Should this link stay or go? I don't think the user intended as SPAM, but there is WP:COI. I'm tired and may be mistaken about it being wrong there. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 01:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think this comment is probably sarcasm, but just in case it isn't: Asking another editor to make changes in an area where you are topic banned is a fast track to trouble for both you and them, as explained at WP:PROXYING. I posted a reminder about this at Arthur Rubin's talk page, and although I don't think you were being serious, it seemed only fair to do something similar here. --RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the edit comment. MilesMoney (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I totally missed that! Thanks for confirming what I suspected anyway, that your post wasn't a serious request. --RL0919 (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification in lieu of official template that doesn't seem to exist for users - Re: your off topic and/or no evidence/diffs and/or manufactured evidence and/or trumped up allegations against me at two recent ANIS (here and here), as well as in past talk page discussions which I should have reported to ANI previously.

• I’d like you to be aware of Israel-Palestine arbitration and Sexology arbitration. Both allow reports regarding questionable or false accusations of bigotry in Wikipedia discussions. Please study them and cease your false allegations.
  

If you truly believe there is an issue, bring it with actual evidence/diffs to the proper forum and I will be glad to debunk all of your false or extremely trumped up accusations. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about: none of my posts have involved either of these two subjects. No notification from you can force me to be involved, much less get me into any sort of trouble. For that matter, such sanctions traditionally do not apply to WP:ANI, else there would be no way for someone thus sanctioned to protest. I am not responsible for others posting examples of your bigotry, and I am absolutely not responsible for your bigotry. Your notice is therefore egregiously hostile and irrelevant.

I do note that you violate WP:AGF by suggesting that any of my constructive criticism on WP:ANI was somehow less than genuine. If you're going to waste my time with this nonsense, I don't want you on my talk page. Please consider yourself very unwelcome. In other words, go away and don't come back. MilesMoney (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MM. I'm not sure if I got the right link-- the Huffpo bio I'm lookng at actually begins by saying she's a managing director at SKDK. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we'll continue this discussion on the article talk page, just to keep it centralized. MilesMoney (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment

I note with concern that this appears to be a pattern of behavior you're engaging in across multiple articles.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

I would just suggest you remember the basic process of Wikipedia: Bold, revert, discuss.

You made a bold change, it was reverted. At this point you should stop reintroducing the controversial change until discussion demonstrates an acceptance of the change.

The mistake you're making is re-introducing the controversial change while you discuss. That's not how it works.

In this case, discussion has yielded a strong consensus against your change, and you have again re-introduced it.

I took the time to write all this, because your present trajectory, if unchanged, will doubtlessly lead you to have a very negative Wikipedia experience that ends with you either leaving the project or being removed from it. I don't think that's a good outcome, so perhaps my words can help you hear something that the edit warring template failed to help you hear. Kindly, --HectorMoffet (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is not negotiable and is not subject to WP:3RR. Go away and don't come back. MilesMoney (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MilesMoney, I agree on you with this article. I do not understand however why you do not apply the same standards to articles about libertarian subjects. TFD (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that I do. You won't find any examples where I supported including unsourced accusations of criminal behavior. We walk a fine line as biographers. If we try too hard to keep it clean, we wind up censoring. If we excessively muckrake, we wind up slandering. This is a delicate matter and reasonable people can disagree on precisely where the line is.

The irony here is that I absolutely despise Hilary Rosen. She's the sort of <redacted> insider that, as a libertarian, I see as a representation of all that is wrong with government when it's coopted by corporatism. Her stint at the RIAA is particularly offensive, given that organization's perennial abuse of the legal system to persecute victimless crimes. Still, however I feel about her, I'm not willing to let her be defamed. MilesMoney (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MilesMoney; please be aware that BLP also applies to User talk pages. I redacted a word in your comment above and I think you will understand why. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can actually ground that term in reliable sources, but I'll let it stand. MilesMoney (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since lobbying is only illegal under certain circumstances, no accusations of criminality have been made. TFD (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's specifically illegal to be an unregistered lobbyist. She is not registered, so if she's lobbying, that's illegal. MilesMoney (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:MilesMoney edit-warring/personal attacks. Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but even an editor I've asked to stay away is allowed to post required notices such as this one. MilesMoney (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who were you before this account was created, and was he subject to any sanctions? You look familiar. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been myself and I am subject only to an article ban on Ludwig von Mises Institute, but let's talk about you. You seem unhappy that I've been trying to keep you from getting punished for violating your topic ban. I've used humor, I've offered polite advice, and I've brought the issue to the attention of others. Throughout the entire process, I've been working to steer you away from the cliff, not pushing you over it. Whatever your political biases, Wikipedia needs more experts, so it is my goal to ensure that you can continue to edit.

I've laid my motives out on the table, and I've been pretty clear about them from the start. I don't really know how to respond to your conspiracy theory, so I'm not going to. Instead, I'm going to remind you that literally nothing stops MrX from getting you blocked right this moment. Are you willing to work with me to prevent that from happening? MilesMoney (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, I see now that MrX has gone to WP:AE. If you do get blocked, which seems likely, I hope you simultaneously accept that you need to avoid Koch-related articles in the future and that this is not a good reason to stop editing. You are very, very far from an WP:SPA, and a couple of weeks really isn't a long time. MilesMoney (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Trust, but verify". I would think it wise for a Checkuser to verify that you are (probably) not any of the topic-banned editors from TPm. I can't say your style closely resembles any of them, but it might be one of them trying to be different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the accusation has no merit and your motives are suspect. Drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.MilesMoney (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have shown a pattern of leaving me warnings which, upon careful examination, do not appear to be legitimate. They are marred by factual errors or policy misunderstandings, or are simply a reflection of disagreement about content rather than anything else.

When I've seen such a pattern, I've responded by asking these editors not to continue it, "banishing" them from my talk page. To the best of my understanding, this is perfectly acceptable and is in fact the right way to avoid further conflict.

It has come to my attention that some editors consider these ongoing banishments to be a sign of lack of culture fit. I don't agree. At all. Nonetheless, I'm declaring all banishments removed. If I asked you not to edit my talk page, you are now free to do so. Consider this to be an olive branch or fig leaf or lettuce wrap.

However, I reserve the right to banish you again if you reoffend. I think that's a fair compromise. MilesMoney (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Miles, I'm glad to see I've been un-banned (although I haven't been able to find the diff where I got banned). I'm sure many will appreciate that lettuce leaf, and I think it's a step in the right direction. As you have been one of the regular editors participating in articles related to Austrian Economics, and I was hoping I could convince you to participate in a small experiment on dispute resolution. It's formatted as a simple question and answer, with a hint of RfC/U, aimed at getting participants to talk with one another, recognize potential problems, and with any luck, commit to fixing those problems. The page is at User:Adjwilley/Austrian_economics and you are free to edit at your leisure. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this avoids going to ArbCom, I'm all for it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you move your comment here into the threaded discussion. (That way you have your say, in the discussion, without looking like you are taking additional bites of the apple in the Survey.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Economic inequality. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Roccodrift (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco, if you're going to annoy me with false accusations, do it somewhere else. You are no longer welcome on my talk page. MilesMoney (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This comment has nothing to do with the AfD, can be seen as PA & lacking AGF, and should be removed (or hatted) in accordance with WP:TPYES. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]