 3141: 3140: 3135: 3134: 3131: 3128: 3125: 3120: 3119: 3116: 3113: 3108: 3104: 3096: 3092: 3090: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3072: 3070: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3052:Pickup Artist 3049: 3045: 3036: 3034: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3008: 3000: 2988: 2985: 2984: 2980: 2979: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2955: 2954: 2950: 2949: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2923: 2922: 2918: 2917: 2911: 2910: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2890: 2889: 2885: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2862: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2844: 2841: 2840: 2836: 2835: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2809: 2806: 2805: 2801: 2800: 2795: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2763: 2757: 2753: 2750: 2742: 2734: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2725: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2692: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2679: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2667: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2650: 2648: 2647: 2643: 2638: 2633: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2612: 2610: 2609: 2606: 2605: 2601: 2600: 2595: 2584: 2581: 2580: 2576: 2575: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2550: 2549: 2545: 2544: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2520:positive note 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2502: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2492: 2491: 2487: 2486: 2481: 2478: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2385: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2351: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2342: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2304: 2297: 2290: 2282: 2278: 2275: 2274: 2270: 2269: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2245: 2241: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2188: 2186: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2165: 2162: 2161: 2155: 2154: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2142: 2141: 2135: 2134: 2129: 2125: 2120: 2116: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2089: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2066:Walled Garden 2062: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2041:Mark Thornton 2038: 2034: 2031: 2023: 2019: 2016: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1997: 1992: 1980: 1974: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1942: 1937: 1936: 1931: 1928: 1927: 1919: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1875: 1874: 1870: 1869: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1827: 1826: 1822: 1821: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1799: 1791: 1789: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1769: 1766: 1762: 1754: 1750: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1741: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1717: 1709: 1705: 1703: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1684: 1681: 1680: 1676: 1675: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1653: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1628: 1619: 1617: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1596: 1590: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1581: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1553: 