User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 17

; Orc Hives
	Some messages may be found
	· in the first orc hive,
	· in the second orc hive,
	· in the third orc hive,
	· in the fourth orc hive,
	· in the fifth orc hive,
	· in the sixth orc hive,
	· in the seventh orc hive,
	· in the eighth orc hive,
	· in the ninth orc hive,
	· in the tenth orc hive,
	· in the eleventh orc hive,
	· in the twelfth orc hive,
	· in the unlucky orc hive,
	· in the fourteenth orc hive,
	· in the fifteenth orc hive,
	· in the sixteenth orc hive,
	· in the seventeenth orc hive, or
	· in the eighteenth orc hive.

Contents

This editor has too many irons in the fire, and may be suddenly inactive on Wikipedia for indeterminate intervals.

Click the “new section” tab or this sentence to start a new discussion.

Reply

@Jaakobou: Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#Repeated unilateral re-creation of deleted article

Regarding notifying users when you post about them on ANI, you may be interested to know that this has been changed. It is now required to notify them, viz "As a courtesy, you must inform other users if they are the subject of a discussion (you may use Hello, SlamDiego. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so)." - just a heads up. Exxolon (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Thank you for the alert. —SlamDiego_←T 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Experimental economics/Comments

A tag has been placed on Experimental economics/Comments requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Pontificalibus (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no profound objection to speedy deletion of Experimental economics/Comments. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experimental economics — Comments. I formally created Experimental economics/Comments exactly and only by placing a deletion notice on it, as part of the process of seeking to have Talk:Experimental economics/Comments deleted. —SlamDiego_←T 08:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Value judgments

Your remark about the epistemology of value judgments reveals an inconsistency, namely, that it is itself a remark within the epistemology of value judgments. If Wikipedia is making the same error as you, the cause is hopeless as one cannot really refer either to the relevant philosophical discourse. Please do not see this personally but it appears certain you will remain blissfully unaware of what is being meant here. Seekers2008 (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. A value can be placed upon neutrality in the writing and editing of articles without the resulting articles themselves advocating neutrality. There is a difference between the attributes of the means of production and the attributes of the product. Indeed, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV for Wikipedia to tell its readers not to form values or not to apply those values to the subjects of the articles. And the relevant issue hasn't been whether we should have the policy of WP:NPOV. While it is policy you should do your best conform to it. —SlamDiego_←T 15:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peronsl attacks

Thanks for the laugh. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all that you got from it, then you may find yourself receiving one of those ANI notices later. —SlamDiego_←T 03:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism in the political spectrum

The RfC on Fascism#Fascism in the political spectrum has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:

Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism#RfC.

The Four Deuces (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.

Re: my edit to quantity theory of money. Yes. Sorry, that was a bad edit. Not sure what I was thinking. I read what was originally there incorrectly (mistook "inflation rate" for "price level") when I was making my edit so I thought it said that P and M were equal. Thanks for the catch. --Dabigkid (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First and last direct comments

I understand I'm writing to someone to someone with little sense of humor when it comes to deliberate frustration of their overbearing nature - it may be I'm just a glutton for punishment. You could possibly read my last edit as deliberately unconstructive, but I did make the following points; 'If it wasnt clear, mea culpa' and 'Thats true, you didnt,' comments which were attempts to constructively retreat from an argument that was going nowhere. You could try arguing that last edit was vandalism but a large percentage of what was deleted was having personal shots back at me, as was your initial condescending comment - I strongly suggest that you give a lot more thought to your pronouncements before presenting them. I dont know why anyone would think comments like that are going to find common ground or agreement on anything. Putting words in my mouth and shooting them down seemed to be a bit of a pattern too. But its easy to point out minor failings of other people. I'm certainly not perfect and maybe I should'nt have weighed into an argument on a controversial talk page at all. Not because I was necessarily wrong, but because people dont always react well to some comments and the trouble isnt always worth it. Mdw0 (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

It isn't my responsibility to seek-out any wheat that might be amongst the chaff of vandalism. There isn't a “humor” exception for acts of vandalism, and certainly isn't one for talk pages of articles where there are already constant flare-ups leading to one-revert rules, various blocks, various RfCs, and various appeals to the arbitrators. What you regard as “personal shots” concerned arguments from you that were themselves hostile remarks abut the motives of one side; you began skating just outside (or perhaps just inside) the boundary of personal attacks, and I was well within policy to insist that you give more thought to your pronouncements before making them. I didn't put words in your mouth; I pointed out where logic would go with your words. I intended for you to see those implications as disturbing, so that you could see that the assertions from which they logically followed were unacceptable. —SlamDiego_←T 08:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology and a proposal

