| Revision as of 06:24, 26 January 2013 editXerographica (talk | contribs)2,148 edits →Article creation break?: Notability← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:01, 26 November 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,115 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] | ||
| (273 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| __NOINDEX__ | __NOINDEX__ | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 70K | |||
| |counter = 3 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 8 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(20d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Xerographica/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{talk header|noarchive=no|search=|arpol=no|wp=no|disclaimer=no|bottom=no|force=true}} | {{talk header|noarchive=no|search=|arpol=no|wp=no|disclaimer=no|bottom=no|force=true}} | ||
| {{archives}} | {{archives}} | ||
| Line 26: | Line 17: | ||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | ||
| == January 2013 == | |||
| ] Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for ]. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a ], talk pages such as ] are for discussion related to improving the article, ] about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting ] and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-chat1 --> ''The forum for comments about the block is at your talk page or, when the block is imposed, to administrators at the proposing entry. (Not to the admins themselves.) Removal of your comment is appropriate is proper because it is off-topic.'' ] (]) 19:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The point of my section was to try and figure out how that entry can be improved so that other editors are not blocked for violating rules that do not exist. Please do not remove content from talk pages that are not your own. --] (]) 19:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please stop using talk pages such as ] for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; ]. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting ] and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See ] for more information. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-chat2 --> ''If your comments were focused on improvement of the essay, then the comments would be helpful. But 2 of 3 paragraphs were about the block that was imposed, bolstered links which did not tell the full story. (Even including what you and others did connected to the block was off-topic.)'' ] (]) 20:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Please do not remove content from talk pages that are not your own. --] (]) 20:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please stop using talk pages such as ] for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; ]. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting ] and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See ] for more information. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-chat2 --> ''In this edit, , you do not simply say you were blocked, but you add this link -- ] -- that does not even deal with the block; moreover, you disguised it with a pipe. The remainder of your comment was certainly acceptable, but the opening "complaint" about the block, even by such an indirect reference, did not further article improvement. At least you were honest enough to say you were blocked and I will give you credit for that. But, frankly, linking the tax talk page to a ] talk page that addresses an entirely different topic is disruptive.'' ] (]) 23:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please ] other editors, as you did on ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> ''With this edit you are making specific comments about two particular editors (myself and Rubin). When you say "economics is way outside your area of expertise" you are not helping the WikiProject because such comments are focused on the the competence of editors in one particular area in which you seem to claim to have expertise. Ask yourself -- how does this comment about Rubin or Rich help improve Misplaced Pages? Before making these comments, please think like an economist: e.g., in terms of alternatives, evaluating the cost of choices, understanding how issues are related, etc. The cost of your choice to make personal remarks is that your creditability is diminished.'' ] (]) 23:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Put your money where your mouth is and report me for saying that economics is outside your area of expertise. Eventually, by the process of elimination, we'll learn what the admins do...and do not...consider to be a personal attack. --] (]) 00:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are missing the point, perhaps because of your personal involvement or basic nature. Perhaps for other reasons. The issue is ''not'' whether I, Rubin, or any other editor understands economics. Ph.D.s in economics can't agree on many things, but they don't go after each other saying "You're incompetent." Misplaced Pages editors can and do disagree on many things too, but good editors do not go after each other and say "You're incompetent." (I certainly don't claim any competency in economics. I am, by far, a ]. And competence -- to add to the value of Misplaced Pages in general -- is not especially valuable in my gnomish activity.) The issues ''for you'' (and all contributors) are of Assuming Good Faith and No Personal Attacks. Disparaging remarks, such as "Value Destroying Editor" etc., do not further discussions. Alluding to such remarks as you do on talk pages is not acceptable either. I wish you would not give in to the temptation (or whatever) to throw in such remarks. At this stage your remarks are basically uncivil. But I will not be surprised when I see more such remarks from you. I hope you will prove me wrong in this regard.--] (]) 00:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The point is that you think there's no problem editing economic content despite being fully aware that economics is outside your area of expertise. That's my problem...only because there ARE...and HAVE been negative consequences as a direct result of your behavior. Not a single one of your edits on any of the numerous entries on my watch list have been helpful. Most have been decidedly unhelpful. They have been extremely counterproductive. They have been in complete disregard of reliable sources. And if you feel like I'm insulting you...or attacking you...then again, put your money where your mouth is and report me. --] (]) 01:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Do you have any objection to merging your new category into ]? If you do, please say something about the difference on the category pages. — ] ] 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The category should be "Public choice" rather than "Public choice theory". --] (]) 06:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::That may be; but your creating the new overlapping category is still disruptive. The ''correct'' thing to do would be to use the existing category for the moment, and to request a category move from ] to ] once the article is moved. I lean toward ] per ], but I'm not going to weigh in on the article move request or the category move request. — ] ] 06:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Courtesy == | |||
| Hi mate, there seems to be some concern (you have suggested as much elsewhere) that others have not been able to point you to the policy they believe you are violating when suggesting others not edit in areas where they (allegedly) have no expertise. The policy in question is ]. the section in question is, ''Examples of ownership behaviour'', which says: | |||
| :*''An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it'' (which then points to two examples) | |||
| In the instance I noted (]) you suggested an editor was not expert enough to edit particular articles and you did so in a manner that almost mirrors the examples given at ]. I have no capacity to block you, but that policy suggests that such an attack is unacceptable and could warrant a block. | |||
| I thought you deserved the courtesy of an explaination of my comments there, given the previous queries. ]] 13:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not what I was blocked for though. Also, Misplaced Pages ] clearly states that "'''competence is required'''" and... | |||
| ::Assuming that people are ''trying'' to help is trivial—we assume they breathe air, also. But if someone is ''unable'' to help, or is sometimes helpful but sometimes causes major disruption, this is a bad thing that must not be allowed to continue. The proverbial bull in a china shop might have good intentions, but he's clearly bad for business. We must always value the project as a whole more than we value the contributions of any individual editor. | |||
| :Are you capable of identifying competence in economics? --] (]) 18:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem is, ] is not a ] - it's a user essay, written by an editor like you or I. It might be an opinion you particularly agree with but it's not a community-endorsed policy. I could just as easily write ] or ] and they would have the same "policy" weight. Citing an essay as justification for breaching a policy will likely to get you into trouble. The problem with your question is a another question as an answer: are you? The reality is that personal experience counts for nothing here because we can only recite facts that can be ] by ] - so ''knowing'' something, ''believing'' something or having ''experienced'' something are all uncitable as sources. I can't say, "my mate ] is an economics expert and he told me...", so likewise you can't say, "I'm an economics expert so I'm telling you". However unfortunate, it really means not much at all. You might disagree (as that essay does) but policy says otherwise, and you '''can''' be blocked for breaching policy. ]] 20:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I agree that it's a problem that the competence requirement is not a Misplaced Pages policy. What '''is''' Misplaced Pages policy is that the content be based on reliable sources. As Rubin's advocate...surely it shouldn't be difficult for you to find some RS's that he has recently cited? Good luck. In all the entries that we have "edited" together...not ONCE has he offered a SINGLE RS to help improve an entry. Instead, he's more than happy to remove content that IS supported by RS. Actually, you know what would be even better? How about you help Rubin and I improve the ]? I'd really love that...then you can decide for yourself whether there's a problem with Rubin's behavior. --] (]) 20:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It isn't and is not likely to ever be, because (though some might agree with the premise) it is fundamentally contrary to ], ] and ] (something even the essay notes) and the idea that WP is something "everyone can edit". That's not, "everyone can edit, provided they are ]". Taking a hard line on the basis of your agreement with an essay is a fairly bad idea and calling it a "competence policy" (then accepting it isn't and that you know the difference) only further suggests you know your personal attacks were out of line. I'm no one's "advocate" and I don't think I've ever edited with either of you. But a number of people have now told you the same thing. Whether you chose to ] or not is up to you. Admins will care little for your content dispute if you try to "resolve" the problem with personal attacks. ]] 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I honestly don't know what you're trying to accomplish here. Maybe you think I'm just being a dick and enjoy being a dick to people? If so, then you would be violating the Misplaced Pages Good Faith policy. If you don't wish to violate the Good Faith policy...then you have to assume that my behavior, with regard to Rubin and Rich, has been in response to what I perceive to be a serious problem. But you can't truly make an informed judgement without actually editing alongside Rubin, Rich and I. If I'm just being a dick for being a dick's sake...then why would I want a neutral third party around? So please, if you genuinely want to help solve this problem, which I will assume you do...you know...because of the good faith policy and all...then you should certainly be willing to edit the tax entry with Rubin and I. --] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Nothing, beyond giving a fellow experienced editor some friendly advice. I made my initial comments at AFD and subsequently noticed you had queried such comments immidiately prior, so I thought you deserved a broader explaination. You can take my advice or leave it. I don't think you're being a dick - my assumption was in good faith - that you weren't aware of the policy in question. What you do with that information beyond that is up to you. It's a matter of amoral/immoral - I wouldn't like to see you punished for a misunderstanding. I don't think you '''meant''' it as a personal attack, so calling it as much deserved an explaination. I'm not going to involve myself any further - I really do think this is a dispute that can be resolved. ]] 22:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I wasn't "attacking" Rubin/Rich because I wasn't "aware" of some policy...my behavior was in response to my perception of the negative consequences of their behavior. My "awareness" of Misplaced Pages policy does absolutely nothing to change their behavior. You not involving yourself further does absolutely nothing to shed light on whether there truly is a problem with their behavior. How can the dispute be resolved if outside editors aren't willing to edit alongside Rich, Rubin and I in order to determine whose behavior is truly the problem here? --] (]) 22:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::My comments weren't about any wider content dispute - they directly related to one comment you made and your challenge to an editor (prior to my comments) to substantiate how admins could come to the opinion that prior (similar) comments were personal attacks (something for which you had previously been blocked). Those comments (that style of comment inparticular) is considered a personal attack by established policy. Admins (and other editors) are unlikely to work to help you resolve the dispute if there are personal attacks flying sround. They'll just consider that disruptive, block you and move on. So given that particular style of insult is specifically prohibited, it's probably best just to avoid anything like that. You are entitled to your opinion; policy just suggests you should express it diferently. After that, you need a completely neutral (eg. now, not me) editor (admin would be best) to help mediate and perhaps run a few neutral RFCs on various things, to avoid having these discussions at AFD. ]] 23:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well...you keep saying that I engaged in personal attacks...but you only cited the specific policy from OWN...so which is it? If you say that it's also a PA...then please cite the specific passage from the PA entry that states that it's a personal attack to address how an editor's actions affect Misplaced Pages's content. --] (]) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| The section of ] I referred to was ] which cross-references ] - the obvious point being that such behaviour could be considered a personal attack. As with all personal attacks, intent must be taken into consideration (plus a host of other things admins would consider). But given your previous PA-based block, I would think that's the sort of thing you would want to avoid entirely, regardless of technical nuances. Further, ] says, specifically: | |||
| :''Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.'' | |||
