Misplaced Pages

Notable Wikipedians TfD

Hello.

As I mentioned at the TfD, I would like to suggest that we discontinue our debate at the TfD. I think it is clear by now that we will not reach agreement on this issue, and although we obviously disagree on the reasons for this, I think we can both agree that little benefit will come from continued discussion of precisely why we disagree. For the most part, I think we have said all that we can say about the template; the rest, about our conduct or intentions, is ultimately immaterial to the TfD discussion.

Since we both claimed at the TfD that the other has misrepresented our own arguments and positions, I would like to briefly address that point. If I have actually misrepresented your position, then I apologise, as that was not my intent (I recognise that it's certainly possible that I misunderstood what you had written). I also believe that you misrepresented my position, but I believe that it was not deliberate and was caused by misunderstanding.

I also apologise if my comments came across as incivil, since (at least initially) they were not written with any sarcastic intent, and I hold no ill will based on the incivility that I perceived in your comments.

I hope you have a good day. –Black Falcon 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you persist in referring to sarcasm or to mockery, as if either were required for incivility. In any case, if you stop writing things that call for reply, then I will stop replying. —SlamDiego_←T 22:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do drop the illusion that you are merely responding to "things that call for reply". It was you who expressed your support for "an indefinite block of any editor who insisted that such explanations be provided" and effectively characterised my actions as "baying at the moon" well before I even typed a single word in reply to your "keep" recommendation (your comments were made on 5 September and my replies came on 8 September), and it was you who began to repeatedly orient your comments toward me and my "marked propensit" as opposed to my arguments. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or characterising my arguments as illogical or ridiculous (it's your opinion), but let's neither of us pretend to be more Catholic than the Pope. –Black Falcon 00:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no illusion on my part. As to the support for a block that I expressed, that was before you actually took the position in question. (By far the worst of the two possibilities.) As to my assertions about your marked propensities, these were exactly propensities to not merely to misinterpret and misrepresent what was thought by others. I wasn't not simply objecting to ad hominem, but to libel. (In other words, we have yet another of your misrepresentations here.) Now, please do not bay at the moon on my talk page. —SlamDiego_←T 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your talk page from my watchlist and shall post here no more; unless it is to discuss a change to content or an administrative action carried out by me, I ask that you do the same for my talk page. Incivility and personal attacks I can handle; but life's too short to deal with hypocrisy. –Black Falcon 01:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I've never commented to your talk page, it's a bit petty for you to ask me to not to do so. Not as petty, however, as a preëmptive suggestion that I might engage in hypocrisy. —SlamDiego_←T 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Austrian economics discussion

In case you missed it, there's a discussion about Austrian economics over at the WikiProject. I haven't weighed in since I don't know much it. II | (t - c) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that the discussion can possibly be productive. On the one hand, there are a lot of nuts who embrace what they think to be Austrian School economics. On the other hand, the mainstream begin acting like shaved apes, rather than anything remotely like scientists, when it comes to confronting Austrian School economics (real or alleged). One sees that, for example, in the displacement of scientific method with appeal to consensus (real or alleged), and in the claim that there are somehow too many articles on Austrian School economists. Anyway, I have focussed my contributions on articles where the significance of current Austrian School economists is not relevant, and the historical significance of the Austrian School is readily defended by “reliable sources”. (Note that “Marginal utility” is awash in footnotes.) —SlamDiego_←T 23:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You use some sophisticated terms which leave be puzzled. I'm familiar (barely) with the difference between history and historiography, so I'll mull that. I'm not familiar wiWhen a layperson says “history”, he or she may mean what happened or may mean what is reported by historians and how it is reported; the failure to make a distinction is a source of real grief. The term “histoth the distinction between concept and conception. Can you point me towards something which can help me understand? CRETOG8(t/c) 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whither I might point, so I'll just explain. A concept is truly the general idea, and nothing that is not intrinsic to that general idea; a conception has additional assumed or presumed features. Think of an American as no more than a person from America, and you're dealing with a concept; make him fat and give him a loud mouth, and you're dealing with a conception. If this conception is accepted for a concept, then it becomes impossible to talk about thin or quiet Americans; at best, one could talk about thin or quite people who are almost Americans. It's not that we want to avoid conceptions; it's that we don't want them to be presented as the general idea. The assumption or presumption of non-essential features amounts to the deliberate or accidental assumption or presumption of a theory. —SlamDiego_←T 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. In principle, I'm all behind that. In practice, sounds very tricky even with the best of intentions. Anyway, I understand what you're getting at now. Thanks. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm wrong, but I think I can feel your blood pressure rising reading your most recent comments in that discussion. If so, I think you can afford to step out of it again for a bit. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (genuinely) for the note of concern. My blood pressure was higher at an earlier point than now, but I'd be dishonest if I denied that that the discourse indeed gets my back up. And I probably have made whatever productive comments I might make. —SlamDiego_←T 17:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Don't! Buy! Thai!

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Don't! Buy! Thai!, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. benjicharlton (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've removed the tag, but left a note on the talk page which indicates considerable flexibility about disposition of the article. —SlamDiego_←T 08:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Half the time, I don't understand what you say

I don't want to distract from the conversation over at Econ Wikiproject. I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but you should understand that about half the time, I don't understand what you're trying to say. I may be wrong, but I don't think I'm alone in this.

For example, I thought I understood what historiography meant from the context, then I looked it up in the dictionary, and found out that it's something else all together. And what does 'operationalize as little more than ventilation' mean? Do you mean that this whole discussion is useless except that we get to vent our frustration?

And come on, 'serve as a stalking horse on the other side of which is carried a bell, book, and candle'? That's two metaphors mixed together, both of them I'm unfamiliar with. I googled them, but the sentence still doesn't make sense to me.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I just want to understand what you are saying. Please keep in mind that for many of us here on Misplaced Pages, English is not our first language. I think that, if you want to be understood (by me at least), it would be helpful if you tried pretending that you are writing for third graders.

lk (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence was

A statement of ostensible consensus should neither operationalize as little more than ventilation nor serve as a stalking horse on the other side of which is carried a bell, book, and candle.

so plainly the reference is to “A statement of ostensible consensus”, not to the discussion about stating the consensus. (As to the possibility that a discussion might operationalize as little more than ventilation, that really wouldn't be worrisome.)

If I were communicating with third graders, then I wouldn't interact with them as people who ought to be determining the policy for an encyclopedia that was supposed to be authoritative and pitched at adults. And I sure wouldn't want to pretend that I was merely their equal when it came to such a task. Perhaps more importantly, I'd have to write at great length to say the same things that I've said so far, and there'd be every chance that the audience would simply get lost in the sea of words.

Given how unrestrained your pronouncements have been, I'm already unhappy with the extent to which you need things explained to you. —SlamDiego_←T 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)