I'm going to be off and won't be able to go near the internet for not quite 3 weeks. I hope that some sort of agreement has been reached on Fascism by then, but if it hasn't, I hope we can both be a little more civil in our exchanges. As for my uncivil comments, I do apologize. Soxwon (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your notions of what constitutes incivility and of what incivility licenses are problematic. I can understand that you found it upsetting to have your proposals and the manners in which you presented them critiqued and thoroughly rejected, but the rules of civility do not require us to find something nice to say, nor to refrain from presenting germaine criticisms. That the fact that you were upset didn't license you to misrepresent what I was saying, and then to label my remarks as “silly” or “illogical” based on those misrepresentations. Nor were you licensed to misrepresent me as misrepresenting anyone. After you made a spurious claim at Talk:Fascism and were shown the disproof of that claim, you none-the-less went ahead and reïterated it at WP:ANI. —SlamDiego_←T 03:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hahn

No my friend it was not a mess or a ruination; you simply may be unaware of the facts here as on previous occasions. Frank Hahn's detailed bio was found from Siena University; it was unavailable elsewhere; then two separate bibliographies of his had to be painstakingly merged. I am afraid here, as in our previous discussions, you seem unaware of the facts about economists but just keen to be needlessly aggressive. Cheers Seekers2008 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look again at how you left that page, then take a break from Wikipedia for a while. —SlamDiego_←T 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please try to be less aggressive with all your threats and more scientific and constrictive and civil instead. The Works section has not been spoilt in the slightest -- it has been added to. It is perfectly fine to have a long series of articles in a single paragraph. If you prefer to see the list-format, it will take you a couple of minutes to change it, or I shall do so in due course. What you fail to acknowledge is the simple fact that a ton of new and relevant facts have been added by me which you keep deleting. Namely, date of birth, degrees, honorary degrees, more publications etc. Try to reflect on this and you will see what I mean. Cheers Seekers2008 (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do something appropriate with your inflated sense of entitlement. Again, your edit to the “Works” section rendered it nearly unreadable, and it is not the responsibility of any other editor to seek and rescue value from within these ruinous edits. Add new material without trashing-out the rest of the article. If you don't know how, then cease your demands and put the material on the Talk page with a polite request for help. —SlamDiego_←T 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biflation

On the AfD for biflation, you accuse me of gaming the system. If you look at this version [1], you will see that 209.107.217.23 did vote twice (or didn't vote at all). I fixed it for him so that he voted once. ~~He has since voted again (perhaps due to being unclear on what to do). I'll leave that for you to fix.~~(My mistake, that's a different IP) In the future, it would be good if you did your homework before accusing other editors of cheating. LK (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of gaming the system, which accusation would involve an attribution of motive; I described your actual behavior and the consequences of that behavior. What I see is that 209.107.217.23 expressed himself twice, and you added “Keep” in front of each as if these separate expressions were intended as two separate votes, though a more natural reading would be that the second expression is merely a follow-up comment. I have nothing to fix. In future, it would be good if you thought more in your interpretation of … well, just about everything. —SlamDiego_←T 08:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are unreasonably obscuring the issue. I added keep in front of the comments to wikify them, when I noticed that they were the same person, I consolidated them. This was all done within a few minutes. You have accused me of misconduct and now you refuse to apologize. You hide behind obscurantist language, but the conduct and intent is clear. You should come clean. This is not the first time you have been uncivil to me. LK (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm obscuring nothing. Adding “Keep” in front of the follow-up comment by 209.107.217.23 “unfairly made it seem that 209.107.217.23 has attempted to vote twice”, exactly as I said. Now, you've compounded things by falsely claiming that I've accused you of cheating and of gaming the system.[2][3] The only obligation to apologize here is yours. (I won't hold my breath as I wait.) —SlamDiego_←T 08:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is clear from the edit history, what I did was to format and wikify what appeared to be two different votes from anon IPs. I then noticed that both comments were left by the same IP, so, I consolidated them into one vote. This was all done within a few minutes, before anyone else left any comments. There was no reason for you to leave the comment, "An edit by the Lawrencekhoo has unfairly made it seem that 209.107.217.23 has attempted to vote twice". What you did was to pull out an intermediate edit and then accuse me of misconduct. You have refused to retract this accusation, and refuse to apologize, instead accusing me of further misconduct. You should come clean and admit that your first accusation was a mistake. If you wish to pursue this, I will file a report at the civility noticeboard. LK (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not only is that not clear from the edit history; part of it is falsified by the edit history. I hadn't interpretted these as two separate votes before your edit, but I can accept an assertion that they appeared so to you. But youdidn't consolidate them into one vote; you placed and left a “Keep” in front of each. (It is the edit in which you slapped-on those “Keeps” — which you left in all of your subsequent editing — that I “pulled out”, because that's the edit that presents the two comments as each an attempt to vote.) When you reordered the comments to place the second right after the first, you didn't “consolidate them into one vote”; you left the “Keep” that you had placed in front of each. It stood there until I removed it more than a day later.