| If nothing else, I'd be paying heed to that line. ]] 00:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :When the article's content is completely removed...], ], ], ]...maybe even ]...then the only thing to comment on is why something that was supported by reliable sources is no longer there. Valuable content doesn't just magically vanish. When some IP address removes content for no good reason we refer to it as vandalism. But what do we do/say when editors consistently remove content for no good reason? We dare not call it vandalism! We dare not say that value was destroyed! But if an action doesn't create value...then the only other possibility is that it destroys value. --] (]) 00:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, of course unexplained page or section blanking can be considered vandalism. But those seem to have been redirected or merged rather than blanked. You are entitled to ask for an explaination and progress it to a relevant dispute resolution process if you still think there has been an error. But you won't get very far asking admins to help you if your initial "resolution attempt" was a personal attack. ]] 01:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well...if you truly believe that referring to another editor as a "value destroyer" is a personal attack...then why not edit the Misplaced Pages entry on personal attacks to reflect what you know to be true? Also, be sure to mention that it's a personal attack to tell somebody that they are editing outside their area of expertise (aka incompetent). There shouldn't be any confusion regarding what is...or isn't...a personal attack. Feel free to continue the discussion on the personal attack's talk page. --] (]) 01:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Mostly because that policy doesn't list '''all''' possible insults and attacks and simply suggests we focus on content rather than editors (in fact the ] expands on that point too, with ]). But also becuase it's a policy and that's what we have ] for. At the end of the day, the judgement-call is up to you. If you believe your comments do not constitute personal attacks, you are free to continue making them. As I said from the start - take my advice or leave it. I have no skin in this game. ]] 02:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please ] other editors. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> ''Again, as other editors point out how your comments are improperly directed towards Rubin and myself, you respond with this remark that restates your personal opinion about Rubin himself saying "Clearly he doesn't read any RS. Here's his most recent 'contribution' ...." What is the purpose of the ] other than to express your derision? (My gosh, this stuff is on a WikiProject talk page. Such pages serve to alert contributors about articles being discussed or other general topics of interest to the Project. They are the last place for such personal remarks!) Other editors have quite patiently implored you to stop with the personal remarks (above). I will do so again. Please, before you add something using the second person pronoun "you", ask yourself "how will this sentence contribute to improvement of the article or topic?"'' ] (]) 05:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)05:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] This is your '''last warning'''. The next time you make ] on other people, you may be '''] without further notice'''. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.<!-- Template:uw-npa4 --> ''This remark -- -- was not directed towards the discussion on moving the article. You had already agreed to/supported the move in earlier comments. It was simply a PA on Rubin and I, saying a particular author had not been read by us. Sigh.'' ] (]) 16:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Like I said, as long as you continue to willfully ignore reliable sources...then I will continue to point this out. If you feel like I'm personally attacking you by pointing this out, then put your money where your mouth is and report me. I'd like to learn exactly what admins do...and do not...consider to be personal attacks. I asked them to explain it to me but they showed absolutely no interest in doing so. So if it takes the process of elimination to flesh out their unspoken rules then so be it. --] (]) 17:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''two weeks''' for personal attacks such as "willfully ignore reliable sources" used as a characterization of another editor's disagreement with you on an article, and your ongoing history of ] and ] behavior. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ] | ] 17:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)</div>{{z8}}<!-- Template:uw-hblock --> | |||
| : I'm sorry, but I know for a fact that both I and at least one other editor have indeed ''explained'' it to you on my talkpage. The fact that you don't ''like'' the answer is not my business, it's yours. You don't get to behave poorly just because you don't like the answer, and go off accusing others of a wide range of things (]''']''']) 18:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|reason= | |||
| According to ]... | |||
| :The '''burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material'''. | |||
| I've asked Rich, Rubin and BWilkins ], ] and ] to provide a reliable source that supports directing ] to ]. They have chosen not to do so. | |||
| In the process...I've learned that it's a personal attack to say that... | |||
| # an editor is destroying value | |||
| # an editor is ignoring reliable sources | |||
| But it's going to take forever to learn what is...or isn't...a personal attack if each time I focus on the content I'm blocked for two weeks. I think I should only be blocked for at most 48 hours. I've learned my lesson. In fact, after my block is over I will edit the ] to reflect that it is personal attack to say that an editor is ignoring reliable sources. | |||
| Honestly though...if admins genuinely and sincerely wanted to help me understand what is...or isn't...a personal attack...then why haven't they responded to my questions on the personal attack ]? I think I've shown Good Faith in wanting to learn about what behavior...is...or isn't acceptable. | |||
| --] (]) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)|decline=Saying you want to learn, when your talk page is stock full of people explaining how your behavior was and is unacceptable, is not helpful. What you need to do is consider for a while that there's a reason you keep running into this brick wall. It's a personal attack when you dwell negatively on the editor rather than the edit. And it's a waste of other volunteers' time for you to test the boundaries in this disruptive fashion -- and that's the core of the reason for your block. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| Jpgordon, I'm not focusing on the edits? The reason I'm blocked is because I'm the only one who cares enough about the edits to speak out about the fact that there are no RS to support redirecting concentrated benefits and diffuse costs to tragedy of the commons. | |||
| Here's what I really want to learn. What is the correct procedure for dealing with edits that are not supported by RS...but ARE supported by numerous editors? Can you please walk me through the proper steps that I might take? That way...when I'm unblocked...I can do something to help ensure that the content on Misplaced Pages is verified. | |||
| What you need to consider is...when all you editors know that the content is not supported by RS...why is the only editor willing to do something about it blocked for two weeks? I know why...it's because you'd prefer to focus on me rather than the edits. Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah...it's the reason that '''I'm''' blocked. | |||
| So show me how it's done. Ignore "me" as a person and tell "me" as an editor what I can do to help ensure that the content on Misplaced Pages is verified. And it would be especially insightful if you could help me understand why, given that I'm blocked for 2 weeks, you're not interested in taking those same steps yourself. --] (]) 19:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Start with ] and continue from there. You've been told this repeatedly. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::So any editor can request that a dispute be resolved? For example, could Orange Mike, instead of blocking me for two weeks, could he have requested that this dispute be resolved? --] (]) 23:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Why would Orange Mike take it to DR? He has no iron in this specific fire. He saw ] and ] behaviours and protected the project. You're not blocked due to a specific topic; you're blocked for the nasty behaviours you showed trying to defend and protect a specific topic. There's a right way and a wrong way to behave in a community. Make sure you separate building the encyclopedia from tearing down the other people who are also building it - you were doing the latter (]''']''']) 10:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Why was I doing the latter? Because I'm an asshole? Because I'm a total dick? Because I get my kicks needlessly tearing down random editors? If you want to violate the good faith policy...then, yeah, there really is no dispute to resolve...it's simply a matter of whether or not I'll be able to get it through my thick skull that being an asshole to other people is not acceptable in this, or any community. | |||
| :::: But if you don't want to violate the good faith policy...then you'll have to give credence to my concern that other people are consistently tearing down parts of the encyclopedia that are solidly built on numerous reliable sources. So your call...either I'm an asshole...or there's a genuine problem with editors tearing down things that others have built up. Here's a bit of evidence for you to consider...] has been ] by Rubin. If it was deleted...would that tear down Misplaced Pages or build it up? Even more importantly...how many editors here are familiar enough with the concept to truly make an informed decision? | |||
| :::: I really don't want to participate in this community so that people can be nice to me. If that's what I wanted then I'd join my local church group. People shouldn't join Misplaced Pages because the editors are friendly...they should join Misplaced Pages because it's a community of competent and serious scholars...in the sense that people are interested enough in the entries they edit to actually read reliable sources. There are a gazillion nice editors here...they can recite Misplaced Pages policy like a preacher can recite the Bible...but only one other editor ] of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs...and he wasn't even around to weigh in on its notability. But guess who was around to nominate it for deletion. Rubin. | |||
| :::: How much does Rubin have to tear down before you figure out that the wrong person is being blocked? The thing is...you're not seeing all the other content that Rich and Rubin have torn down. If you're seeing anything...then whatever you're seeing is just the tip of the iceberg. The reason you're not seeing the rest of the iceberg is because you're not editing economic entries. And chances are really good that the reason you're not editing economic entries is because you know the limits of your expertise (with one exception). | |||
| :::: If I don't speak out about the obvious problem of niceness trumping knowledge...then who will? Nobody...they will all be too worried about hurting other people's feelings...and valuable content will continue to be torn down. Worrying about other people's feelings is admirable...but when it comes to constructing a credible, reliable and comprehensive Encyclopedia...it's in the readers' interests that knowledge should be our number one priority. --] (]) 12:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Misplaced Pages is not and never shall be the hangout of serious scholars - one of the reasons for the tagline "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". In fact, serious scholars have often found that Misplaced Pages is ''not'' the place for them, as they're used to peer-reviewed journals and a certain type of ] and "unique and ground-breaking topics" that is the exact opposite of what Misplaced Pages is about. You're not being peer-reviewed in the traditional sense: you're being reviewed by a 12 year old kid, or a 90 year old retired trucker - those are your peers here. There's clearly no room for "new wordings" and "fringe topics" - in fact, we have ArbCom decisions that restrict some of these things. Because Misplaced Pages ''is'' a community of editors who are 12 to 90 but more importantly, it's ''read and used'' by a community that's 7 to 100 (who can read all the nasty interactions as well as the articles) then yes, '''community trumps knowledge''' and always must - it's in the readers' interest (]''']''']) 13:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Redirecting concentrated benefits and diffuse costs to tragedy of the commons isn't in the readers' interests any more than it would be to delete tax choice. If your conclusion is that it's in the best interests of readers to lie to them...then you really need to check your premise. Because by that same premise it would be in the readers' interests to redirect ] to ]. In other words...your conclusion is that vandalism is in the readers' interests. I think most editors would disagree with whatever premise leads to that conclusion. --] (]) 14:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: What a massive misunderstanding of my premise. Based on the arguments at AFD, it was the most recommended target at the time - it was not the ''ideal'' redirect, but a ''reasonable'' redirect. If you can show me a better target, then show me one. If it's better to have deleted even the redirect until a better time, then I was also - as per discussion on my talkpage - all in favour of that. Right now it's based on ''consensus'' of best current target as per ]. So, you tell me - should I delete it completely, or can it live how it is until someone creates an article that meets Misplaced Pages's requirements? (]''']''']) 16:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Based on which arguments at AFD? The arguments that were based on dozens of reliable sources or the arguments that were not? Find ONE RS that supports the redirect. You won't be able to...because the redirect is a lie. Deleting concentrated benefits and diffuse costs is a lie...because it IS a notable concept...but redirecting it to tragedy is an even bigger lie because you're telling people that it is something that it's not. It's exactly like the example I used. Redirecting Obama to Santa Claus would be a bigger lie than simply deleting Obama. You didn't mean to vandalize Misplaced Pages...but that's exactly what you did. | |||
| :::::::: Why did it happen? Because your decision was not based on reliable sources. I'm simply trying to figure out how we can prevent this from happening again. Like I said, there's something wrong with the process when the conclusion is vandalism. | |||
| :::::::: And as proof that it's not an isolated incident...it's happening all over again with ]. Who's going to make the monumental effort to dig through all the RS on the tax choice entry? --] (]) 21:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Modified by request --] (]) 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: I'm going out in a moment. I'll give you until I return to remove your personal attacks (suggestions that a] someone is "tricking" others, and b] the suggestion that someone naive and was therefore tricked). If they're not removed, I'll be extending your block for the continued personal attacks, and removing your access to this talkpage to prevent further such attacks. Drop the ] mentality, and learn to get along with people. I've been bloody patient with you as I try to help you understand the concept of ''community'', but you're repaying my kindness with further attacks - that has to stop (]''']''']) 21:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: I removed the content that you mentioned. The problem here isn't that I don't understand the concept of community...the problem here is that you seem to believe that the interests of a couple members should be given greater priority than the interests' of the readers. What benefits the readers? That we build an encyclopedia that's based on RS...or that we do not? Readers don't want our kindness...they want our ]. --] (]) 21:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| Perhaps, Xerographica, you misunderstand what or how ] are to be used. (And I'll admit I'm not sure if this is the case or not.) As I have read WP guidance, RS says the contents of ''articles'' must be supported. Once the articles are developed, then we use redirects to send readers to the particular articles. We do so because there are articles which discuss the subject more or less quite well. As we have 4,000,000 plus articles, the basic stuff is covered. With this in mind, the idea of how the encyclopedia is ''organized'' seems (to me) to be a different topic. (Perhaps ] can explain this better than I.) E.g., how do we put the pieces together? As we work on this project, we do not go and say "That redirect is not supported by RS!" Sometimes a redirect is needed and appropriate and sometimes a particular search had best go to a disambigulation page. These decisions, to me at least, are more of ] editing sense. At the same time I note that this essay ends up saying "there is no common sense." With that in mind, courtesy -- extended to all members of the community -- must prevail. --] (]) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == A page you started has been reviewed! == | == A page you started has been reviewed! == | ||
| Line 154: | Line 29: | ||
| <small>Learn more about ].</small> | <small>Learn more about ].</small> | ||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| == Dispute Resolution == | |||
| I've been blocked for a total of three weeks now for describing the impact that other editors have on the content. Here's one, of many, examples of what I'm talking about. | |||
| 8 Jan: Specifico from the entry on ] | |||
| 8 Jan: I undid his edit and posted the following on the talk page... | |||
| :BEFORE you make a substantial edit to this article...in order for your edit to actually be constructive...you have to actually understand the concept. In order to actually understand the concept you have to read the debate between Buchanan and Samuelson as Maricano relates in this paper... . Once you've read that...then please read Ginsburg's and Wright's paper.... Then, and only then, can we have a constructive discussion, based on RS, on how to improve this entry. --] (]) 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 15 Jan: Specifico that he made before. | |||
| Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to describe this situation in a way that admins will not consider to be a personal attack on another editor. So I'd very much appreciate it if all you admins who have blocked me...or supported the blocks...would make the effort to articulate exactly how you would describe this situation when requesting dispute resolution. You are all clearly willing to block me to protect other editors...now let's see how much of an effort you are willing to make to help me protect the content. --] (]) 22:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] Please do not ] other editors. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> ''It is almost snide for you to repost the remark you made on the Demonstrated preference talk page. Why? At least two reasons come to mind for me. 1. That talk page, not your own, is the proper forum to discuss how Buchanan, Samuelson, Marcano, Ginsburg, Wright, et al pertain to the article. But more importantly, 2., you repeat, verbatim, the personal attack on SPECIFICO by alleging that s/he does not ''understand the concept'' or has not read the material. Why bring this up again, a week later? The only reason that I can see is that you wish to complain about another editor -- not that you wish to improve that article. This stuff about administrators not articulating exactly how to request a dispute resolution, and your implying an unwillingness on their part to help you protect the content is a sham. You are not being clever or helpful in reposting that stuff. Please drop the ]. You are only beating yourself with it.'' ] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do his edits reflect what the reliable sources say about the concept? --] (]) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Xerographica, you are missing the point. My comment is not about "his edits". They have nothing to do with what you are doing. "His edits" may or may not be constructive, but when you refer to any other editor personally in terms of not reading or not understanding ''you'' are being disruptive. You could say "such-and-such edit is incorrect because the RS says this-and-that." Such commentary is welcome. But when you repeat the accusation that so-and-so does not understand something or has not read something, you are commenting about the editor personally. Xerographica, your behavior got you into trouble. You must look at your behavior and decide if you'd like to contribute to WP without making these unnecessary, unproductive, disparaging personal remarks.--] (]) 23:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree it would be helpful not to return to old personal attacks (even referring to reactions to them), but I also see some value in helping to answer your query which might help to move everyone on to some constructive content creation. So on the query itself - what about that particular edit do you find objectionable? I can't see a significant change to the text itself (except for the second half of the first line) - most of that edit seems to be ] stuff like moving a bare link to an inline citation and adding a ''linkfarm'' tag. I wonder if you meant , before it, that actually removed some content? For content disputes (which is what this would be without the PAs), you could start a ] on the article talk page. That way, ] can be developed for the inclusion/exclusion of particular material and sources can be fully examined. ]] 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The edit that you linked to is the one that I'm referring to. He removed what a Nobel Prize winning economist said about the concept. Regarding request for comments...isn't what I posted on the talk page a request for comments? Wasn't that a request that reliable sources be fully examined? I requested comments...none were offered...yet the editor persisted with his removal of content. What were his edits based on though? Nothing that I've read in the RS support his edits...and he hasn't offered any new RS to support his removal of relevant and sourced content. According to jpgordon...numerous people have told me to start with dispute resolution. Given that my own characterizations of the dispute have been considered to be personal attacks on other editors...how would you characterize my dispute? --] (]) 00:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, it was a request for comments in the broad sense, but it was more a response to a specific edit. What I'm talking about is the formal process, ''Request For Comments'' - ]. This is where you place a specific template on the talk page and uninvolved editors are encouraged to come to that talk page, have a look at the discussion/suggestions and give their opinion. It can then be formally closed by an uninvolved admin with a specific recommendation/decision/suggestion (much like ]). But I would again caution that these decisions are based on ] (also like AFD and almost everything else on WP). | |||
| :::I'm not excited about getting involved in the actual content dispute but I will say, you would probably need to do more work to find ] to support what you would like to include in the article. {{url|http://www.daviddfriedman.com/}}, for example, is clearly ] with no editorial oversight - it's just some guy's blog-style personal website. Nowhere near a "reliable source". The material would also need to be presented in a far less "academic" manner (the term "non-encyclopedic" was used). While it might make people feel "clever" to include material beyond the comprehension of most ordinary people, it is important to remember we are building an encyclopaedia. Our aim is to present (sometimes very complex) material in a way that is useful to everyday readers. You prove nothing by writing about a complex concept in a complex way. You will create useful, readable content by presenting a complex concept in a simple way. How are the sentences, ''"They confront genuine choices, and the sequence of decisions taken may be conceptualized, ''ex post'' (after the choices), in terms of "as if" functions that are maximized. But these "as if" functions are, themselves, generated in the choosing process, not separately from such process"'', of any real value? I "get it" but I don't <u>get it</u>. Surely, you could present that in a simpler way while appropriately citing relevant references that explain it in a far more complex way. Simply saying, "it's complex" and "you don't get it; not my problem" is a bit of a cop-out, to be perfectly frank. It's Misplaced Pages, not Wikinomics, yeah? ]] 01:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That said, we do have ] (I see you are a member) with almost 200 people who try to make a habit of creating economics-related content in an acceptably encyclopaedic way. If you know <u>what</u> you want to say but you're hitting a wall of opposing editors because of <u>how</u> you're saying it (and then how you respond to it), you could try asking a few of them to pitch in and help copy-edit the articles. ]] 02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Well said, Stalwart. Very well said. For me the rub is any response which is directed towards the individual editors, even tangentially. Xerographica, you can and should make valuable contributions. But please remember that anyone can edit this encyclopedia and you must cooperate with the community. That means your edits are subject to removal or revision. If your edits are revised or removed, please feel free to defend the edits. (Making comments about other editors will not work.) And please note that I will not stand by and let ''any'' comment personal attack on a fellow editor -- even if roundabout or subtle -- go unnoticed and tagged with an appropriate notice. --] (]) 03:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Stalwart, what you posted on my page, is what should have been posted on the ] talk page, before massive amounts of relevant content was removed. That is the kind of discussion that should have occurred. Regarding Buchanan's quote...it could certainly be replaced with an excellent paraphrase...but replacing it with nothing is definitely not a valuable contribution. My editing strategy can be summarized like so..."In the meantime...this is better than nothing". If you, or anybody else, wants to DIY and paraphrase a quote...then great. But until that happens...the quote is a priceless piece of partial knowledge. Regarding ]...he's a well respected economist. His quote, along with the others, are pieces of the puzzle which help people see the picture. We don't help people see the picture by removing pieces of the puzzle...we help them by adding more/better pieces. | |||
| :::::Rich, imagine if you had spent as much effort reading about ] as you have spent on me. Please do us both a favor and focus on RS. Do it long enough and you might take issue with editors who do not. --] (]) 06:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, you were on a roll until that last bit. Hmm. Anyway, yes, the discussion can be had on that talk page. I agree that something is better than nothing, but unsourced something (or unreliably sourced somethings) can be deleted. Yes, there should then be a subsequent discussion and there were notes left on the talk page but that got sidetracked by other issues (see pink boxes above). Anyway, suggest you wait out your block and then start a civilised conversation there about what should/shouldn't be included. I still think a formal RFC (fresh eyes) would help. And remember ]... ]] 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Here is a suggestion to enhance Friedman's traction on WP -- improve the citations for his books. Look at on ]. He's got stuff published by the University of Princeton. Use <nowiki>* {{cite book}}</nowiki> and add data like ISBNs and OCLC numbers that are missing. The cite book template is missing a OCLC parameter. But if you add "|oclc=123456789" to the template it will show up. Friedman's homepage is flaky. Don't use it. Just the books and articles that librarians have seen fit to stock on their shelves. --] (]) 07:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Technically, David Friedman being a recognized expert, his home page is usable, except in ] contexts. But books would be better. — ] ] 13:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I just reviewed David Friedman's CV, publications on various topics and the publishers of his work in economics. I am not convinced he is RS on economic theory.] (]) 15:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You removed both Buchanan and Friedman. Would you care to share which economists, besides Rothbard, you do consider to be RS on economic theory? --] (]) 19:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You did not tie any of the material together into a narrative about a well-defined theory. I didn't voice any opinion about Rothbard or this theory. However, the only fact we currently can document is that Rothbard made that statement and coined the term Demonstrated Preference. Out of respect to you I left that as a starting point since it appears that you wish to attempt to craft an article on the topic. My personal opinion is that it's neither well-defined nor notable and that it doesn't merit its own article or even a mention in the Revealed Preference article. However I'd be pleased to see you and others prove me wrong, but only with a well-crafted substantive article that observes WP standards and policies. The material I deleted does not point in that direction, in my view.'''SPECIFICO''' 20:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::::::::Based on your personal opinion I now know two things: you do not believe that Friedman is a RS on economic theory and you do not believe that demonstrated preference is a notable concept. My question is...why didn't you answer my question? Maybe you missed it? If so, let me ask you again. Which economists do you consider to be RS's on economic theory? --] (]) 20:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::There are hundreds. I don't understand the relevance of that fact to the issue we are discussing here. I welcome constructive discussion, but I sense that you're angry and resentful and my view is that you can resolve that by contributing well-sourced relevant edits which conform to WP policy.'''SPECIFICO''' 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::::::::::If there are hundreds then it should be really easy for you to list a dozen. How could it not be relevant? You're the one who said that Friedman is not a RS on economic theory. So please share a dozen economists who you do believe to be RS's on economic theory. --] (]) 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :{{od|12}} | |||
| *To be frank (again - gee this Frank guy is getting a work-out!), that's probably not a worthwhile exercise. With regard to sources, it's generally not the individuals that we consider ], but the publication - a combination of author, publisher, context and content. A person who is a reliable source of information (generally, like a doctor in a specific field of medicine) might be an "RS" when he or she is published in the ''New England Journal of Medicine''. Not so much if he or she just posts something to ] or ]. Likewise, if the person is a noted podiatrist but is talking about brain surgery; he or she would likely be a better "source" than me, but not better than, say, the late ]. Yeah? So Friedman might be an appropriate academic to quote, generally, but we still need for his work to be available in a reliable source. He isn't a walking, talking, tweeting RS. We also need to establish if the particular source in question is considered a reliable source of information with regard to that particular theory/concept. I can tell you right now that the '']'' would fit into an arbitrary list of "general RS for economics" but an advertisement from their classifieds section (''"but it's published in the WSJ!!"'') would not be considered a reliable source for ] or even ]. An article analysing either of those things published by the editorial staff of the WSJ would be. Make sense? I'm not suggesting that was the case here, but we need to consider all aspects when sourcing. ]] 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Moreover, if this topic is ever to become more than a stub, the challenge is to find reliable source citations that speak to and explain this topic. Not related topics or ruminations, but this theory ''per se''. That task is left to those who, like X, believe that such sources exist, find the topic is noteworthy, and are willing to expend the effort to contribute here.'''SPECIFICO''' 23:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::Setting aside the issue of reliability/notability...if Friedman's quote is not related to demonstrated preference, then what topic would you say that it falls under? | |||
| ::::Economics Joke #l: Two economists walked past a Porsche showroom. One of them pointed at a shiny car in the window and said, "I want that." "Obviously not," the other replied. - ], | |||
| :::--] (]) 00:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Stalwart, regarding reliable sources...I linked to Friedman's website...but that's because that's where he's made his textbook available for anybody to read. So the actual source is a published economics textbook. Given that our goal here is to help readers understand complex topics...if a textbook is available online, then why not link them to it? --] (]) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::On the joke - I don't think anyone is suggesting it relates to something else or that it doesn't relate to this. I think the suggestion is that a joke (without explanation, especially) is not the best way to present factual encyclopaedic information about economics. Surely we can summarise what Friedman is saying without flying too close to the ] sun, or just find a better Friedman example. | |||
| :::On the website - we need to be careful of textbooks. There can often be some ] concern though obviously less-so for the theoretical analysis-type topics than for instructional topics. Break-outs with analysis, citations, case studies, etc can help with that. There's no need for the source to be online. If you can demonstrate that what has been posted on his site is just a re-print of previously published works then that would help. Obviously if you can cite the original publication, that's even better. For example, of are online. I wouldn't build a whole article on quotes/citations from one guy, but all of these would be better for citing him than his own website, I would think, if they analyse the concept in question. ]] 00:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As a matter of fact, there is no indication whatsoever that Friedman cares about Rothbard's ''demonstrated preference''. Friedman inserts this inscrutable one-liner under the subject "how economists think." He does use the term "Revealed Preference" but of course that would suggest Mr. X should have inserted his one-liner on that article rather than start a new one. Furthermore, Friedman's so-called text is published by an outfit with no academic credentials. It looks more like "Economics for Dummies" than a RS academic imprint.'''SPECIFICO''' 01:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::::SPECIFICO, the article on ] is dedicated to Samuelson's specific theory. Friedman was not discussing Samuelson's theory...he was discussing the general concept of actions revealing values. Rothbard perhaps coined the term "demonstrated preference" but he certainly did not invent the concept of actions speaking louder than words. Other far more notable economists have written as much, if not more, on the topic. We're not editing a dictionary here. Encyclopedia entries are dedicated to concepts...not words. As I've said to way too many editors, please thoroughly research a topic BEFORE you edit it. If you're not willing to the make the effort to read the RS's...then your edits will not be constructive. --] (]) 02:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Stalwart, again though, the joke is a puzzle piece. In the meantime...it's better than nothing. There's a reason why he refers to it as "Economics Joke #1". It's "funny" because economics is all about ]. You said Buchanan's quote was too complex...and now you're saying that Friedman's quote isn't encyclopedic enough. Sure, you're probably right, but again, in the meantime, it's better than just Rothbard's passage. For some reason SPECIFICO wants to give all the credit to Rothbard when as Friedman stated, it's "Economics Joke #1". People say one thing, and they do another. Economics isn't based on words, it's based on actions. That's because each action sacrifices all the other possible actions. This is the ] concept. | |||
| ::::Let's try a practical example. I can say, "what would really help get you up to speed is this excellent ." You can respond, "I don't have the time." And that would be funny because you DO have the time. You're just choosing to spend it on more important priorities. You're demonstrating your preference. | |||
| ::::Why is this so important? Because economists believe that your true preferences/values are required to determine the optimal supply of public goods. And because it's your actions which reveal your values...we would only be able to discern your valuation of national defense by giving you the opportunity to ]. Unfortunately, because national defense is a collective good...you would still derive the benefit from this good even if you didn't contribute any money to it. This is the ]. The solution is compulsion...you're forced to pay taxes. But this still leaves the problem of determining the optimal supply of public goods...the ]. | |||
