User talk:Academic38/Archives

Rfc on "Intellectual controversy" section of Oxford Round Table

I have made a request for comment [1] on the "Intellectual controversy" section of the Oxford Round Table article, which I notice you edited today. Would you like to participate? --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest warning

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Oxford Round Table, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Pairadox (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that contributing to the CHE discussion automatically means it is impossible to edit the ORT article from a neutral point of view. I have naturally, on the talk page of the article, opposed certain edits proposed by Obscuredata, who is "working with" the ORT by his own admission, and complained when he violated the rules or edited against consensus (as noted by Coldmachine). I reverted him on several instances, but never engaged in a "revert war" with him. I have also agreed with certain of Obscuredata's edits that seemed valuable, such as adding biographical material on ORT's founder. I have scrupulously followed the verifiability rules, and refrained from placing in the article material from a source that Tony said was not sufficiently reliable. I therefore do not agree with the contention that I have a conflict of interest, but will comply with your request if you continue to rule that posting on the CHE board is automatically a COI.

May I also point out that Obscuredata had agreed with Tony's proposed edit to the "controversy" section, effectively making a complete consensus among everyone who had up to that time posted to the talk page, before the ORT bombarded the page with objections?Academic38 (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume that painting people from CHE with the same brush is necessary to get the COI designation to stick. I think it's pretty clear that the "neutrals" here don't actually see us as equivalent to the ORT hacks - but it is necessary to present us as such, it wouldn't work to let us carry on editing while they are effectively barred. The appearance of Tepid1, by the way, is a godsend, in my view - ORT has really shown its hand with that one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While it doesn't automatically mean that you are incapable of being neutral, it creates doubt about your neutrality (especially from the other side). If both sides were behaving themselves then it wouldn't have come to this. But with the appearance of yet another new editor/involved party on the talk page it appears this is still escalating. Rather than try to selectively decide who does and who does not have the ability to edit neutrally, I included everybody who has come to Wikipedia specifically and solely to edit the ORT article. Seemed the most neutral way to go about it. :) If you present good data with sound sources on the talk page, that will find it's way in to the article. Same for the other side. And if you should happen to come to consensus (not just numbers but true agreement) then there probably wouldn't be any hue and cry with one of you making those changes.

I had noticed Obscuredata's agreement. You may want to drop Tony a note on his talk page since he's leading that portion of the discussion. Pairadox (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oxford Round Table

An editor has nominated Oxford Round Table, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford Round Table and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Coldmachine^Talk 23:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked this as a disruptive single purpose account. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. I read the disruptive guidelines, and it was unclear to me how I meet them. It also seems from the guidelines that there are supposed to be preliminary steps before a full block. Could you clarify this, and what the appeal process is, if necessary? Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to use the {{unblock}} template to get hold of an uninvolved administrator to review this. The whole series of blocks is being discussed here. I will notify the people there that you have requested an unblock. Please be patient. Carcharoth (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You have now been unblocked per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones. Unblock performed by User:Viridae. Oh behalf of the community, I apologies for this unfortunate situation. Outside comments are always welcome here on Wikipedia, and we hope you will continue to contribute. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

re your question on the AN/I thread - the reference to unblocked sockpuppets was a reference to me, because Academic2007 and I came up as "likely" sockpuppets. My response to that finding is here. So none of the actual socks have been unblocked, though there appears to be a new one on the AfD ("twolove"). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Academic38, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --B (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Round Table

Two things....put the exact text you'd like inserted on the talk page (so everyone can see it) and put the entire article if you can to User:Rocksanddirt/sandbox-ORT and I'll take a look and see if there is more we could add. Thanks! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

MAI

Don't know how I missed that comment. Must have seen it before, but didn't when I took them off late last night. But the tags were put on en masse by someone who said they only read the first sentence, not exactly proper procedure, and his and another's older complaint was merely that the article was calling a leak a leak. I noticed you'd been doing good work recently improving the article and there didn't seem to be any glaring problem - your last comment addressed itself to a mild accuracy matter, not neutrality, not enough to justify tagging IMHO. Cheers,John Z (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I've been away and failed to attend to your message on my talk page. I will return to looking at the MAI pages. It's great to have further critical input thereon. Aeronian (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

your question to me

you are at liberty to delete anything from your talk page. Deleting warnings is of course taken as an indication they have been read. But the reversal of your incorrect block earlier is sufficient vindication, so I certainly wouldn't delete that section. Why not simply archive them per WP:Archive? DGG (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

NFL revert

The only revision I saw was changing Emmitt Smith to some no name (probably the name of the person doing the "editing") for most career yards from scrimmage. I'll have a look at the article, thanks. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 23:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that wasn't hard :) Found the last good version and reverted to it. Thanks for the heads-up. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 23:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have rollback (as I do) and encounter a page with multiple bad edits by one person at the top of the history, you can revert them with one click. Since you're asking the question, I'm going to assume you don't have rollback, so check out that help link. The other way (and the only way if there are disruptive edits by numerous users, as was the case with this page) is to go into the page history, find the last good revision, open it by clicking on the date and time next to the name of the user who made that revision, and simply save that page (along with an edit summary noting that you are reverting to the revision by that user).

Hope that clears it up for you. Any more questions, please feel free to ask. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

Notifiying you of an ANI thread. Please see here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

pour quelle type de l'institution est-ce vous enseigner?

Est-ce que vous avez trouve difficile trouver votre boulot? LaidOff (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

J'ai enseigné que 17 ans à la même université, ainsi moi n'avons pas été sur le marché du travail en beaucoup d'années. Academic38 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Economics category

Hi, I undid your changes, which I'm sure were in good faith. Category:Economics is only for the most general economics articles. All others should be assigned to an appropriate subcategory, for example, minimum wages to Category:Labor economics or one of its subcategories. An article should never be in a category if it is in a subcategory of that category.JQ (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Basic Income - Minimum wage

I've left a message in response to your message on the talk page of Minimum wage. Hope this helps. LK (talk) 12:18 am, Today (UTC+8)

Thanks for the invitation to chime in. I'll have another look. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)