I stand by exactly what I have said, and I have not denied saying anything that I have said. Your edit created an unfair appearance that 209.107.217.23 had attempted to vote twice. I never claimed that you did this in an attempt to “cheat”; I never claimed that you did this in an attempt to game the system. Nor do I even think that you are actually lying when you accuse me of such claims; instead, I think that you're still barreling ahead thoughtlessly. —SlamDiego_←T 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In total, my edits, all within minutes of each other, merely wikified the page. You were wrong to accuse me the way you did. A simple 'I was wrong to accuse you of creating an unfair appearance' would suffice. Instead you drag this out, further accusing me of wrongdoing. Are you prepared to admit that your initial accusation was unjustified? LK (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, your edits did not merely wikify the page. My claim (“An edit by the Lawrencekhoo has unfairly made it seem that 209.107.217.23 has attempted to vote twice.”) was accurate. I've not dragged anything out; instead, you've incessantly demanded an apology to which you have no right. I will not admit to something patently false. —SlamDiego_←T 09:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I will be filing a wikiette alert on this. Not so much to seek redress, which you seem unable and/or unwilling to give, but to alert others in the future to your behavior. LK (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your case will not withstand scrutiny. —SlamDiego_←T 09:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are interested, the wikiquettte alert is here. LK (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And so is my response. —SlamDiego_←T 10:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a polite heads up, I left a response to your response. LK (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, with that evidence in hand, I have retracted the claim that you made the relevant edit. We'll see whether you retract the claim that I accused you of attempting to cheat or to game the system. —SlamDiego_←T 10:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Animal names and foxes

I don't care much either way, but you should most definitely make sure not to break interwiki or external links, for instance. Anyhow, I'm a bit confused about this, as practically all articles I came across don't seem to follow the MoS, if you are correct (Brown Bear, Bald Eagle, Gray Wolf, etc.) You might want to ask at the MoS talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology about this before starting to move and "fix" hundreds of pages. :) --Conti|✉ 10:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as not breaking links; it's simply hard to spot every one; I had fixed some, and evidently missed others. In the case of many of these articles, they were at one time in accord with the MoS, and then someone editted them in violation of the MoS. As I am simply following the MoS, I don't feel the need to open the subject; that would be the responsibility of someone who wanted the MoS changed (or, in the absence of a policy, developed). But, glancing at the articles that you give as examples, it seems that only their titles are in violation of the MoS; in their bodies, they follow the MoS. —SlamDiego_←T 10:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember a discussion about the article titles, but that was quite a while ago, and I'm pretty sure I won't be able to find it again. I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Common name capitalization, tho: "Many of the WikiProjects listed above have defined standards for the capitalization of common names, which should be used when discussing the groups they focus on. There is currently no common standard, so no particular system should be enforced overall." Just look at Category:Mammals of Asia, for instance. There are hundreds of articles that are capitalized. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but before moving all of them, a discussion certainly seems like a good idea to me. Maybe there'll be a consensus to change the MoS, instead of the articles. --Conti|✉ 10:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all but one case, I am not moving the article; I cannot move most of these articles. Instead, I have brought them to the attention of admins, who have (so far) moved every such article. The fact that there are many articles on animals that don't follow the MoS isn't surprising, as there are, in Wikipedia more generally many articles that don't follow the MoS, and that's simply to be expected for quite a while. (Heck, we have many article that are grossly ungrammatical!) When Wikipedia is a lot more stable, the policy of WP:BOLD will presumably be toss in the trash. In the meantime, someone can always raise the subject at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. —SlamDiego_←T 11:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]