| ::::Samuelson based his ] on some heavy assumptions. The quote by Buchanan | |||
| :::::Individuals do not act so as to maximize utilities described in ''independently existing functions''. They confront genuine choices, and the sequence of decisions taken may be conceptualized, ''ex post'' (after the choices), in terms of "as if" functions that are maximized. But these "as if" functions are, themselves, generated in the choosing process, not separately from such process. - ], | |||
| ::::and this quote by Botti and Iyengar... | |||
| :::::Kahn and Baron’s (1995) results represent additional evidence in support of psychologists’ assertion that contrary to rational choice theory, people do not always hold stable and clearly ordered preferences that are simply retrieved at the moment of the choice. On the contrary, according to psychology research, most of the time, people do not know their preferences before their decision-making task, but they construct them on the spot during the decision process; therefore, preferences are subject to contextual influences (Feldman and Lynch 1988; Payne, Bettman, and Johnson 1993). - Simona Botti and Sheena S. Iyengar, | |||
| ::::...argue against Samuelson's assumptions. Your preferences are not ''given''. They reveal your values...but only after you make a choice. | |||
| ::::So for the past 50 or so years...many economists have tried to come up with mechanisms to get you to reveal your true preferences for public goods. Again, because without your true preferences (aka demand) there is no real accurate way to determine the optimal supply of public goods. There's a ton of scholarly articles on the topic...and it's fundamentally important for understanding the theoretical basis for our current system of public finance. Unfortunately, nobody else has demonstrated a preference for this topic. Like I said, that historical perspective on public goods provides an excellent overview of the topic. It would be nice, for once, to have another editor to discuss reliable sources with. --] (]) 02:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| '''SOUNDS''' as if there's no demonstrated preference for this article, so it's not a public good.'''SPECIFICO''' 03:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ] Please do not ] other editors. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> ''"As I've said to way too many editors, please thoroughly research a topic BEFORE you edit it. If you're not willing to the make the effort to read the RS's...then your edits will not be constructive." | |||
| This sort of remark is unneeded and disruptive. As I have said, I will make remarks about the comments you make regarding individual editors. Please, please, please confine your remarks to the edits and articles -- not the editors.'' ] (]) 02:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| TO SPECIFICO: WRT "Friedman's so-called text". Are you referring to ''Price Theory: An Intermediate Text''? I see it is shelved in some 308 libraries -- {{OCLC| 644369928}} . In my neighborhood the 11 nearest are college and university libraries (within 100 miles). And it has 600+ pages. --] (]) 02:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Srich, you forget. I am an Austrian. I don't put much stock in bare statistical inference, and in this case I assure you, neither should anyone else.'''SPECIFICO''' 03:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ===Crux of the problem?=== | |||
| The crux of problem as I see it (stripping it back to bare bones) is that <u>you</u> understand these theories and have a particular view of them (after x years of research/study/whatever) but the theories themselves are not supported by significant coverage to the point where they are considered ] here on WP. That doesn't make them '''wrong''' (they might well be right or even just plain common sense), it just makes them unsuitable for Misplaced Pages as article subjects. The problem seems to be that to come to the same conclusion as Rothbard (in the same words as Rothbard), a bunch of related ideas need to be ] to make a cohesive whole. People might '''understand''' Rothbard, they might '''agree''' with Rothbard and they might have said things that you understand to be consistent with Rothbard's specific and named theories. But saying generally the same thing as Rothbard isn't the same as giving coverage to Rothbard's theory, which is what we need for something to be included here. We need coverage of that theory specifically. I know it's frustrating (I get that), but Misplaced Pages isn't really the place for abstract concepts, complex theories (or even some simple ones), new ideas or out-of-the-box thinking. It's a repository for widely accepted "facts" (and a few that aren't) that have received widespread coverage in mainstream media (basically). If this hasn't, then you're always going to struggle with it here. ]] 03:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Deja vu...here's what Rich wrote above (])... | |||
| ::Same idea applies with ]. Only 5 of the 13 quotes uses the term "concentrated benefits". Take Boaz for example -- we don't learn exactly the context in which he uses it because we don't know what "this problem" (Boaz's term) is. What follows are his examples to illustrate the phrase, but we are left hanging. It would be far better to use the Boaz material, refined into a concise paraphrase, in other articles which deal with "the problem" he referring to. (Perhaps these sources could be used in the article about ].) But when ''you'' take the term (or phrase) and endeavor to say that the other 8 sources were talking about concentrated benefits/diffuse costs, you are engaging in improper ]. | |||
| :Rubin nominated the article for deletion and it was redirected to ]. Afterwards, an economics professor ] on Bwilkins's talk page asking why the notable concept was removed from Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :The very idea of Misplaced Pages was inspired by an essay written by a Nobel Prize winning economist. Can you name the economist? | |||
| :The crux of the problem sure might be that these concepts are not covered by mainstream media. But they certainly have received sufficient scholarly coverage to be included in Misplaced Pages. Now, the crux of this problem right here right now doesn't have anything to do with me. Unfortunately, I can't speak frankly regarding the problem. But feel free to review my blocks for my frank description of the actual problem. Speaking of which...did you read that I highly recommended that you read? --] (]) 07:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, yeah, unfortunately that will likely be the response from most regular editors here because that's how WP works. WP has very strict rules about ] and that frustrates a good many potential contributors, academics chief among them. Often because they have dedicated their lives to the distribution of knowledge and feel the things they teach in classes and in the community should be taught to all. That academic's comments are not unique; "the concept is notable, I teach it and it exists". But that is different to ]. And they won't help at AFD. Misplaced Pages, essentially, is about the distribution of ] information, not "knowledge". People with expertise in non-mainstream topic areas regularly make the same complaints you have, and in many cases they have merit. But they will not change how WP works. Obscure 80's punk rock outfits, skateboarders (I'm a member of ]), Japanese pop culture, Yemeni politicians and break-through economic theories all miss out because they aren't covered by mainstream media. Does that suck? Sure. But it is what it is. | |||
| ::Unless you can produce some sources that refer to the theory in the same terms as it's creator, you're going to run into trouble. And I don't just mean sources that talk about similar things that we "could" conclude are the same. ]] 08:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is ] covered by mainstream media? My friend wrote the definitive book on ferns. She could easily see the differences between various species of ferns. Platyceriums were her specialty...but most of them looked the same to me. Why did they look the same to me? Because, unlike my friend, I did not have the training, knowledge or expertise to identify the differences. That's why, if somebody wanted to argue that ] and ] are the same species...I'd stay out of the debate. We all have our own areas of expertise...which is known, in economic terms, as the ]. So when it comes to economic content, the only people I should have trouble with are the editors who know about economics. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. | |||
| :::I asked you whether you knew which economist deserves the most credit for providing the conceptual basis for Misplaced Pages. From the entry of the founder of Misplaced Pages...]... | |||
| ::::Wales cites ] economist ]'s essay "]", which he read as an undergraduate, as "central" to his thinking about "how to manage the Misplaced Pages project". Hayek argued that ] – that each individual only knows a small fraction of what is known collectively – and that as a result, decisions are best made by those with local knowledge rather than by a central authority. | |||
| :::Does it interest you or Rich or Rubin or SPECIFICO to read the essay which inspired Misplaced Pages? Here's the essay right here.... There's absolutely no cost to read it. However, there is an ]. It will require your time...time that you could spend doing other things that you also value. Therefore, only you can know the opportunity cost. Only you can know whether it's worth it. That's why your decision...the course of action that you will choose...will demonstrate your true preferences/values and influence how society's limited resources are used. | |||
| :::Is it important for you to understand what determines how society's limited resources are used? Does it matter to you if there's a shortage of skateboards or ] but a surplus of Platyceriums? Does it matter to you if there's a shortage of public healthcare but a surplus of national defense? These things matter to me, which is why I want to contribute to the entries that help explain the relevant economic concepts. If these things matter to you too...then great. To say that I'd love a hand would be an understatement. There's far more scholarly material than I could hope to adequately cover in my lifetime. But if you have other priorities...then I'll understand that too. How could I not? It's the opportunity cost concept...my favorite concept. --] (]) 10:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just for fun, (a passing mention) but I understand your question was rhetorical. Ha ha. Again, I understand your point and I respect your opinion but we're not expected to understand the differences between ] and ]. If reliable sources say they are different then that's what we go with, even if your mate suggested otherwise (unless he does it in an RS). In fact, it can be helpful to have no prior understanding of the subject, given the way WP operates. If we're just regurgitating what RS say, what's the point of bringing expertise here? A general interest will do. ] might be of interest, in that regard. I'm glad you want to contribute to economics articles, but doing so in a manner that quite a few people have told you is contrary to the way things are done here will likely waste your time. There's an opportunity cost lesson there too. You can choose to ignore the advice and continue to try to add things in the face of mounting opposition, but what does that achieve? Or you can accept that WP has many flaws (hey, let's face it, ]), you can contribute in a collegial way (without taking it too seriously) and enjoy your time editing and contributing. Surely being stuck on your talk page teaching me about economics (and stag horns) is a waste of you time... ]] 11:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That "mainstream" media source just mentioned Platycerium...not Platycerium superbum. Why am I stuck on my talk page? Well...I'm here because I warned other editors that their edits were disruptive. Why would I have a problem if their edits were constructive? | |||
| :::::Here's a simple exercise. I recently found this reliable source... by Bernd Hansjürgens. Go to the Misplaced Pages entry that I created for the ] and add it to the list of references. That would be a constructive edit. Why would I have an issue with constructive edits? If, however, you removed a reference from the benefit principle...then I would consider your edit to be disruptive...assuming of course that you were unable to adequately defend your edit. | |||
| :::::Here's another simple exercise. Look over the references that I added to the entry I created for ]. One reference should quickly grab your attention. You can be certain that Rich and Rubin saw that I created that entry. So how come they didn't notice that "reliable" source? Would it be disruptive if you were to remove it? Perhaps a bit...it's arguably relevant...but it certainly wouldn't be worth being blocked over. | |||
| :::::How disruptive would an another editor's edits have to be for you to risk being blocked for a week? | |||
| :::::One last simple exercise. Nearly a week ago somebody vandalized the entry on ]. It's not major vandalism...but obviously I'm the only active editor who is interested enough in a fundamentally important economic concept to be watching that entry. But if you had been watching that entry then it would have been easy for you to spot the vandalism. But that vandalism is not the problem here on Misplaced Pages. The problem is the stuff that other editors cannot easily identify as vandalism. | |||
| :::::If I make this much effort to protest other editors' edits...then you can be certain that it's not for minor issues. It's ] of my time to protest. --] (]) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And it is certainly your right to continue protesting, as long as you follow a few basic rules when doing so. The stag horn "reference", by the way, was an attempt at humour. My point was that stag horns had been mentioned in the news. Anyway... moving on. I don't think it's accurate to say that you are stuck here because you "warned" other editors they were being disruptive. You're stuck here because you suggested that other editors were incompetent. "Wilfully" so, I think was the suggestion. You've heard (a few times) what other editors (and a few admins) think you should have done instead. I think you have the capacity to contribute productively, provided you heed their suggestions. And to be clear - you don't have to <u>like</u> the suggestions, it's just not a particularly productive use of your time to ignore them. And I can guarantee (having now conversed with you at length), you can achieve what you want to achieve while staying "within the lines". ]] 22:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Staghorn ferns are no joking matter. I'm kidding. Regarding my blocks...the first time I said that the editors were incompetent and the second time I said that they were "willfully ignoring" reliable sources. In both cases I was warning them that their edits were highly disruptive because they were not based on RS. I was blocked for a total of three weeks for my disruptive behavior but the admins didn't even see fit to give the editors' a warning for their disruptive behavior. Honestly though, I'm still not quite clear ]. If you consistently make edits that are not based on RS...is it considered a personal attack if I say that you consistently make edits that are not based on RS? At least one admin said that I should have initiated dispute resolution. So once I'm unblocked I'll initiate a dispute resolution over ]. It's ridiculous that it redirects to ]. In other words, the redirect is not at all supported by RS. The most logical redirect, which would still ignore numerous reliable sources supporting the notability of the concept, would be to ]. The term is actually used in the entry on public choice. I wonder why none of the involved editors realized that? Oh yeah, I know why. But I'm not going to say because it would be construed as a personal attack. --] (]) 23:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::They most certainly are not. But for fun, challenge accepted; take a look at ] now. The "line" is pretty simple really, though it is complicated by additional rules, regulations, precedents, etc. Personal attacks and/or harassment (in terms of actionable action) trump everything else. Consideration of everything else stops. Which is why, as I said above, admins will ignore the back-and-forth of a content dispute (no matter how meritorious) and block those who deal with content disputes by personally attacking others. It's like a golden goal in overtime, but an ]. It doesn't matter how right or wrong you were about the content, you became "wrong" when you answered an allegedly disruptive edit with a personal attack. That aside, you would need to demonstrate that an edit <u>was</u> disruptive (he claims clean-up of encyclopaedic content / you claim disruptive editing) before a warning could be issued anyway (obvious vandalism aside). This is done by starting an RFC, establishing consensus and then progressing action against editors who edit against that consensus. Edits are not necessarily disruptive because another editor thinks they are. The general rule to follow is... don't talk about other people. Ever. <u>Ever</u>. '''Ever'''. Talk about the content of their edits. ''"That's not a constructive edit"'' as opposed to ''"he's an incompetent editor"''. ''"This has been established by RS" '' instead of ''"you don't know how to read RS" ''. A simple change in prose will see you move on from all of this fairly quickly, I think. ]] 00:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Challenge accepted? Errr...when, exactly, did I offer you the challenge to improve the entry on Platycerium superbum? LOL. Don't get me wrong...the entry looks really great...but of all the challenges that I could and would have wanted to give you...would I really challenge you to do that? No no no...you challenged yourself and accepted your own challenge. Misplaced Pages works because our autonomy allows us to prioritize which entries we work on. Logically we try and get the most bang for our buck. | |||