1552: 1547: 1544: 1543: 1535: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1519: 1518: 1512: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1481: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1453: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1432: 1428: 1425: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1414: 1413: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1382: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1355: 1354: 1350: 1349: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1306: 1305: 1301: 1300: 1295: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1274: 1270: 1268: 1264: 1262: 1255: 1251: 1248: 1247: 1243: 1242: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1218: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1181:79.123.83.147 1178: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1162:Hugo Spinelli 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1132: 1130: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1116: 1110: 1106: 1094: 1093: 1092:from editing. 1091: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1059: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1036: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 999: 995: 991: 990: 989: 985: 981: 977: 976: 975: 974: 970: 966: 963: 962: 957: 953: 949: 945: 928: 924: 920: 915: 914: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 892: 891: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 873: 872: 871: 867: 863: 860: 856: 852: 848: 844: 831: 829: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 808: 800: 792: 788: 784: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 769: 765: 761: 756: 752: 751: 750: 749: 746: 742: 738: 733: 732: 731: 730: 726: 722: 718: 714: 707: 701: 697: 693: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 680: 676: 667: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 572: 571: 570: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 546: 542: 541: 540: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 495: 493: 492: 489: 486: 482: 480: 472: 468: 464: 460: 448: 444: 442: 441: 437: 433: 427: 421: 416: 412: 408: 395: 393: 392: 388: 384: 380: 372: 370: 369: 366: 360: 355: 347: 345: 343: 335: 333: 332: 328: 324: 321:. Thank you, 320: 314: 312: 308: 304: 300: 294: 288: 284: 278: 274: 270: 266: 262: 258: 257: 242: 238: 236: 235: 231: 227: 221: 215: 210: 206: 202: 189: 187: 186: 182: 178: 171: 167: 165: 163: 156: 152: 148: 143: 142: 141: 139: 134: 133: 129: 125: 116: 110: 106: 102: 97: 96: 95: 94: 93: 91: 82: 78: 74: 70: 66: 65: 64: 62: 57: 56: 52: 48: 44: 40: 33: 29: 27: 19: 3595: 3590: 3576:CarolMooreDC 3574: 3547: 3542: 3515: 3510: 3487: 3459:CarolMooreDC 3457: 3422:CarolMooreDC 3420: 3416: 3408: 3398: 3393: 3374: 3371:Denying AIDS 3370: 3362: 3358: 3357:: Bialey is 3354: 3344: 3334: 3329: 3305:Denying AIDS 3303: 3282: 3268: 3263: 3233: 3219: 3214: 3192: 3173: 3142: 3136: 3121: 3100: 3076: 3040: 3012:— Preceding 3004: 2982: 2977: 2952: 2947: 2920: 2915: 2861:Lew Rockwell 2838: 2833: 2803: 2798: 2774: 2758: 2754: 2746: 2728: 2723: 2676: 2671: 2668: 2654: 2623:edit warring 2616: 2613:Edit warring 2603: 2598: 2591: 2578: 2573: 2547: 2542: 2523: 2501:Lew Rockwell 2489: 2484: 2474: 2428: 2384:cheeseburger 2359: 2345: 2340: 2318:Matt06012011 2312:— Preceding 2308: 2272: 2267: 2249: 2235: 2230: 2192: 2169: 2157: 2152: 2137: 2132: 2127: 2112: 2027: 