| :::::::::One challenge would be to that ]... | |||
| ::::::::::Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. | |||
| :::::::::But a REAL challenge would be to develop the entry on ]. | |||
| :::::::::Regarding personal attacks...my comments on other editors' behavior strictly focused on how their behavior affected the content. That's why none of the editors was able to copy anything from the Misplaced Pages entry that was specifically relevant to my behavior. Telling another editor that they have body odor would be a personal attack because it has absolutely no relevance to the content. Telling another editor that they are editing outside their area of expertise has everything to do with the content. Telling another editor that their edits are not based on reliable sources has everything to do with the content. My concern with these editors has nothing to do with who they are as people...and everything to do with their actions as editors. | |||
| :::::::::A personal attack is an ad hominem fallacy...and I would be an idiot if I thought there was any value by randomly attacking these editors on the basis of who they are as people. My feedback on their behavior had everything to do with the content...which is why it certainly wasn't a personal attack. Telling somebody not to vandalize the content is the same exact thing as telling somebody that edits not based on reliable sources destroys value. If we can't tell people not to vandalize then clearly there's a problem. | |||
| :::::::::The entry on ] has references. Does SPECIFICO's edit reflect what the reliable sources say about the topic? Did he add new reliable sources that support his edit? Show me how you address blatant disparities between edits and reliable sources. Be my "mentor". Be my Mr. Miyagi. Teach me how to wax on and wax off. --] (]) 18:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ::::::::::Yes, well it was my attempt at a joke, and a reference to my demonstrated preference. The "challenge" was my humorous extrapolation of your use of a stub to demonstrate a complex concept. I figured such an article should at least attempt to be as complex as the concept it was being used to demonstrate. But I'm probably the only one who thinks that's funny. Anyway, jokes aside... The sensitivity to personal attacks here is what it is. You don't have to agree with the community interpretation of a personal attack but that is the interpretation nonetheless and admins will implement that interpretation enthusiastically. If your intention is not to attack the editor, then don't focus on the editor at all. The simple answer is to find a different way of saying the same thing. Whether you like it or not, ''"telling another editor that they are editing outside their area of expertise"'', is not considered (here) to be a content-focussed criticism because it is directed at the editor. You are free to disagree, but it won't get you very far. I'm happy to be a mentor if you think it is of some value, but I'm not sure it would be. It's clear you understand policy and you're smart enough to understand what people are telling you. I think you just disagree with certain community interpretations of certain policies. The way I see it, you can either choose to be a part of the WP editing community with all of its (sometimes illogical) rules and regulations, or you can choose to take up ] or ]. But I don't think you need a mentor for that - it's entirely up to you. ]] 22:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The article ] has been ]  because of the following concern: | |||
| :::::::::::I'm reminded of the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip where Calvin's mom catches him pounding nails in the coffee table. "What are you doing?!" she yells at Calvin...to which he replies, "Is this a trick question?" | |||
| :'''Does not indicate notability. Seems to fail ].''' | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
| :::::::::::If editors go around removing relevant high quality content from entries...then solely focusing on the edits is simply like Calvin's mom following him around removing nails that he's continuing to pound into all the furniture. | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| :::::::::::As my mentor you can help me learn how to appropriately deal with behavior that I perceive to be destructive. Look through my to do list that I posted below. Comment on the edits...not the editors. Show me how it's done. --] (]) 04:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 08:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Simple answer? Remove the nails. If Calvin hammers them back in, you go ask Hobbs and Calvin's dad what they think. If they agree the nails should be removed, remove them again. If Calvin then hammers them back in, you have a case at ANI, RFC/U, AIV, etc. or whatever the metaphorical equivalent is. Ha ha. If consensus is that the nails are nice, then we learn to live with the nails. ]] 04:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Speedy deletion nomination of Ioby == | |||
| Hello Xerographica, | |||
| '''"you can be certain that it's not for minor issues"''' Now, that's not consistent with "demonstrated preference" is it? Remember, one can only infer that you chose to make that effort because it pleased you at the time. It's like the old joke: Two editors are sitting out an edit block. One of them says, I wish I were editing articles instead of talking about ferns on my talk page. The other one says, "obviously not." So my suggestion is this: Use your time on the bench to write a properly sourced article on a well-defined topic and improve the article when you come back. If it's just you and Rothbard, the article is not likely to survive. '''SPECIFICO''' 15:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I wanted to let you know that I just tagged ] for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. | |||
| :The vandalism on ] has been fixed. You are right, one of the 128 page watchers should have noticed. Thanks for pointing it out.--] (]) 17:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC) PS: To be fair to our fellow editors and page watchers, some people have their watch pages set to ignore bots, patrolled edits, minor edits, etc. Since a bot came in 2 days later, the vandalism would not show up on all 128 page watch lists17:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can <span class="plainlinks">''''''</span>, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. | |||
| ::SPECIFICO, you just used Friedman's joke to illustrate the demonstrated preference concept...but your point was to encourage me to add more economists to the entry on demonstrated preference...even though you were the one who removed all the other economists that I HAD added. Either explain why you believe that the material you removed was irrelevant (including the two references)...or undo your edits. If we're not on the same page as to where demonstrated preference ends...and other concepts begin...then you'll always remove the material that I add to the demonstrated preference entry. Of course I'll warn you that your edits are disruptive and then I'll end up being blocked again. --] (]) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, actually it was my feeble attempt, apparently failed, at irony. I apologize for upsetting you. My opinion remains unchanged and I now bid you and Friedman adieu. '''SPECIFICO''' 21:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Where are you going? You haven't yet shared 12 economists who you believe to be RS's on economic theory. You've mentioned more than once that you love Austrian economics...so do I! Let's talk about our favorite subject. Regarding Mises' classic book...'']''...would you say that it falls under demonstrated preference or revealed preference? | |||
| :::::We call contentment or satisfaction that state of a human being which does not and cannot result in any action. Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. His mind imagines conditions which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state. The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness. A man perfectly content with the state of his affairs would have no incentive to change things. He would have neither wishes nor desires; he would be perfectly happy. He would not act; he would simply live free from care. | |||
| ::::What about Hayek's classic '']''...would you say that it falls under demonstrated preference or revealed preference? | |||
| :::::The justification for assigning responsibility is thus the presumed effect of this practice on future action; it aims at teaching people what they ought to consider in comparable future situations...This does not mean that a man will always be assumed to be the best judge of his interests; it means merely that we can never be sure who knows them better than he... | |||
| ::::--] (]) 22:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| You can leave a note on ] if you have questions. Thanks, ] (]) 12:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Preference Revelation == | |||
| == March 2013 == | |||
| {{cot|title=Moved.}} | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for persistent ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. (]''']''']) 01:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-vblock --> | |||
| I have been ] and moved this to ]. Link to it, refer to it, user-essay it, finish it as a draft... whatever. Moved in the interests of moving on. ]] 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO have been consistently harassing/stalking me... ]... yet I'm the one who ends up indefinitely blocked? They are clearly violating the Misplaced Pages policy against harassment...]...yet not once has an admin even warned them to cease and desist their harassment. Here are some of the articles that I've created... *] *] *] *] *] *'']'' *'']'' *''] *] *] All of them, with the exception of tax choice, have been created within the past 5 months. Except, most of my time has been spent dealing with harassment from these three editors. Here's a recent example... ]. For reference, here's a recent example of constructive (as in based on reliable sources) collaboration between myself and another editor...]. ] (]) 07:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC) | decline=See ]. You must address your own conduct, not that of others. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| == NOINDEX template == | |||
| :This is an awful mistake. Xerografica's to WP proves his edits are not disruptive. Sandstein referred to ], but according to ], accusing others of harassment "can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment", but ''there is'' clear evidence of ], that's why Xerographica addressed the conduct of others. Also, BWilkins' unilateral blocking decision configures ] and is extremely damaging to WP, since Xerographica has done a great work and contributed a lot and I'm sure many future contributions will be missed because of this block. --] (]) 08:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Oh, I don't ''want'' Xero blocked, and this is far from unilateral - but thanks for watching. (]''']''']) 10:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I don't want Xero blocked, either, for what it's worth. I think he ''could'' be of great use to the project. I just don't think he ''has been''. — ] ] 16:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Bwilkins, please, I'm serious, your sarcasms are not helping. Rubin, I don't know how you can possibly say that. Do you have some personal aversion to libertarianism or something? Do you know SPECIFICO or Srich personally? This block is just insane! Blocking someone indefinitely for complaining about being harassed?! --] (]) 19:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::True, Xerographica addressed the conduct of others by posting an ANI as to myself and others. However, that discussion turned and focused on ''his'' behavior. He just didn't get it and turned to posting complaints of harassment on article talk pages, etc. That alternative method of addressing the conduct of others was not legitimate. | |||
| :::::True, Xerographica ''might have been'' a contributor to the project. But his contributions were outweighed, by far, by disruptive edits. | |||
| :::::True, some of Xerographica's contributions – rather, stubs – have been worthwhile. Take one of the examples he provides: '']''. He creates it and then adds a category & a See also. Let's give him a Barnstar for his effort. (And two more for '']'' and '']''.) | |||
| :::::True, others have been wikihounding him. But "he important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, ''for no overriding reason''. Xerographica chose to characterize the followups on this edits as hounding and harrassment. He chose to not enjoy the collaborative effort we are engaged in. He chose to react negatively at each stage of the "hounding" when I and many, many others patiently pleaded, begged, cajoled, insisted, admonished, suggested, advised, etc. that he straighten up. The overriding reason of the hounding was to have him participate as a member of the community, but he lashed out and 73% of his edits have been to non-article spaces. | |||
| :::::True, I nominated ] for ] (see section below). Also true that I took the material Xerographica had supplied (including Buchanan) and posted it in ] before posting the AfD. But Xerographica takes this normal collaborative process and distorts it into an attack on me. | |||
| ::::: I submit that Xerographica will always find fault with others, never himself. (Evidence: "I should have just posted the warnings on their talk pages.") I submit that unblocking him would only result in a renewal of this behavior, and thereby waste more time of other contributors. – ] (]) 19:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: PS: I submit that Xerographica is complaining too much about the supposed hounding. In fact, I suspect he enjoys it and actually seeks to provoke contentious discussions. Evidence: His comment on the ANI he lodged. "Xerographica's had enough of an ANI beating ... can we close the thread now? NE Ent 03:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC) ''No way, I'm a sucker for abuse. It's why I thrived in the infantry.'' --Xerographica (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" See: – ] (]) 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Don't get me wrong, I do love a good debate...and I have absolutely no problem with people personally attacking me. Thanks to the infantry I've developed an extremely thick skin. So I'd much much much prefer it if you followed me around insulting me rather than making edits that do not reflect what the reliable sources say about the topics. Why? Simply because your insults would not at all harm me but your unsubstantiated edits do harm the readers. | |||
| ] Hello, and thank you for ] to Misplaced Pages. I noticed that your user subpage at ] ] to be ] by external search engines as presently written. Typically, this could be because it appears promotional, or contains material in development or archived that doesn't yet meet ]. I have tagged this page as <code><nowiki>__NOINDEX__</nowiki></code>, which allows editing but minimizes the page's inclusion in search engine results. | |||
| Let's review. Rubin nominated ] for deletion... ]. Why? For the same reason you nominated club theory for deletion. Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that I provided in the AfD...and despite the obvious lack of consensus...Bwilkins redirected ] to ]. | |||
| If you believe that your userpage does not violate our guidelines, please leave a note here and we can discuss it. As an alternative, you may add {{tl|db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, you can change the page so that it more clearly meets Misplaced Pages guidelines, or you can edit it as normal and ignore the tag completely (it will not affect editing). | |||
| After the redirect, I gave Bwilkins the opportunity to look over the sources and reverse his decision... ]... but he was more interested in saving face. Even when an economics professor vouched for the notability of the topic... ]... he still wouldn't admit that he made a mistake. | |||
| However, please do '''not''' remove the tag without discussion. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-userspacenoindex -->--] (]) 22:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Please copy and paste the specific policy that you feel that my user page is in violation of. --] (]) 22:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please click the policies and guidelines link in the message above. I think that will explain. With the referenced material you've added, this page qualifies as "material in development". If you feel I am incorrect, go ahead and add <nowiki>{{db-userreq}}</nowiki> to the top of this page and an administrator will review it. -] (]) 00:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please be more specific. "Material in development" is the very definition of Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 02:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure if you can create ], as in sub-pages to your talk page, at the moment. Anyone can draft articles in their own userspace (for moving to the main article space later) but they would usually be on a sub-page. Those pages (use talk, user pages, sub-pages and drafts in user space) can/should be tagged '''noindex''' so that search engines don't pick them up. They're not subject to the same rules as regular articles but the method shouldn't be used to create "fake" WP articles (see ]). ], for example, is tagged ''noindex'' because it's just my opinion and links to rubbish that I like. It's no big deal. My personal essays and sandboxes and archives are all tagged the same way. If you want to start a draft and you can create ] then you should and that page can be tagged as well/instead. I'm happy to create it for you if you can't. No point clogging up your talk page with drafts anyway. See also: ]. ]] 03:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The term applies to userspace drafts such as sandbox or other draft-type work. In this case, ] applies because the material above has a format and content resembling an actual article. E.g., it has subsections, a See also section, references. It does not discuss anything other than subject matter which you want to add. Now no one is going to come in and delete or revise the material you've set up. (At least I don't think they will.) But my posting of the No Index template is in accordance with guidelines. It simply discourages Google, etc. from scanning the page and listing it in search results. Please keep in mind that while this is "your talk page", you actually "irrevocably agree to release your contribution" whenever you click the "Save page" button. With this in mind, the material is subject to editing in accordance with policy, guidelines, etc. As mentioned, you can post a request for admin review of the NOINDEX template. --] (]) 03:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Then despite the fact that Bwilkins was clearly involved in the dispute...he blocked me... ]. I said that it was additional evidence of his incompetence. Shortly after that, I was blocked for two weeks because I said that Rich was "willfully ignoring reliable sources"... ]. In my unblock request I mentioned that Bwilkins was involved in the dispute. And guess who indefinitely blocked me? Bwilkins. | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| And here you are, arguing that I enjoy it when you, Rubin and SPECIFICO follow me around making edits that clearly do not reflect what the reliable sources say. It boggles my mind how oblivious you are. I obviously f'ing detest your shoddy editing. What I do enjoy is collaborating with editors like Hugo Spinelli and Thomasmeeks. Why? It's not because we agree on everything...or even on most things. It's because they're competent. In other words, they're interested enough in the subjects they edit to actually read the relevant reliable sources. And they do not edit subjects without first having done adequate research. | |||
| == My To Do List == | |||
| Bwilkins doesn't care about the project. If he did then he'd support edits based on due diligence. What he cares about is his power. This is simply his ego trip and nothing more. And the fact of the matter is that he's too incompetent to realize that he's clearly involved in the dispute. I shouldn't have been indefinitely blocked for saying that you three editors have been wikihounding me. At most I should have been blocked for a week for saying it in the wrong places. But you really don't have to block somebody to help them understand that warnings should only be posted on editor's talk pages. The excessiveness of the punishment only makes sense when viewed from the perspective of Bwilkins' clear long-term involvement. Clearly he doesn't want editors around who have no problem calling him out on his incompetence. --] (]) 23:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Undo/dispute/RFC unconstructive edits to the following entries... | |||
| :Perhaps you don't realize it, you can be blocked from editing this talk page. Why? Because you persist in attacking the integrity of other editors. While Bwilkins won't respond with such a block because of your personal attack, I'm sure other administrators are willing to do so. If you had any sense, you'd strike out these aggressive, offensive passages and issue apologies to all concerned. – ] (]) 03:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| ::Information for inclusion was supposed to be examples of the concept while not mentioning the concept specifically. RFC / talk page discussion should be started on the benefit of including such examples. Would suggest encyclopaedic prose supported by inline citations would be a better bet. | |||
| :::An extremely common theme is disagreement over whether the topic of the entry is the term itself or the concept. Should the entry focus on the origins and usages of the term or focus on the idea of people wanting more for less? | |||
| ::::Well, both. You need to demonstrate that it is a notable concept and that the title used is at least a common way of referring to it. As in, by more than one or two people. The term needs to at least be arguably notable, in my opinion, and the concept then covered extensively. But that coverage would need at least to define it as a concept in its own right, even if it uses other language. | |||
| *] | |||
| ::Issue seems to be the inclusion of a particular quote which may/may not adequately illustrate the subject. Article doesn't even have a talk page on which to discuss these concerns, so that would be a good start. | |||
| :::Well...no quote on its own can adequately illustrate the subject. But in the absence of editor prose, if it's relevant and high quality then it's better than nothing. Starting talk pages hasn't worked out too well for me...] and ]...in terms of preventing the removal of any and all content. | |||
| ::::Sure, but a quote with no context doesn't help much either. Its almost useless in the context of an encyclopedia which is, arguably, all about context. If I walk into a mall and shout, "A bucket or pump!" it will mean nothing. On a sinking boat, however... Time to put your prose-writing hat on. | |||
| *] | |||
| ::AFD was closed with redirect as the result. This should be taken to ] for discussion if the redirect target is considered to be incorrect. If DRV has already been done, then the matter should be raised on the talk page of the current redirect target suggesting an alternate target. Title can always be taken back to DRV later to request recreation if more adequate sources can be produced. | |||
| :::DRV hasn't already been done. | |||
| ::::Well then... | |||
| *] | |||
| ::The dispute seems to be over the inclusion of bare quotes without additional context or explanation. This could probably be resolved with some discussion about context-giving prose. Bare quotes, like bare links or bare lists of products without context, are considered by many to be unencyclopedic, because they are not presented in the manner of a regular encyclopedia. Suggest some proposed wording be shopped around on the article talk page to see if the content, presented a different way, can gain consensus for inclusion. | |||
| :::Again, "better than nothing". | |||
| ::::A bucket or pump! Have a crack at redrafting it as prose. | |||
| *] | |||
| ::The original article had major problems - chief among them was the fact that the article lacked inline citations and the article itself was a basically a series of parts (by way of bare quotes) that purported to confirm a ] whole. Factually accurate or otherwise, a collection of disparate quotes does not an encyclopaedia entry make. Proper citation of relevant claims with RS would help. Suggest starting a userspace draft which could be proposed as a replacement of the current redirect. | |||
| :::The original article was a stub...and now it redirects to a completely irrelevant topic. | |||
| ::::It was probably more than a "traditional" stub, but you can take the original text as a starting point for a draft. Then discuss from there. | |||
| *] | |||
| ::Not really sure what the "conflict" is here but I have a strong feeling that inline citations would help. A lot. There's no real indication of which sources purport to support which claims. Beyond that, RFC on the talk page for any contentious issues. | |||
| :::I created the page for Friedman's specific concept of government planners being careless with taxpayers money. Then edits were made based on the term itself...rather than the concept. | |||
| ::::Yeah, again, you would need to demonstrate that it's more than just one person's idea, as above. You'll need more than just abstract quotes for that. | |||
| *] | |||
| ::The original version had major "quote farm" issues without proper context and the new version barely has any context at all. Suggest some prose to actually describe the content, supported by inline citations that actually discuss the concept, rather than providing examples of the concept that would need ] to extract. | |||
| :::Same themes. 1. There's focus on the term rather than the concept itself. 2. The idea that no content is better than high quality relevant quotes from highly notable scholars. | |||
| ::::So as above, if it hasn't been covered as a concept on its own, specifically defined, then it may not be notable. At least some of those sources (from different people) would need to use the term and offer a reasonably consistent definition. | |||
| *] | |||
| ::An extensive "see also" list is a bit pointless if the purpose of the legislation isn't adequately explained to begin with. It's proposed legislation - shouldn't be that hard to source. Once there's some actual context, then go about adding "see also" bits. | |||
| :::The legislation was adequately explained to begin with. Now it's not. I don't think the edit was an improvement. | |||
| ::::As legislation goes, it wasn't well defined, in my opinion, before or after. Needs work, full stop. Content nuances and style preferences can be dealt with later. Let's get the first bit right first. | |||
| *'']'' | |||
| ::Comments from people need sources, basically. We can't rely on our own interpretation of what someone meant, even if our interpretation is accurate. Get a source - this one's easy. | |||
| :::Well...yeah...I know it's easy. That's my issue. | |||
| ::::So, a nice easy one then... Ha ha. | |||
| *'']'' | |||
| ::This article is about the book, not about the author, the concepts covered by the book, other opinions from other people like those expressed by the author in the book or about the theories of others that closely resemble those expressed by the author in the book. It's a about the book. That's it. Conceptual stuff about concepts, generally, should be covered elsewhere with the book cited as a source (where appropriate). A book with an article here on WP can be cited like any other book. The article on the book ] shouldn't include tracts of information from ]. Yeah? Same here. | |||
| :::Well...so where should the concept of "conceit" as Smith, Bastiat and Hayek have described it be covered? | |||
| ::::Not every idea, thought and concept needs to be covered here on WP, but if it's a notable concept, consistenty defined, significantly covered and it can be written about in an encyclopedic manner... go for it. | |||
| --] (]) 04:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Updated --] (]) 06:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: I personally refuse to be baited by the above absolutely bizarre interpretation of ]. I believe I first became aware of Xero after I deleted an article at ]. Their "argument" certainly was not convincing, and they were directed to DRV. Neither makes me "involved". They then became a regular topic of complaint at ANI - and I watchlisted this page accordingly. That did not make me "involved". I implemented a block based purely on behaviour. That did not make me "involved". I attempted to teach Xero how to act within the community - that didn't make me involved, but it made me "engaged". The spectacular down-in-flames behaviour of Xero led to the current indefinite (not infinite) block, by me - but no, I'm not "involved". A crapload of people have gone out of their way to explain such things as "telling you you're fucking up is NOT harassment"; "claiming harassment without actual proof is a personal attack"; and "no, that does not eveb approach harassment, so stop saying it is or else it's a personal attack". You claim to have "thick skin"; bullshit. You may indeed have a thicker cranium because with all the whack of knowledgable resources who have all tried to pour information into your head, you fail to learn anything by either brute force or osmosis. It's your way or the highway, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a "harasser". That's not the way this project works. You ''do'' have much to add to the project: however, when you become a timesink, you become blocked Bloggins. (]''']''']) 13:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Second-level (<nowiki>::</nowiki>) responses from ]] 05:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)'' | |||
| == Hi Xerographica == | |||
| :::Third level responses. Thanks for taking the time to review the edits. Here are some of the themes that I keep running into... | |||
| :::#The obligation to pop out entries that are so fully developed that there's little room for improvement...which defeats the point of a collaborative effort. | |||
| :::#The focus on the term itself rather than the concept. | |||
| :::#The disregard for high quality relevant quotes. A high quality relevant quote by ] is removed as if it was vandalism. Prose with quotes is better...but quotes are better than nothing. | |||
| :::--] (]) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/Global_Economic_Map | |||
| ::::Fourth is me again. ]] 08:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| 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? | |||
| === ANI notice <s>-- Trolling<s> === | |||
| {{cot|title=Sorted.}} | |||
| Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.--] (]) 07:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States | |||
| * Followup: My ANI notice has been closed. And I've been admonished (quite rightly) to engage with you first before posting an ANI report. That is fine with me -- I am learning. With this guidance in mind, I will make the following points/observations about your posting of a list of edits by SPECIFICO that you seem to disapprove of: | |||
| # The listing is directed towards a specific editor. In this regard, it is harassing. | |||
| # It is basically a "laundry list" of edits which you do not like. In this regard it is a ]. Furthermore, it is improper even if it did not specify SPECIFICO. | |||
| # You made the listing while under a block. In this regard it seems to be an attempt to get around/evade the block in order to post your criticisms of edits to particular articles. (By comparison, if you had seen an error on a page you could have said "I'm blocked at the moment, but could someone please correct the following on this-or-that page?") Because article talk pages are the tool we use to discuss improvements in articles, they are the proper forum to discuss the particular articles. (Discussing article improvements on non-related pages is often unproductive.) Compare: I think if an editor were making a comment about one particular page in an effort to improve it, it would be improper to add in complaints edits on other pages. | |||
| * With these factors in mind, I will urge you to remove/blank your listing of edits. And not just the reference to SPECIFICO. If you will please remove this ''entire section'', including my commentary, I will be quite happy. | |||
| * I am not sure that your behavior constitutes trolling, so I have <s>stricken<s> the note. | |||
| * Thank you. --] (]) 15:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)15:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let me see if I can get this straight. If an article on my watch list is vandalized...then I can post the article on my talk page. But if an article on my watch list has recent edits that are not based on reliable sources...then I cannot post the article on my talk page? --] (]) 17:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| China: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox | |||
| :::Well, I'll try something else. Here is the pertinent language: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. ... Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, ''laundry lists of wrongs'', collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., ''should be removed, blanked, or kept privately'' (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." | |||
| :::In this case, you are ''not'' recording a list of vandalism related edits, so the comparison is not pertinent. Indeed, by suggesting such a comparison, you are not ] as to SPECIFICO. You have said "he did this" and "he did that". You are improperly recording and posting perceived flaws when you say "he removed sourced content." | |||
| ::: And what would be the point of recording vandalism? ] provides guidance. The guidance does not include the compiling of laundry lists. (I will repeat that vandalism is not the issue here.) | |||
| ::: You have the guidance -- quoted -- before your eyes. Please follow the guidance and my suggestion -- remove this entire section.--] (]) 23:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 05:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| :::::Seems like a good solution to me - in the spirit of ]. ]] 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well done. On both your parts.--] (]) 07:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| == Autoblocked for an additional day? == | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 06:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| == Dispersed knowledge -- Balance == | |||
| The article ] has been ]. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why. | |||