2013: 2008: 1984: 1968: 1963: 1944: 1938: 1932: 1929: 1923: 1920:Hi Specifico 1891: 1886: 1882: 1872: 1867: 1838: 1834: 1824: 1819: 1795: 1767: 1758: 1744: 1739: 1713: 1689: 1678: 1673: 1625: 1623: 1600: 1584: 1579: 1560: 1554: 1548: 1545: 1539: 1536:Hi Specifico 1521: 1516: 1489: 1484: 1459: 1436: 1422: 1417: 1352: 1347: 1330:to do such? 1327: 1303: 1298: 1272: 1266: 1260: 1259: 1245: 1240: 1222: 1133: 1128: 1112: 1102: 1087: 1083: 1071: 1060: 1040: 959: 935: 899: 895: 858: 855:my talk page 835: 832:October 2012 804: 711: 671: 668:Peter Schiff 579: 549: 517: 499: 476: 451: 399: 376: 351: 341: 339: 316: 296: 286: 265:edit warring 260: 254: 193: 174: 161: 159: 137: 135: 120: 89: 86: 60: 58: 36: 30:please read 25: 3367:Kevin Zeese 3176:Darkstar1st 3018:Mrfrobinson 2391:WP:Wikilove 1946:Mcnabber091 1775:David Chaum 1562:Mcnabber091 1443:Mark Arsten 1363:Darkstar1st 1332:Darkstar1st 1314:Darkstar1st 1278:Darkstar1st 1225:Darkstar1st 1148:noticeboard 841:Hello, I'm 522:take a look 3559:Steeletrap 3484:Steeletrap 3409:compromise 3314:Steeletrap 3247:Steeletrap 3157:Steeletrap 3060:Steeletrap 2866:Steeletrap 2818:Steeletrap 2794:WP:CANVASS 2778:Steeletrap 2721:Bad link. 2506:Steeletrap 2456:Steeletrap 2414:Steeletrap 2252:KyleLandas 2215:Steeletrap 2203:Steeletrap 2176:Steeletrap 2070:Steeletrap 2055:, and the 1761:KyleLandas 1636:Steeletrap 1433:ANI notice 1273:assumption 843:Srich32977 407:talk pages 323:EdJohnston 201:talk pages 3591:SPECIFICO 3543:SPECIFICO 3511:SPECIFICO 3436:WP:ONEWAY 3394:SPECIFICO 3347:have RS. 3330:SPECIFICO 3264:SPECIFICO 3215:SPECIFICO 3073:Apologies 2978:SPECIFICO 2948:SPECIFICO 2916:SPECIFICO 2834:SPECIFICO 2799:SPECIFICO 2724:SPECIFICO 2672:SPECIFICO 2599:SPECIFICO 2574:SPECIFICO 2543:SPECIFICO 2485:SPECIFICO 2341:SPECIFICO 2268:SPECIFICO 2231:SPECIFICO 2009:SPECIFICO 1964:SPECIFICO 1868:SPECIFICO 1820:SPECIFICO 1779:Viriditas 1740:SPECIFICO 1710:talk page 1674:SPECIFICO 1580:SPECIFICO 1517:SPECIFICO 1485:SPECIFICO 1418:SPECIFICO 1348:SPECIFICO 1299:SPECIFICO 1241:SPECIFICO 1140:consensus 1136:talk page 998:WP:BURDEN 944:vandalism 463:Paul Ryan 447:Paul Ryan 364:EarwigBot 342:SPECIFICO 303:consensus 301:and seek 269:Paul Ryan 241:Paul Ryan 162:SPECIFICO 138:SPECIFICO 90:SPECIFICO 61:SPECIFICO 39:Paul Ryan 3417:response 3310:Springer 3093:Help on 3026:contribs 3014:unsigned 2963:Gaijin42 2932:Gaijin42 2886:WP:Civil 2796:Thanks. 2709:Gaijin42 2695:Gaijin42 2657:Gaijin42 2559:Gaijin42 2526:Gaijin42 2451:WP:Soap. 2326:contribs 2314:unsigned 2301:You can 2153:Stalwart 2133:Stalwart 1896:WP:WIAPA 1843:WP:TPYES 1771:contribs 1706:Edit to 1659:Gaijin42 1620:Question 1601:Another 1150:or seek 1127:warring— 1109:edit war 1037:Warnings 807:see here 483:--v/r - 465:, is on 285:|reason= 261:31 hours 170:WP:AN/EW 101:Ronnotel 73:Ronnotel 43:WP:AN/EW 3527:S. Rich 3494:S. Rich 3441:S. Rich 3379:S. Rich 3288:S. Rich 3199:Túrelio 3097:article 3056:Roosh V 2627:King of 2437:S. Rich 2433:WP:SOAP 2395:S. Rich 2128:editors 2126:and we 2095:S. Rich 1981:Bitcoin 1939:China: 1900:S. Rich 1852:S. Rich 1847:WP:TPNO 1839:nothing 1803:S. Rich 1723:Mattnad 1693:S. Rich 1607:S. Rich 1555:China: 1203:S. Rich 1124:reverts 1090:blocked 1056:blocked 1046:Please 1005:S. Rich 965:S. Rich 904:S. Rich 862:S. Rich 815:WWB Too 644:WWB Too 614:WWB Too 584:WWB Too 580:Concept 554:WWB Too 550:Concept 526:WWB Too 518:Concept 432:SineBot 283:unblock 256:blocked 226:SineBot 177:Collect 122:norm.