| Would you please, please please craft your edits to make them useful. Here: , you add "] (]) ... It must be confessed, however, that we seldom know enough to decide in what fields and to what extent the State, on account of the gaps between private and public costs could interfere with individual choice. - ], Some Aspects of the Welfare State." But your edit does not tie-in Pigou's remark into the subject of the article. It is simply soapboxing. E.g., it says "This quote is important and I want you to read it and you can figure out for yourself how it is connected to the topic (and if another editor comes in and changes what I've said I'm going to be upset)!!" Moreover, you do not add page numbers, ISBNs, other useful data. You are not meeting your ] when it comes to making this Pigou (and other) quote useful to the article or WP. Previously, you got into trouble due to remarks ''about other editors''. But I fear that your POVs are the next problem. ] (on ]) frequently talks about his biases and confirmation bias. Can you? Once you do so, and because you do so, can you edit WP with balance in mind? I urge you to do so.--] (]) 07:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :If you don't understand the relevance of a quote, then all you have to do is post your question ]. As it stands, you have not shared a single concern on the talk page. Rather, you've decided to post your concerns on my talk page. | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
| :Regarding bias...of course I'm biased. But all my contributions are based on reliable sources. If you feel the need to develop the criticisms sections in any of the entries that I contribute to...then please...DIY. As long as your contributions are based on RS...then I will have absolutely no issue with you doing so. --] (]) 07:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| ::Don't you see? I'm a fairly intelligent person, and I can look at a quote that you post and figure out how it ''might'' fit. But that is not what we are doing here. E.g., we are not scattering about cogent quotes and letting readers fill in the blanks. We are here to compose and craft and edit. Something like "Pigou talked about dispersed knowledge when he said ...." But you are not doing this. | |||
| ::And you are missing the point about the talk pages. They exist to improve the article. Something like "The Pigou quote does not support the article because...." Then you can come in and say "Pigou talks about 'XYZ' which is ..." and defend your addition. | |||
| ::Regarding RS, when I come in and remove something and justify it by saying "this quote does not have a book or article title or page number or is talking about a different topic or concept", I am meeting my ]. Removing it is ''not'' an issue of RS. That is, I don't need RS to say "This quote is not helpful because it is not properly cited." That fact is self evident when the quote lacks a book title, page number, etc! | |||
| ::Xerographica, I am talking about your pattern of editing in general, not just in the DK article. Adding all of these quotes simply because they exist and are interesting is ''not'' a good or helpful method of building this encyclopedia. You've got to go beyond your desire to advocate (e.g., posting quotes based on RS) your thoughts. Build this encyclopedia. Brick by brick. And don't get upset when someone says "how does that brick fit?" and take it out. They take out the brick because it is misplaced. Not because it lacks RS. | |||
| ::It's time for me to do other stuff now. I'll look forward to your answer tomorrow. --] (]) 08:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, great so we can talk about each other's "pattern of editing in general". Rather than simply take 2.5 seconds to find a quote's book title...you remove the quote. You could simply tag it with "reference needed" if you're not willing to make the effort of looking up the book title yourself. | |||
| Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 04:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::And if you think a quote is irrelevant...then post in the talk page and say that a quote is talking about "Concept A" but the entry is dedicated to "Concept B". Except, you've never once done that. Rather, you wanted to turn ] into a disambiguation page rather than make the effort to simply ]. Perhaps you thought that Milton Friedman's concept was the exact same as the film or novel? | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| :::Regarding where I add bricks...I add relevant quotes from Nobel Prize winning economists. If it's your priority to paraphrase them...then awesome...DIY. Except, well, perhaps you should post your contributions on the talk page first. | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] ] ] 21:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here's my problem. Where are your bricks? Where are ANY of your bricks? You removed all my bricks from ] and ]...but then you never added any of your own. How is that a "good or helpful" method of building an encyclopedia? Show me how to build an encyclopedia by developing those two entries. Don't just talk about building an encyclopedia...for once just do it. Then, and only then, will I consider the possibility of giving any weight to your feedback. --] (]) 08:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Futarchy == | |||
| == Tax Choice Tag -- Notability == | |||
| about ]. I also learned that its Misplaced Pages entry is little more than a stub and has been for the past decade. For the past decade? Seriously? | |||
| Please revert your deletion of the notability tag on Tax choice. | |||
| The evidence is abundantly clear that Misplaced Pages's rate of improvement in the area of economics is abysmal. | |||
| The tag does not indicate that a conclusion has been reached. Many editors have expressed concern as to the notability of the subject and this issue will eventually be decided through WP process. The removal of the tag is disruptive. Please replace it. '''SPECIFICO''' 19:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| When I saw the Misplaced Pages futarchy page my first instinct was to improve it. But then I remembered that I'm indefinitely banned. | |||
| :It was just decided through WP process...]. If you have any concerns with an entry...then please utilize the entry's talk page to voice your concerns. --] (]) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was decided that the article does not qualify for deletion. There are other issues and resolutions depending on its notability. It currently has no RS citation. You can help resolve the issue by providing encyclopedic content with in-line citations from RS. Meanwhile please replace tag. Thank you. '''SPECIFICO''' 19:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::The reason that the article did not qualify for deletion was because there are more than enough RS that support the notability of the concept. If the community decided that it was not sufficiently notable then the entry would have been deleted. --] (]) 19:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| When I created and improved Misplaced Pages economics articles there were several other editors also doing so. If not, then I wouldn't have been banned. Yet, how come these other editors haven't continued to improve the articles that they edited alongside me? This clearly indicates that they had absolutely no interest in improving the articles. Which means that they had absolutely no interest in the topics. And no interest in the topics clearly reflects their lack of knowledge on the topics. Therefore, they shouldn't have been editing the articles in the first place. | |||
| :::: I don't think I said that in my close, so don't make assumptions like that. This article CAN be AFD'd again, if needed. (]''']''']) 09:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Anyways, somebody should add ] to futarchy's "see also" section and vice versa. Tax choice would create a market in the public sector and futarchy would create a speculation market for public policies. Both systems would help aggregate information by giving people the opportunity to . --] (]) 05:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Your submission at ]: ] (October 1) == | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> ]Your recent article submission to ] has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included ], which is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| {{divbox|gray|3=This submission appears to be taken from lpmaryland.org/liberty-quotation-milton-friedman-four-ways-spend-money. ], unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a ] or into the ] <u>and</u> is written in an ]—'''this includes material that you own the copyright to.''' You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using ], but ] or ] sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. <span style="font-size:85%;"><u>Note to reviewers</u>: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions ].</span>|}} You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please <u>do not use copyrighted work</u>. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| * ] may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 10:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the <span class="plainlinks"></span> or on the <span class="plainlinks"></span>. | |||
| * You can also use ]. | |||
| <b>]]</b> 03:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc decline--> | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
| Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see ] for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on ] subjects and should provide references to ] that ] their content. | |||
| If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit ''']''' to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with ]. If the page is deleted, you can contact ] to request that the administrator ] the page or email a copy to you. <!-- Template:Db-nocontext-notice --> ] ] 16:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="margin: 0.4em 2em;" | |||
| == Non-RS cited material on Benefit Principle == | |||
| |- style="vertical-align: top;" | |||
| | ] | |||
| | <div style="background-color:#f4f3f0; color: #393D38; padding: 1em; font-size: 1.1em; border-radius:10px;box-shadow:-2px -2px 1px #8e8a78;">Hello! '''Xerographica''', | |||
| I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the ''']'''. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the ''']''', a friendly space on Misplaced Pages where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! <b>]]</b> 03:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)</div> | |||
| |}<!-- Template:Teahouse_invitation --> | |||
| {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:3}}|]}}<!-- Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/AfC Invitation --> | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| Please do not continue to re-insert the unsourced assertions and opinions on Benefit Principle. These statements require in-line citations. As noted, the litany of goods paid by user fees are not even public goods. Please find citations per WP policy and cease to make disruptive edits. ] ] 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>No indication this passes ]/]. No sources beyond primary press releases and their reprints about ] business activities.</blockquote> | |||
| :Please stop using my talk page to discuss specific entries. If you have concerns with content that I've added to a particular entry then use the entry's talk page to express your concerns. --] (]) 00:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| :: I am addressing you here out of courtesy because I am afraid that you may be headed toward an unpleasant outcome with these disruptive behaviours and I earnestly encourage you to desist. However I acknowledge your request and I will not continue to communicate with you.] ] 00:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| ::: I'm engaging in disruptive behavior by adding content that is supported by RS? It's not disruptive when you engage in the wholesale removal of content that is supported by RS? Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if I WAS the one who was headed towards an unpleasant outcome while you, the person who actually IS engaging in disruptive behavior, suffered absolutely no negative consequences. --] (]) 00:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 11:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| ==] of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Quote box|quote=<p>If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
| The page ] has been speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This was done under ], because the page appeared to be an unambiguous ]. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-preference-revelation-problem.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences''. This part is crucial: ''say it in your own words''. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be ]'''. | |||
| If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you ''must'' verify that externally by one of the processes explained at ]. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see ] for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at ] for more details, or ask a question ]. | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 08:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=User%3AXerographica%2FOptimal+provision+of+public+goods|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at ] <!-- Template:Db-copyvio-deleted --><!-- Template:Db-csd-deleted-custom --> <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 06:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tax choice unsourced material== | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] Please stop adding ] content, as you did to ]. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. If you continue to do so, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced3 --> ''OR is not the big issue (although it may exist). More importantly in this case it is improper to add material without citing where it came from. The ] is on you to provide the references. You can meet that burden by providing citations. WP policy is to provide in-line citations. You are not complying with policy and this can be considered disruptive. Furthermore, you have been reminded of this policy on numerous occasions.'' ] (]) 03:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals. Please note that ]. Under the ], such pages may be deleted at any time. | |||
| :Please assume good faith by adding citation requests to any material that you believe to be original research. --] (]) 03:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=User%3AXerographica%2FPars+pro+toto+principle|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-notwebhost-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 23:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Your discourtesy == | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals. Please note that ]. Under the ], such pages may be deleted at any time. | |||
| It is just amazing that you would edit ] while I had posted an <nowiki>{{Inuse}}</nowiki> banner. (Banner posted here: . Your edit, made while the banner was in place: . My reverting, with a note asking that you respect the inuse banner: . Your edit, made despite the banner & my request for editing courtesy: . And then you continue to edit despite the banner: .) Your edit summary "request" that I not remove unsourced material does not support such disruptive, indeed outrageous behavior. --] (]) 03:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=User%3AXerographica%2FThe+Fatal+Conceit|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-notwebhost-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 23:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Article creation break? == | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals. Please note that ]. Under the ], such pages may be deleted at any time. | |||
| AfDs take away time and energy from everyone involved that can be better devoted to other things. Given that consensus has been pretty clear recently about the quality and appropriateness of the articles that you have created, I'ld like you to consider slowing down and not creating new articles for a while, and instead focus on improving existing articles, including the ones that you have already created. If you would like to start a new article, it would be better if you started one in user space first, and tried to make it a pretty good article (at least a 'C' class article) before posting it into main space. That would lead to less stress and work for all involved. ] (]) 05:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :If a concept is notable and supported by numerous RS...then I'll create the article. If editors who haven't edited a single economic entry don't think that the concept is notable...then that's on them...not me. Clearly a consensus of editors does not mean a thing when it comes to determining the notability of economic concepts...]. When notable economic concepts are deleted...then it's no wonder that editors with knowledge of economics see little value in making the effort to contribute. --] (]) 06:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=User%3AXerographica%2FOpportunity+cost|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-notwebhost-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 23:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR warning == | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals. Please note that ]. Under the ], such pages may be deleted at any time. | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=User%3AXerographica%2FHeterogeneous+activity|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-notwebhost-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 23:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> If you've already been warned (which I can't confirm), you '''will''' be blocked. — ] ] 05:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:01, 26 November 2024
| This is Xerographica's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 Archives | |||||
|
|||||
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Misplaced Pages and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation. |
Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Legal plunder, Xerographica!