-- 47:Collect 3375:and/or 3001:WP:ANI 2619:WP:AN3 2366:Olathe 2124:WP:BLP 2119:verify 1603:WP:ETN 1480:WP:BRD 1415:Cool. 1294:WP:BLP 994:WP:AGF 415:tildes 295:first. 209:tildes 69:WP:BLP 3170:OR@AS 2762:piece 1995:talk 1773:) on 735:here. 32:WP:EW 16:< 3596:talk 3563:talk 3548:talk 3531:talk 3516:talk 3498:talk 3445:talk 3399:talk 3383:talk 3349:WP:V 3345:must 3335:talk 3318:talk 3292:talk 3269:talk 3251:talk 3220:talk 3203:talk 3197:. -- 3180:talk 3161:talk 3084:talk 3064:talk 3054:and 3022:talk 2983:talk 2967:talk 2953:talk 2936:talk 2921:talk 2902:talk 2898:Mike 2870:talk 2839:talk 2822:talk 2804:talk 2782:talk 2729:talk 2713:talk 2699:talk 2677:talk 2661:talk 2604:talk 2579:talk 2563:talk 2548:talk 2530:talk 2510:talk 2490:talk 2460:talk 2441:talk 2435:. – 2431:are 2429:here 2418:talk 2399:talk 2393:. – 2370:talk 2346:talk 2322:talk 2273:talk 2256:talk 2236:talk 2219:talk 2207:talk 2197:and 2180:talk 2099:talk 2074:talk 2047:and 2014:talk 1990:TOW 1969:talk 1950:talk 1904:talk 1873:talk 1856:talk 1825:talk 1807:talk 1783:talk 1765:talk 1745:talk 1727:talk 1697:talk 1679:talk 1663:talk 1640:talk 1611:talk 1597:Bite 1585:talk 1566:talk 1522:talk 1505:talk 1501:☥NEO 1490:talk 1466:talk 1462:☥NEO 1447:talk 1423:talk 1403:talk 1399:☥NEO 1367:talk 1353:talk 1336:talk 1318:talk 1304:talk 1282:talk 1265:and 1246:talk 1229:talk 1207:talk 1201:. – 1185:talk 1166:talk 1023:talk 1009:talk 984:talk 969:talk 923:talk 908:talk 885:talk 866:talk 819:Talk 787:talk 764:talk 741:talk 725:talk 696:talk 679:talk 648:Talk 618:Talk 588:Talk 558:Talk 530:Talk 436:talk 387:talk 379:here 327:talk 263:for 230:talk 181:talk 151:talk 128:talk 105:talk 77:talk 51:talk 3363:all 3359:not 3343:We 2651:ANI 2159:111 2139:111 2117:to 1892:not 1887:not 1885:is 1845:or 1841:in 1144:BRD 1084:you 823:COI 652:COI 622:COI 610:COI 592:COI 562:COI 534:COI 514:COI 423:or 381:.-- 217:or 3580:🗽 3565:) 3533:) 3500:) 3463:🗽 3447:) 3426:🗽 3385:) 3320:) 3294:) 3253:) 3205:) 3182:) 3163:) 3086:) 3066:) 3050:, 3028:) 3024:• 2969:) 2938:) 2904:) 2872:) 2824:) 2784:) 2715:) 2701:) 2663:) 2644:♠ 2565:) 2532:) 2512:) 2462:) 2443:) 2420:) 2401:) 2387:}} 2381:{{ 2372:) 2328:) 2324:• 2258:) 2221:) 2213:. 2182:) 2101:) 2091:}} 2085:{{ 2076:) 2043:, 2039:, 2035:, 1952:) 1906:) 1858:) 1809:) 1785:) 1729:) 1699:) 1665:) 1642:) 1613:) 1568:) 1507:) 1468:) 1449:) 1405:) 1369:) 1338:) 1320:) 1284:) 1231:) 1209:) 1187:) 1168:) 1158:. 1111:. 1025:) 1011:) 986:) 971:) 925:) 910:) 887:) 868:) 825:) 821:· 789:) 766:) 760:LK 743:) 727:) 721:LK 698:) 681:) 654:) 650:· 624:) 620:· 594:) 590:· 564:) 560:· 536:) 532:· 438:) 430:-- 389:) 329:) 313:. 289:}} 281:{{ 232:) 224:-- 183:) 153:) 130:) 107:) 79:) 53:) 3561:( 3529:( 3496:( 3443:( 3381:( 3316:( 3290:( 3249:( 3201:( 3178:( 3159:( 3082:( 3062:( 3020:( 2965:( 2934:( 2900:( 2868:( 2820:( 2780:( 2711:( 2697:( 2659:( 2641:♣ 2636:♦ 2631:♥ 2561:( 2528:( 2508:( 2458:( 2439:( 2416:( 2397:( 2368:( 2320:( 2298:. 2254:( 2217:( 2205:( 2178:( 2097:( 2072:( 1948:( 1902:( 1854:( 1805:( 1781:( 1768:· 1763:( 1725:( 1695:( 1661:( 1654:) 1650:( 1638:( 1609:( 1564:( 1503:( 1464:( 1445:( 1401:( 1365:( 1334:( 1316:( 1280:( 1227:( 1205:( 1183:( 1164:( 1021:( 1007:( 982:( 967:( 921:( 906:( 900:I 896:I 883:( 864:( 817:( 785:( 762:( 739:( 723:( 694:( 677:( 646:( 616:( 586:( 556:( 528:( 488:P 485:T 434:( 385:( 357:" 325:( 228:( 179:( 149:( 126:( 103:( 75:( 49:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.