Misplaced Pages editor Kumioko just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Since this has been here for 2 years I am going to mark this as reviewed but it needs a lot of cleanup work.
To reply, leave a comment on Kumioko's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Proposed deletion of Ioby
The article Ioby has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not indicate notability. Seems to fail WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Ioby
Hello Xerographica,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ioby for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, The Wikimon (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
March 2013
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Xerographica (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO have been consistently harassing/stalking me... Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#User:Xerographica... yet I'm the one who ends up indefinitely blocked? They are clearly violating the Misplaced Pages policy against harassment...WP:Harassment...yet not once has an admin even warned them to cease and desist their harassment. Here are some of the articles that I've created... *Benefit principle *Forced rider problem *Preference revelation *Civic crowdfunding *Government waste *The Other Invisible Hand *Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy *Scroogenomics *Tax choice *Pars pro toto principle All of them, with the exception of tax choice, have been created within the past 5 months. Except, most of my time has been spent dealing with harassment from these three editors. Here's a recent example... Talk:Forced_rider_problem#See_also_items_removed. For reference, here's a recent example of constructive (as in based on reliable sources) collaboration between myself and another editor...Talk:Public_choice#Preference_revelation. Xerographica (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See WP:NOTTHEM. You must address your own conduct, not that of others. Sandstein 11:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- This is an awful mistake. Xerografica's contributions to WP proves his edits are not disruptive. Sandstein referred to WP:NOTTHEM, but according to WP:AOHA, accusing others of harassment "can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment", but there is clear evidence of wikihounding, that's why Xerographica addressed the conduct of others. Also, BWilkins' unilateral blocking decision configures WP:ADMINABUSE and is extremely damaging to WP, since Xerographica has done a great work and contributed a lot and I'm sure many future contributions will be missed because of this block. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't want Xero blocked, and this is far from unilateral - but thanks for watching. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't want Xero blocked, either, for what it's worth. I think he could be of great use to the project. I just don't think he has been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Bwilkins, please, I'm serious, your sarcasms are not helping. Rubin, I don't know how you can possibly say that. Do you have some personal aversion to libertarianism or something? Do you know SPECIFICO or Srich personally? This block is just insane! Blocking someone indefinitely for complaining about being harassed?! --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- True, Xerographica addressed the conduct of others by posting an ANI as to myself and others. However, that discussion turned and focused on his behavior. He just didn't get it and turned to posting complaints of harassment on article talk pages, etc. That alternative method of addressing the conduct of others was not legitimate.
- True, Xerographica might have been a contributor to the project. But his contributions were outweighed, by far, by disruptive edits.
- True, some of Xerographica's contributions – rather, stubs – have been worthwhile. Take one of the examples he provides: Scroogenomics. He creates it and then adds a category & a See also. Let's give him a Barnstar for his effort. (And two more for The Other Invisible Hand and Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy.)
- True, others have been wikihounding him. But "he important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. Xerographica chose to characterize the followups on this edits as hounding and harrassment. He chose to not enjoy the collaborative effort we are engaged in. He chose to react negatively at each stage of the "hounding" when I and many, many others patiently pleaded, begged, cajoled, insisted, admonished, suggested, advised, etc. that he straighten up. The overriding reason of the hounding was to have him participate as a member of the community, but he lashed out and 73% of his edits have been to non-article spaces.
- True, I nominated Club theory for deletion (see section below). Also true that I took the material Xerographica had supplied (including Buchanan) and posted it in Club goods before posting the AfD. But Xerographica takes this normal collaborative process and distorts it into an attack on me.
- I submit that Xerographica will always find fault with others, never himself. (Evidence: "I should have just posted the warnings on their talk pages.") I submit that unblocking him would only result in a renewal of this behavior, and thereby waste more time of other contributors. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- PS: I submit that Xerographica is complaining too much about the supposed hounding. In fact, I suspect he enjoys it and actually seeks to provoke contentious discussions. Evidence: His comment on the ANI he lodged. "Xerographica's had enough of an ANI beating ... can we close the thread now? NE Ent 03:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC) No way, I'm a sucker for abuse. It's why I thrived in the infantry. --Xerographica (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" See: – S. Rich (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Bwilkins, please, I'm serious, your sarcasms are not helping. Rubin, I don't know how you can possibly say that. Do you have some personal aversion to libertarianism or something? Do you know SPECIFICO or Srich personally? This block is just insane! Blocking someone indefinitely for complaining about being harassed?! --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't want Xero blocked, either, for what it's worth. I think he could be of great use to the project. I just don't think he has been. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I don't want Xero blocked, and this is far from unilateral - but thanks for watching. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I do love a good debate...and I have absolutely no problem with people personally attacking me. Thanks to the infantry I've developed an extremely thick skin. So I'd much much much prefer it if you followed me around insulting me rather than making edits that do not reflect what the reliable sources say about the topics. Why? Simply because your insults would not at all harm me but your unsubstantiated edits do harm the readers.
Let's review. Rubin nominated concentrated benefits and diffuse costs for deletion... Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs. Why? For the same reason you nominated club theory for deletion. Despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that I provided in the AfD...and despite the obvious lack of consensus...Bwilkins redirected concentrated benefits and diffuse costs to tragedy of the commons.
After the redirect, I gave Bwilkins the opportunity to look over the sources and reverse his decision... User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_11#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs... but he was more interested in saving face. Even when an economics professor vouched for the notability of the topic... User_talk:Bwilkins/Archive_11#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs_2... he still wouldn't admit that he made a mistake.
Then despite the fact that Bwilkins was clearly involved in the dispute...he blocked me... User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_2#ANI_Notice_--_as_you_wish. I said that it was additional evidence of his incompetence. Shortly after that, I was blocked for two weeks because I said that Rich was "willfully ignoring reliable sources"... User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_3#Courtesy. In my unblock request I mentioned that Bwilkins was involved in the dispute. And guess who indefinitely blocked me? Bwilkins.
And here you are, arguing that I enjoy it when you, Rubin and SPECIFICO follow me around making edits that clearly do not reflect what the reliable sources say. It boggles my mind how oblivious you are. I obviously f'ing detest your shoddy editing. What I do enjoy is collaborating with editors like Hugo Spinelli and Thomasmeeks. Why? It's not because we agree on everything...or even on most things. It's because they're competent. In other words, they're interested enough in the subjects they edit to actually read the relevant reliable sources. And they do not edit subjects without first having done adequate research.
Bwilkins doesn't care about the project. If he did then he'd support edits based on due diligence. What he cares about is his power. This is simply his ego trip and nothing more. And the fact of the matter is that he's too incompetent to realize that he's clearly involved in the dispute. I shouldn't have been indefinitely blocked for saying that you three editors have been wikihounding me. At most I should have been blocked for a week for saying it in the wrong places. But you really don't have to block somebody to help them understand that warnings should only be posted on editor's talk pages. The excessiveness of the punishment only makes sense when viewed from the perspective of Bwilkins' clear long-term involvement. Clearly he doesn't want editors around who have no problem calling him out on his incompetence. --Xerographica (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you don't realize it, you can be blocked from editing this talk page. Why? Because you persist in attacking the integrity of other editors. While Bwilkins won't respond with such a block because of your personal attack, I'm sure other administrators are willing to do so. If you had any sense, you'd strike out these aggressive, offensive passages and issue apologies to all concerned. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I personally refuse to be baited by the above absolutely bizarre interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. I believe I first became aware of Xero after I deleted an article at WP:AFD. Their "argument" certainly was not convincing, and they were directed to DRV. Neither makes me "involved". They then became a regular topic of complaint at ANI - and I watchlisted this page accordingly. That did not make me "involved". I implemented a block based purely on behaviour. That did not make me "involved". I attempted to teach Xero how to act within the community - that didn't make me involved, but it made me "engaged". The spectacular down-in-flames behaviour of Xero led to the current indefinite (not infinite) block, by me - but no, I'm not "involved". A crapload of people have gone out of their way to explain such things as "telling you you're fucking up is NOT harassment"; "claiming harassment without actual proof is a personal attack"; and "no, that does not eveb approach harassment, so stop saying it is or else it's a personal attack". You claim to have "thick skin"; bullshit. You may indeed have a thicker cranium because with all the whack of knowledgable resources who have all tried to pour information into your head, you fail to learn anything by either brute force or osmosis. It's your way or the highway, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a "harasser". That's not the way this project works. You do have much to add to the project: however, when you become a timesink, you become blocked Bloggins. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Xerographica
Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/Global_Economic_Map
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?
United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States
China: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox
Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Ioby for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ioby is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ioby until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Demonstrated preference
The article Demonstrated preference has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LK (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Pars pro toto principle for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pars pro toto principle is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pars pro toto principle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 21:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Futarchy
Today I learned about futarchy. I also learned that its Misplaced Pages entry is little more than a stub and has been for the past decade. For the past decade? Seriously?
The evidence is abundantly clear that Misplaced Pages's rate of improvement in the area of economics is abysmal.
When I saw the Misplaced Pages futarchy page my first instinct was to improve it. But then I remembered that I'm indefinitely banned.
When I created and improved Misplaced Pages economics articles there were several other editors also doing so. If not, then I wouldn't have been banned. Yet, how come these other editors haven't continued to improve the articles that they edited alongside me? This clearly indicates that they had absolutely no interest in improving the articles. Which means that they had absolutely no interest in the topics. And no interest in the topics clearly reflects their lack of knowledge on the topics. Therefore, they shouldn't have been editing the articles in the first place.
Anyways, somebody should add tax choice to futarchy's "see also" section and vice versa. Tax choice would create a market in the public sector and futarchy would create a speculation market for public policies. Both systems would help aggregate information by giving people the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are. --Xerographica (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Other people's money (October 1)
- User:Xerographica/Other people's money may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Misplaced Pages.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Misplaced Pages's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello! Xerographica, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Misplaced Pages where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Whispering 03:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC) |
Proposed deletion of Brickstarter
The article Brickstarter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No indication this passes WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG. No sources beyond primary press releases and their reprints about WP:ROUTINE business activities.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of User:Xerographica/Optimal provision of public goods
If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
The page User:Xerographica/Optimal provision of public goods has been speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-preference-revelation-problem.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Deletion Review North America 06:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Xerographica/Pars pro toto principle
A tag has been placed on User:Xerographica/Pars pro toto principle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals. Please note that Misplaced Pages is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Xerographica/The Fatal Conceit
A tag has been placed on User:Xerographica/The Fatal Conceit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals. Please note that Misplaced Pages is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Xerographica/Opportunity cost
A tag has been placed on User:Xerographica/Opportunity cost requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals. Please note that Misplaced Pages is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Xerographica/Heterogeneous activity
A tag has been placed on User:Xerographica/Heterogeneous activity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals. Please note that Misplaced Pages is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)